Talk:Ron Paul/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I have made a hopefully interesting addition to Ron Paul's page. I look forward to debating its merits. Reithy 14:32, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

An attempt to degrade Paul? I mean, every single other member of Congress is never challenged on taking money, but that's just because they promote smaller government.
Of course, it's worth discussion. First step: Email Dr. Paul and ask him.
Why should he cripple himself in comparison with those in Congress he's constantly fighting against? Yes, it's bad to take taxpayer money - but when it's done to attempt a drastic decrease in taxes, it seems, temporarily, a kosher thing to do. Once it ceases to be necessary, it will cease to be done. You could challenge him on virtually anythnig - Why does he have a driver's license, or a medical license, when the Constitution doesn't state that he is required to have one to drive or perform medical procedures? --Golbez 15:08, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
BTW - I don't think it's mecessarily bad to take federal money - in theory it's great! Better that Dr. Paul should have money than the feds. The trouble comes when someone starts directly or indirectly encouraging the system to spend more. So long as you are legitimately trying to make the government smaller, I would encourage anyone to take state resources as much as possible. - Nat Krause 16:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wow, I'm horrifically embarassed - I should have known that the Constitution stated that. At least I knew not to say "He drives on roads!" since the Constitution does supply for road building. Very, very good catch, Nat, thanks. :) --Golbez 16:49, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Great discussion point. The Founding Fathers did not envisage professional politicians. They wanted elected citizens to come in to discuss the issues facing the nation at $6 per day. Not $158,000 plus a retinue of staff costing millions of dollars per annum. My point is that for all the excited libertarian rhetoric, when it comes to the crunch he's just another politician raking in the loot. Good for him that he can do it, if it wasn't him it would be someone else to be sure. My form of words may be clumsy but I think in this article somewhere it must be disclosed that he receives millions of dollars of taxpayer benefits and salaries per annum. If this politician's rhetoric matched reality he would be a one-off so I don't think it's such a huge criticism. He is only human as we all are. But I think it's an important fact for any biography, he's a libertarian who's been on the public payroll for rather a long time. Biting the hand that feeds him, so to speak. Look forward to more discussion on this. Reithy 21:40, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
All very interesting, Raithy, but a wikipedia article is not a place for you to "make a point." Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. RadicalSubversiv E 21:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Radicalsubsersiv, love your work but there are three facts worthy of mention which I think are important to any article about Dr Paul. There is no opinion or even argument involved. I actually like the idea of a Congressman who opposes everything that comes out of the bureaucracy but he spends up big with the others despite his strong rhetoric and that is worthy of mention given his strong rhetoric:
  • Congressman Paul professes to only support measures expressly permitted in the US Constitution and envisaged by the Founding Fathers. See his website if you don't believe me.
  • He does not decline to receive his large salary and very large office and staffing entitlements.
  • From 1789 onwards, Congressmen got $6 per day, not a full-time salary.
Reithy 21:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Radicalsubversiv A further thought, I really don't want to be involved in more edit wars, so could you consider devising a form of words that deals with the salary issue. I think it's an interesting fact but may not have expressed it that well. Reithy 21:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The issue doesn't belong in the article at all unless you can demonstrate that it's in some way encyclopedic. Has there been notable criticism or commentary on the congressman's (perceived) hypocrisy? Inserting commentary just because you find it "interesting" is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, even if it's factual or legitimate criticism (I happen to think it's both). RadicalSubversiv E 22:13, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If you don't want to be involved in more edit wars, please stop initiating them. What you are adding is your own argument. It's suitable for an op-ed column, not an encyclopedia. If Ron Paul has faced significant criticism for not refusing a salary, we can include that and cite it. Otherwise, your personal opinion doesn't belong in the article. Rhobite 23:05, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
I Quote here From Ron Paul's page/press release. this proves your edits in themselves have been ineffective and just plain factually wrong. (his office has a one millon doller budget, he only used $790,000 of it). Also The entire 6 dollers a day thing is beyond illrelvant, It's like saying an apple use to cost two pennys. Inflation exists.

Paul Again Returns Unused Office Funds to Treasury

"Washington, DC- For the sixth year in a row, Congressman Ron Paul has returned a substantial portion of his annual office budget to taxpayers. Preliminary reports from the congressional Office of Finance indicate that Paul’s office had approximately $210,000 left in its operating account at the end of 2003, a figure representing more than 20% of the annual office budget. By contrast, nearly all federal departments, agencies, and programs spend every last penny (and more) of their yearly budgets."


"Paul introduced cost-cutting measures several years ago that included negotiating low office rents, reducing costly postage by using electronic mail, and using flexible part-time staff to help with overflow work. The result has been a steady savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Since returning to Congress in 1997, Paul’s office has returned nearly one million dollars to the federal Treasury. "


That's commendable but he is still spending big bucks. I don't care as long as his article is neutral and intelligble. I have tried to synthesize the differing views about this unique Congressman. Schweppes42 11:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just ignore Reithy. He has some sort of irrational hatred for libertarians, and so is going around vandalizing all the pages with ridiculous claims about how they're "clowns". Sorry to those who have to clean up after his mess. --Delirium 18:46, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Added some information on Ron Paul's opponents which may be useful. He is definitely a controversial and interesting Congressman unlike most of the 535 in their grey suits. Couldn't find information on whether he is likely to retain the seat post re-districting but his results previously were strongly in his favor. --Chuckschneider 02:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents

"Golby, do some research"

Hehe, I'm kinda honored, does this make me the resident Ron Paul expert? :) Anyway, yes, he was the only congressman to vote against giving Rosa Parks a medal. That much is true. Ask him why, and he'd probably ask you where in the Constitution it gave the Congress authority to give medals to civilians - either that, or he'd consider it a waste of the taxpayer's time and money.

And yes, that person IS running against him, though it's unlikely he'll win. The cited article (which never mentioned GHB) mentioned that Paul is erratic. Far from it - He is the most consistent member of Congress. If it's in the Constitution, he votes for it. It's pretty simple.

The constitution doesn't allow for the federal government to ban drugs, ban cruelty to sharks, give medals to people, or to maintain a standing army for more than two years. His voting record reflects this. --Golbez 05:07, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Just becuase Reithy has been a persistent vandal doesn't mean that the article shouldn't include properly-sourced criticism presented in an NPOV fashion (and include Paul's reasoning). I don't have the time to do the background research on this stuff right now, but if it checks out, it should be kept. RadicalSubversiv E 05:31, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ChuckS (who I strongly suspect is Reithy) stop being stupid.... can you clery not see the dates on the articles you are posting? yet you claim they are about the 2004 elections. HE IS RUNNING UNOPPOSED stop attribuiating campaign slogans and what opponets say about him this election. He has won the seat by default, therefore all this election talk is nonsense. I don't see why others haven't noticed this fact either

Yikes, I'm embarassed, I shoulda looked at the date. :-/ That makes sense. --Golbez 15:32, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Definitely no election in TX 14

I am Charles Schneider not Reithy whoever that is. I am also not anonymously posting criticism on a talk page, which I am sorely tempted to delete but will not. He is right that Ron Paul is being challenged in these Congressional elections. I would like to know why other facts have been deleted by some and by what process they should be restored. Material clearly relevant about his views has been deleted for no good reason. Please explain Golbez why this has happened. And with the greatest respect the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court so any assertion about what it allows and what it doesn't is POV, asserting it as fact is absurd. And to the anonymous one, please identify yourself if you want to participate in Talk. I will not talk to a masked man/woman. Not for long anyway! Chuckschneider 10:35, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Was bold enough to add some headings to Ron's article. I think it helps clean it up. Anyone feel like writing an article on his opponent, Loy Sneary. Nice name. Chuckschneider 11:58, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It is a fact that Ron Paul is being challenged in these Congressional elections. False. Can be checked at http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2004candsxs.shtml
(I am neither Texan nor libertarian or libertarian-leaning, but I was lured there by the vigorous comment escorting the last revert. Btw, this is a strange country where a politician with such vigorous opinions can go unopposed (seen from Europe) :-)) --French Tourist 13:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

French - It's generally because the two main parties don't want to waste thier money on opponets that have large support behind them and there's not really a hope of beating them. There's about 60 congress men this election cycle running unopposed.

Anonymous is right about one thing, Congressman Paul is not being opposed, so I have made appropriate adjustments, but anonymous has used this as a pretext for deleting everything I've written on the Congressman, which is blatant vandalism. I have researched the Congressman's views on taxes, race and other issues and have reported them impartially. Anonymous doesn't like it but doesn't say why. I don't mind him being a fan but he should leave his views outside the door of Wikipedia. Chuckschneider 13:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Frenchy, anonymous is right, he is unlikely to be beaten, he raises a lot more money than his opponents and can call on Libertarian Party members from across the country to campaign for him. He has done very well to consistently win, with much opposition from within his own party and with views that while sincerely held are clearly not designed to be popular. Opposing the banning of a date-rape drug would sink most politicians but not Ron Paul. Chuckschneider 13:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Reithy, stop with the vandazling 203.112.19.195
Reithy/Anonymous/Other Vandals, Please cease and desist and relax, if you want to delete some of my contribution then go ahead. But give a valid reason and not just blanket revert everything. I have got some things wrong but gladly accepted your corrections, please accept my advice and read through what I've put in and not vandalize everything. Chuckschneider 14:02, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Anonymous, your regular reverts are getting old. Your are vandalizing the article by deleting well researched neutrally written material. Why? Chuckschneider 14:22, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oy..

This is what I get for going to sleep.

I'd rather not protect the page, but if revert wars continue, it'll have to happen.

My only comments at this time: That Tripod link is horrible. The "Rush Limbaugh Award" that calls Paul a racist and a Nazi because he supports the right of secession. What anti-libertarians will attempt to get away with... And wow, he defends the Constitution! Heavens to betsy.

That addition is clearly not NPOV, and it is certainly not countered by a second link to Paul's house.gov page. However, I might look at the additions being attempted, but as it stands, the article at the moment is fine.

I really don't understand why people are being so rabid to try to draw Dr. Paul as an evil man, when there are 534 other voting members of the legislature that are far worse. Well, far worse Constitutionally, but the people of this country apparently don't care about that anymore. --Golbez 15:43, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

HEY! THERE"S NOTHING LIKE TAKING QUOTES OUT OF CONTEXT that he didn't even write and then attribuating to him as his view on racial relationships Horray for wikipedia editors and thier neturality + fact checking!

Hi ffd.
Look, I'm an enormous admirer of Ron Paul's, but I'm just trying to make sure the article balanced and all that rubbish. I can't open the page that is sourcing the racial comments, but I figured that was because I am in China and google is weird here. I did double check the statements and found that they had been cited by CNN/Allpolitics. More context and information would be great: let's find it and add it! I didn't look at the links at the bottom of the page, there's probably some stuff there that we could do without. - Nat Krause 16:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) PS - Golbez, I don't think you should protect this page yourself if it comes to that, because you are involved in the dispute. It's considered unsportsmanlike. Get somebody else to do it.
That's why I said I'd rather not. The link to the Limbaugh Award was bad; you have to change the /com to a .com. Anyway, this article is in shambles at the moment, and between two or three editors trying to revert each other, I have to sit it out for sanity's sake for a few hours. Let them work it out. --Golbez And BTW, yes, you are right, I would certainly get a third party to do it. I haven't protected a page yet. :P --Golbez 16:27, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Whitewashing

Chuck, please stop this whitewashing. It appears you cannot resist your urge to simply delete information that upsets you. I'm talking about the congressional medals. For those who are just joining us, Chuck (IP 203.112) is a current problem user and has an open RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chuck F. Rhobite 16:49, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Anon

An anon took it upon himself to revert back half a day. I'm out of this one - call me in the morning when y'all figure it out. --Golbez 20:37, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Views on Race

His views on race ought not be excluded. He says they were written by his staff but never really publicly disclaimed them. There's some ugly remarks published under his name and they should be referred to in any impartial biography. 144.132.89.151 02:33, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You know that article that Is being taken out of context for his views about racism, actually has some of the best things I've ever seen said about Ron paul... Can we incorporate some of thoese into the article?

Yes, you can add short quotations or summarize material in an NPOV way. You cannot use it to replace existing material that you don't like, however. RadicalSubversiv E 04:27, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agree, let's put in more information as long as its interesting and relevant. But the anonymous user above has been deleting anything he doesn't like, which is bordering on vandalism. Guido1970 11:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

District and Contact information

I don't dare delete this without asking for a consensus. Does anyone object to removing this as it doesn't seem particularly appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Guido1970 11:51, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected the page. There's been reverting going on all day, and enough is enough. Work out your differences here, guys. Ambi 12:06, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Ambi, it was getting exhausting! ChuckF or 203.112.19.195 has been very busy. I think the main issue of contention is whether the remarks Congressman Paul published about "black males" should remain. In light of Trent Lott's mild remarks in support of Strom Thurmond and the political consequences to him (he lost the Republican Senate leadership), I cannot imagine how a Congressman saying African Americans in DC are 95% criminal and are all "fleet-footed" is not worthy of mention. Certainly the article on Trent Lott deals with the remarks and their consequences extensively. In Ron Paul's case it is interesting to say the least as I imagine it conflicts with the views of most Libertarians. So I think it should stay. What's the consensus from more seasoned wikipedians? Guido1970 12:16, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think the main contention is you taking a half a sentence(you couldn't even be bothered to put in the qualifer sentence, thanks to your edits attempting to make ron paul look poor) not written by him and attribuiting it to him as his views on race. You know you say you are making your edits fair and netural but DID YOU even attempt to put in all the facts about this that the paper put in. Like that this didn't seem like paul... etc. The paper you got it from wrote it netural, you just took one part(the bad part and you only took the portions that made him seem the worst) and put that into the article.
I have no interest in making Ron Paul "look poor". I only want an interesting article about this interesting Congressman. He published remarks about African-Americans that are controversial. They are sufficiently controversial to warrant publication. Guido1970 12:54, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
fine, if that's the case then Please Make your edits netural, instead of sounding like an attack campaign on him. when you quote someone you must take a quote fully in context, you already know that. and like I said that article has a huge counter-point that you just ignored. You understand why I think you are out to make him look bad
The counter-point is he says he didn't really write it. However he didn't publicly withdraw the remarks or the publication. Most Congressmen would have fired anyone responsible for such statements immediately. So whether you agree or disagree, it's interesting. I believe the edits are entirely neutral. You are a fan of his and you're entitled to your view but you ought not be corrupting the neutrality of this article (or others). Guido1970 13:29, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You still didn't reply to the fact you took the quotes out of context... And In just a few mintues here I'll paste the entire section I'm talking about to show how obvious is is that you are misrepresenting the article and not including the other side, in terms of the uncharesectic follow-ups to the quote. Also you had no reason whatsoever to delete the quote that I added in as a rebuttel to the first claim... That was pure showing your bias on your part.

Both of you are obviously continuing to pursue your own narrow ideological agendas. Controversial things Paul has absolutely belong in the article. Chuck, you don't get to remove them just because Reithy aka Guido is anti-Libertarian and violates policy (seeing as how you're pro-Libertarian and violate policy). At the same time, the quotes must be complete, accurate, and presented with appropriate context. I suspect I'm not the only one losing patience with this foolishness. RadicalSubversiv E 20:16, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It was a true edit war ... He was removing my quotes, giving no reason whatsoever besides the fact I was removing his quotes. If you look at the article you can see that my quotes were quoted in full, whereas his quotes were taken from half of a sentence, obviously put out of context and not explained accuratly.
Nonsense. You repeatedly removed content wholesale that you didn't like, and then reverted it when I and others (not Reithy sockpuppets) tried to reinstate it. You unilaterally decreed that perfectly relevant quotes were being "taken out of context," and instead of adding context, repeatedly removed them, no matter who attempted to reinstate (myself, Nat Krause, Golbez, and Neutrality). (Diffs: [1],[2],[3]) Your actions show continue disregard for policy and the consensus of fellow editors. RadicalSubversiv E 18:57, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but that quote is still taking out of context.. I don't know if others didn't bother to check or what excatly... but if you look at that page it's obvious only half the quote was put in. The first sentence The newsletter gave a qualifier as a reason to be saying the second sentence, but Reithy just compleatly ignored the first sentence, and tried to make it look as bad as possible for Paul.

Page unprotection

The page should be unprotected, Reithy has once again changed accounts, so most likely will no longer be here to defend his edits.... He also never responsed to why he delted my quote I added in or why he took a quote out of context 203.112.19.195 14:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it should, and both you and Reithy's various sockpuppets should refraining from editing it, given the well-supported RFCs about both of you and your obvious inability to edit in an NPOV fashion. RadicalSubversiv E 18:57, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As to the edit wars Radical Subversiv is right, neither ChuckF nor Reithy nor their respective sockpuppets should be editing anything to do with libertarianism, the United States Libertarian Party, Ron Paul or Japanese exotica, their inability to edit in an NPOV context is blantantly obvious. So extreme is their conduct I suspect they are in league, causing trouble and disruption for their own sad amusement. This is not an acceptable practice. Neither are true libertarians and I suspect are from foreign lands. ReithySockPuppet 22:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whether to include Ron Paul's Comments on "Black Males"

Keep As for the Ron Paul racial views, they should definitely be kept, they do not seem to me to be out of context at all, are accurate and while Ron Paul and Ron Paul's supporters might like to forget about him calling 95% of black males in DC criminals that is not a valid reason for deletion or even delting. What's the consensus among non sockpuppets ??? ReithySockPuppet 22:31, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are they accurate? According to the very source you quoted, he denies that he actually said them, and claims they were attributed to him by someone else. At the very least we ought to frame this as a controversy, and report what each side said. --Delirium 00:31, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

The full story seems to be told here by the Texas Monthly.
They caused a minor sensation. In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." And under the headline "Terrorist Update," he wrote: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.
When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."
His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.
He is clearly not a racist but had some rogue staff that he decided not publicly dump on, which I think shows he is a decent person with some hideous staff. He's against affirmative action, that doesn't make him a racist, except in the minds of some leftists and do-gooders.

Juche 08:01, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The fact that such blatantly racist material was included in a newsletter he published is relevant and should be mentioned. The fact that he claims not to have actually written the words himself should be mentioned along with it. RadicalSubversiv E 16:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Good research, Juche. - Nat Krause 04:51, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Can you know, we at least include the quote in full this time, instead of it just seeming like he belives that all black males are criminals?

Forgive my ignorance, but is there a reason the people who are complaining of quoting without context are removing the quotes instead of adding the context? In any case, I'd say keep the quotes in, with context as appropriate. User:gcanyon

It's not ignorant at all, that is exactly what Chuck should do. But because of his insistence that reverting is the only answer to "out of context" information, he is now involved in arbitration. Rhobite 20:10, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone care what Rhobite thinks, I don't. Dunnowhatyouthink 16:25, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Congrats on the new IP address, Reithy. Rhobite 16:39, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Rhobite, being in arbitration is no disgrace. You are involved in the same dispute due to your conduct, so I suggest you drop the attitude. Reithy 04:02, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
My understanding and opinion is that a wiki should grow through a process of addition and refinement, never by deletion. The only exception is that information that is clearly wrong is a candidate for deletion. Even in that case it might be preferable to mark the wrong information out in a block, and explain why it is wrong. In any case, this example clearly doesn't live up to that standard. If someone has a problem with something in the wiki because of a lack of context, then the _obvious_ solution is to add context. Removing information because of a lack of partner information is just wrong. People should add the necessary context. Any time you find your finger over the delete key, you should question your motives. Geoff Canyon 20:57, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reprotect

Alas, reprotected due to edit war. I was tempted to put a temporary edit block on multiple users making multiple reverts, as would be within Wikipedia policy. If there is a next time, I or someone else likely will. This has nothing to do with who does or doesn't have a better edit. See also: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. -- Infrogmation 19:39, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is he a member of the Libertarian Party?

Removed from the article: "Paul remains a member of the Libertarian Party", because I've been unable to find an authorative (or even particularly reputable) reference indicating that he retains membership in the LP. RadicalSubversiv E 01:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe that he got a lifetime membership back when he was active in the party, so he doesn't have to make a decision to keep his dues current. This is not exactly authoritative, but I have found the information on the page to be pretty reliable. - Nat Krause 02:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. We should attempt to verify that, but even if true, the text above remains misleading, as it strongly implies that he has made a formal decision to continue involvement in the LP, which may or may not be true. RadicalSubversiv E 03:18, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the previous version was overstated a little. And yet Paul seems to have no problem working the ambiguity of his relationship to the LP. For instance, he was a featured speaker at their last convention. Obviously, this role isn't limited to active members, but it also shows that he is not trying to distance himself from them. I saw a quote a while ago (wish I could come up with a source), where some LPist approached him and asked "When are you going to come back to the Libertarians?" and he answered "I never left." - Nat Krause 03:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
http://www.lpconvention.org/paul.shtml that seems a bit more authorative.

Ron paul's non-lp views

You know that new paragraph has problems. the lp is pretty much split right down the middle about pro-life vs pro-choice and it's one of the things that Libertarian will most likely alwayls disgaree on. Badnarik himself was a pro-lifer, and I belive if you look at the reasoning behind paul voting against immigration you can see how it was of libertarian nature. Chuck F 05:17, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From the LP platform statement on abortion: "Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question." That's emphatically not Paul's position.
Regardless of abortion, he has sponsored and cosponsored anti-immigration legislation (see HR488, HR775, HR687, HR3235, all from the most recent legislative session). Chuck, I'm asking you once again not to delete things you don't like without explanation.
RadicalSubversiv E 07:22, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
none of thoese bills you put are about him cracking down on immigraiton, the first one is lessing down on diversity paul supports these becuase he belives diversity isn't what should decied about people getting visa or not. so is the second one. The third one doesnt seem anti-immgration, it's just saying a passport is needed. and the fourth one is not giving away federal funds.. In fact he looks like he voted the libertarian way on all these bills.
Are these just "Chuck's hypothetical reasons why Paul might be sponsoring multiple pieces of anti-immigration legislation," or do you have actual citations? And you still haven't answered the abortion issue. RadicalSubversiv E 08:22, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, they are pretty hyopthetical, but saying he's anti-immigration because of him sponsering thoese specfic bills, is like saying he is Pro-racist because he doesn't support racial quotas. Chuck F 11:47, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm staying out of the immigration thing, but I can tell you that it would be misleading if the article presented the LP as if they were completely pro-choice. I don't think it's accurate to say that Ron Paul's views differ from the LP in that regard, since many LP members are also pro-life. Rhobite 17:44, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
Unless I'm misreading something, the party as a whole has taken the position that the government should stay out of abortion. Every political party I've ever encountered is divided to some degree over the matter, but that's the official position, and Paul clearly doesn't agree with it. As for immigration, I'm going to do some more research -- Chuck, you'd be well-advised to do the same if you want your edits to stick. RadicalSubversiv E 20:14, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ban on date rape drugs

Reithy, you really semi ticked me off with the he hasn't explained why he voted against the date rape drug.. He is against bans on all drugs... therefore his reasons behind being against that probly aren't just that it's unconsitunal Chuck F 14:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't mean to tick you off, just tell the truth in the article. He supports the availability of date rape drugs. Nice guy. Reithy 14:54, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/n/Talk%7ERon_Paul_archive1_58ec.html"