Talk:Ron Paul/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

Recent changes to Ron Paul article

Racist: rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm) n. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

I believe to say Ron Paul's views are racist is perfectly valid.

Full-time career politician: this is certainly the case

I am happy to defend all these such changes as they are entirely defendable.

Reithy 20:03, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Two Libertarians have reverted my many changes to the Ron Paul article. I would welcome their explanation here about what changes were a problem and why. Reithy 21:55, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Taking up RadicalSubversiv's suggestion, I am posting the first three paras of the article for comment and discussion, any thoughts on the below?:

Ronald Ernest Paul (born August 20, 1935) represents the Texas 14th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives best known for publishing comments many interpreted as racist[1] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=racism), where he described African-Americans as "fleet-footed criminals." He has also asserted a conspiracy exists involving 25,000 unnamed persons who are apparently intent on overthrowing the United States Government.

Elected as a Republican Party candidate, he professes a limited government libertarian ideology, which frequently conflicts with his fellow Republicans and indeed all of his colleagues. His regular votes against almost all government spending, taxes, and new programs as well as the fact that he is often the lone dissenter in otherwise unanimous votes have earned him the nickname "Dr. No". His views and his racist attacks on African-American colleagues - he once described one as a "half-educated victimologist" - have led many leading Texan publications to oppose him on the basis that he is racist and he achieves little for his district.[2] (http://www.dailytexanonline.com/global_user_elements/printpage.cfm?storyid=700408) [3] (http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2000-11-03/pols_feature.html)

He was vigorously but unsuccessfuly opposed by mainstream Republicans, troubled by his racist commentary and extremist positions and allegiance to another political party. The propriety of pretending to be a supporter of one party while actually being a supporter of another has not yet caused electoral damage to Congressman Paul.

And also each other section:

Career Politician Accepts Tens of Millions of Government Spending Despite his opposition to government spending, he collects $158,000 per annum for a full-time Congressional salary and since 1976 has spent tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on salary and office expenses. The Founding Fathers advocated "citizen-statesman" populating the Congress, not career politicians like Congressman Paul who have been in full-time politics since 1976. When the United States Congress first served, its members paid a sitting fee of $6 per day and the Congress served no more than a month per annum. Congressman Paul's acceptance of the generous full-time salary is in stark contrast to the position of the Founding Fathers.

His newsletter which speaks of abolishing the IRS and most government programs is itself taxpayer funded. Critics argue that his stance is hypocritical in light of his opposition to even the most limited of government action, such as the federal ban of date rape drugs.

The ban of date rape drugs is believed to save tens of thousands of women in the United States from acquaintance rape every year. Ron Paul has not explained his opposition beyond expressing his view the measure was unconstitutional, a view not supported by the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.



[edit] History Ron Paul was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He received his B.A. from Gettysburg College (1957) and M.D. from Duke University School of Medicine (1961). He served as a surgeon for the United States Air Force in the 1960s. In 1968 he and his wife Carol moved to Texas, where they reside in the town of Surfside Beach.

Dr. Paul was first elected to the House of Representatives in a 1976 special election to replace Robert R. Casey. He lost his bid for re-election in the November 1976 election to Democrat Robert A. Gammage but defeated him in a 1978 rematch. In 1984, he avoided certain defeat in the Republican primary by retiring to not to medical practice as an OBGYN. It is unknown whether he accepted African-American clients and whether he similarly insulted them as "fleet-footed criminals" and "victimologists."

In 1988, Dr. Paul Libertarian Party nominee for the U.S. Presidency. He spent the year campaigning, losing toGeorge H. W. Bush with 0.5% of the popular national vote.



[edit] Republican Libertarian In 1996, he was again elected to the House of Representatives, again accepting its full-time salary not envisaged by the Founding Fathers. In order to get elected in a politically calculated move, despite having Libertarian membership and views he once again ran as a Republican. The mainstream (non-racist) Republican Party backed his challenger in the primary; however, he won it and went on to win the general election. The mainstream (non-racist) Republican Party made similar efforts in 1998, but he again won the primary and the election. The Republicans, having twice failed to defeat him, reluctantly agreed to a compromise: Paul votes with the Republicans on procedural matters and remains nominally Republican in exchange for the committee assignments normally due according to his seniority. This is arguably similar to the deal that Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont has with the Democratic Party (although Jeffords, unlike Paul, is officially an independent). He was convincingly re-elected in 2000 and 2002, and was unopposed in 2004. He is a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Congressman Paul joined the Libertarian Party as a lifetime member, which he has not renounced despite being a registered Republican and serving as a Republican congressman. Though he does not identify himself publicly as a Libertarian, he remains on good terms with the party and has addressed its national convention. A Libertarian Party spokesman said thousands of libertarians from outside Texas donate money to Ron Paul's campaign funds. Texas Democrats allege he uses those campaign funds to present himself as having more moderate positions than he actually does [4] (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,45231,00.html). His views opposing a strong military, abolishing Social Security and winding back measures to combat terrorism are considered unlikely to enjoy popular support in Texas in general and in his district in particular.

[edit] Ron Paul's Views Although his economic views have earned him a reputation as a conservative, he has strongly criticized the United States' intervention in Iraq and what he charges is the use of the war on terror to curtail civil liberties. He believes in the complete abolition of income tax, most Cabinet departments, the Federal Reserve and American withdrawal from the United Nations. Paul has referred to the Internal Revenue Service as the Gestapo [5] (http://rense.com/general24/ronpaulgaffe.htm), a position many believe to be racist and diminishing the experience of victims of the Holocaust.

He has been criticized at times for his voting record, opposing such measures as banning the date-rape drug GHB and being the only dissenting vote against awarding civil rights advocate Rosa Parks, Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul II the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor. Paul argues that Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to undertake any of these tasks.

[edit] Racist Commentary By Ron Paul In 1992, Ron Paul's Survival Report wrote "we can safely assume 95 percent of the blacks in that city (Washington DC) are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Under the headline "Terrorist Update" was written, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" [6] (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=cache:dhOL7y091K8J:www.texasmonthly.com/mag/issues/2001-10-01/feature7-2.php&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&strip=1). He privately denied writing some of those words but publicly accepted the criticism for himself, not wishing to blame his staff.

[edit] Conspiracy Theorist Conspiracy theorists have favorably quoted Congressman Paul who allegedly declared that there is an international and internal conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. "I think there are 25,000 individuals that have used offices of powers, and they are in our Universities and they are in our Congresses, and they believe in One World Government. And if you believe in One World Goverment, then you are talking about undermining National Sovereignty and you are talking about setting up something that you could well call a Dictatorship - and those plans are there!..."[7] (http://www.propagandamatrix.com/260903ronpaul.html)

--- I think the changes are valid and reasonable. He is a racist. Trexgrrr 12:19, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Question about abortion

Does Ron Paul vote to restrict abortions, or is here merely against abortions morally?

Question about abortion

It says in the main article that Ron Paul is against abortion, but does he actually vote to restrict abortion and wish to overturn Roe w. Rade, or does he take a more mainline libertarian stance?

"Fleet of foot"

I want everyone to know how hard I laughed when I first read that... and then the 25,000 individuals that are trying to instill a "one world government" comment. Clearly this info ought to be included, but the racism bit is ludicris, so obviously POV that I am shocked than anyone familiar w the NPOV policy would dream of putting that there. If you want him to look like a racist, quote him fairly, otherwise this article is going to look like a smear job (which it is) and average readers (like me) are going to laugh and sympathize w the guy for being so unfairly represented. Sam [Spade] 12:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Revert wars

I just put a short-term block on two editors making a string of multiple reverts. Please behave and try to calmly and openly discuss potentially controvercial changes to the article on the talk page. I do not like blocking users or protecting pages, but will do more of such if misbehaiour continues. -- Infrogmation 14:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Requested protection

I requested that this article be protected... AGAIN. Honestly I think I'd be justified in blocking both Chuck F and 195.92.67.69 for habitual 3 revert violations... but I won't. No, due to two childish editors this article will be protected yet again. Stop edit warring. I don't care who's right. I don't care which version is "the wrong version." Rhobite 14:26, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

One verison has the full quote... one doesn't... one gives his direct reply in response to critcism the other doesn't... One considers the fact that someone belives there are 25,000 who want the un to be one world governemnt a conspiracy theory... one doesn't.

One version is by someone who has been vandalising Wikipedia for a month now, and has forced the protection of half a dozen pages, Chuck, and one isn't.

Don't you people get it? Is this the most important thing in your lives? Do you think the world will be damaged if a slightly non-optimal article about Ron Paul is allowed to sit unaccosted on the Internet for an hour on a Thursday morning? I don't know who the new anon here is. Both of you are displaying a complete unwillingness to communicate and compromise. If I ran this place you'd both be perma-banned. Rhobite 14:57, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I've tried compromising with him, time and time again. He refuses to allow anything but his POV to be in articles. He has vandalised, chased users from Wikipedia, forced multiple page protections. RfC did no good, the Arbitration case has had no affect, he simply refuses to behave. He should be hard-banned. I am sorry for rising to his bait, but someone has to do something about his POV tyranny and vandalism. As it happens, the edit war on libertarian capitalism did start to get him to compromise one day, but the next day he just back to reverting anything that doesn't agree with his POV.
that's great, your attempts to comprosime with me include telling me you aren't going to allow me to edit untill I let a verison of something stand for 24 hours, you won't talk to me until the same condition has happend. And you will constinuously revert me without responding to any of my requests about what is wrong the current verison or why mainstream isn't a proper term Chuck F 06:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To put it bluntly Chuck, your behavior here is inexcusable. You used open proxies to evade a block. Rhobite 12:52, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
they did it first.. and far as I was aware: per this discussing [[1]] mirv told me it's entirely acceptable to evade blocks, just not bans
That is an intentional misunderstanding of what Mirv said, and he certainly didn't say it was OK for you to abuse network resources in order to continue violating the 3 revert rule. If you continue to use proxies, I'll continue to block them. Rhobite 14:07, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
Not good enough. You yourself are revert warring and evading a block by using different IP addresses. Ever hear of the clean hands doctrine? Rhobite 15:18, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
No, I've never heard of that doctrine. Ever heard of fighting fire with fire? That's a doctrine I firmly believe in.
"said one burn victim to the other" ;) Sam [Spade] 13:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sam, that was very wise. I don't think UpChuck will pay attention though. Notareg 14:03, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Flaming burns much as any fire. Sam [Spade] 18:13, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


2nd version

There is a 2nd version at: Ronato_Paul, created after this page was protected. It's redirected for now, to avoid that the protection of this page is circumvented. It could merged into this article, once it's unprotected. -- User:Docu


Discussion on new version

Very interesting congressman deserves an interesting article. Here it is. Ijijujijijijijijijijjijjj 14:38, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reprotected

I've reprotected the article. Note that I've marked it as a protection from vandalism rather than a dispute. No doubt there are issues that could be legitimate disputes (if so, discuss proposed specific modifications calmly in the talk page). My call, however, is to label as vandalism the repeated reverts to a version which removes the category links, reverts section headings so that they no longer comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style standards, and in other ways (totaly unrelated to better or worse POV of the article content) make the article worse. -- Infrogmation 16:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism? I don't think it qualifies. Protection may have been warranted but not due to vandalism. Condilee 18:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To clarify my comment a bit more, some of the differences in text may well simply be legitimate differences of opinion, but the way the user (apparently many of the identical changes were made by one user with a fondness for creating sock puppets?) went about trying to insert them, repeatedly deleting good neutral text at the same time, IMO qualified as vandalism. Either way, yes, the article needed protecting for edit war if nothing else. -- Infrogmation 19:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Discuss changes

From my observations, I suspect that someone who has edited this article may be more interested in causing problems than in improving the article. For the rest of us, I think it would be great if we could have an article that both admirers and detractors of Ron Paul could read and say that it was pretty good, or at least "not bad".

How about anyone who has some objection or suggested improvement to this article (as it stands now) brings it up here, ONE ITEM AT A TIME? That would be great! -- Infrogmation 19:43, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article as it stands isn't perfect, but it's pretty good. This isn't a content issue, this is an issue with the behavior of two users. And my reverts were an enforcement of the arbitration committee's injunction against these users editing through sockpuppets. Rhobite 19:53, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Republican vs. Libertarian

Ok, here's a start: I attempted to deal with this a week or so ago, but Chuck decided to use Reithy's vandalism as an excuse to bury it. The current version of the article portrays Paul as a Libertarian-in-Republican's-clothing. I think the available facts could just as easily lead to his portrayal as an iconoclastic Republican who briefly abandoned his party to carry the Libertarian banner. So why not just report the facts and let readers draw their conclusions?

Therefore, I submit that it's inappropriate for the article to include phrases such as "actually a Libertarian." The unqualified comparison to Jeffords is also misleading, as Jeffords was elected as a Republican, serves as an independent, and caucuses with the Democrats. Paul was elected as a Republican, serves as a Republican, and caucuses with the Republicans.

RadicalSubversiv E 20:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay. What changes to the article should be made to reflect that? -- Infrogmation 20:40, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Here's my original diff. RadicalSubversiv E 20:52, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No one objects to this, then? I'll change the article if not. -- Infrogmation 22:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Good, I think the original diff was an improvement. - Nat Krause 05:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why totally separate Libertarians and Republicans? There is a melded group called Libertarian-Republicans, who are idealogically Libertarian, but pragmatically Republicans. This group differs slightly from hard-core Republicans other than government military spending and their own fractured opinions of extending Liberties to the unborn. weide 19:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Typos and Grammar Errors

From the third paragraph under the header "History", "He spent the year campaigning across the country on country on a platform of..." Clearly the "country on" is repeated twice, and one of those needs to be removed.

From the paragraph under the header "Comments on race published in Ron Paul's newsletter", "...you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." he later explained these quotes..." The letter "h" in the beginning of the new sentence ("he later explained...") should be capitalized ("He later explained...").

I requested that the article be unprotected. Rhobite 19:31, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
Fixed, thanks for helping. Rhobite 23:30, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Views contrary to the Libertarian platform

A while back, I attempted to make note in the article of Paul's strident pro-life position (he supports federal action to prohibit abortion), and sponsorship of anti-immigration legislation, both of which run contrary the Libertarian platform. Chuck wouldn't stand for it in any form, and the whole thing quickly got lost in revert wars with Reithy. Rhobite objected to the language on abortion, noting that Libertarians are split on the issue. The platform, states that "[we] believe the government should be kept out of the question" [2], and Badnarik, who is personally opposed to abortion, apparently believes it should be left to the states. Paul's position conflicts with both of these. In the interests of avoiding an edit war, I'm looking for suggestions on the best way to present this material. RadicalSubversiv E 01:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More research: in 1990, the Libertarian platform was even stronger on the abortion issue, stating: "Recognizing that each person must be the sole and absolute owner of his or her own body, we support the right of women to make a personal choice regarding the termination of pregnancy. We oppose the undermining of the right via laws requiring consent of the pregnant woman's parents, consent of the prospective father, waiting periods, or compulsory provision of indoctrination on medical risks or fetal development." [3]. It seems quite likely that this platform language was in place when Paul ran in 1988, suggesting an even more significant contradiction. RadicalSubversiv E 01:10, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A good point. He was more at odds with the platform then. On the other hand, they changed the platform subsequently for a reason. I don't quite see the big issue surrounding immigration. It does not appear that Paul focuses on immigration and, as far as I could tell, none of the bills that were cited before would significantly reduce immigration. However, Ron Paul does appear to be at least unenthusiastic about immigration, whereas the LP platform, last time I checked, specifies a radical pro-immigration stance -- so that does put him mildly at odds with it; I suspect the same is true of many LP members. One thing you might want to check up on is Paul's stance on flag-burning. I seem to recall that he was in favor of the Flag Burning amendment, which, if true, seems strikingly at odds with the rest of his philosophy and with that of the LP. - Nat Krause 04:17, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia including quotes out of context that are possibly inaccuarate

Just wondering here... do we really think we should quote random quotes taken from other articles attacking a person, without full context? that in itself could be an inaccurate that causes more problems then including the quote Chuck F 09:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chuck, thank you for at least nominally making an effort to use talk. However, this quote has been sourced and debated over repeatedly, with the outcome being that it should be included, with the context that Paul apologized and appears to have privately denied writing it personally. Your own personal speculation, without any sort of evidence, that the quote might be somehow inaccurate is insufficient justification to remove it. RadicalSubversiv E 10:04, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If we knew for a 100% fact that Ron Paul never made this statement, it should still be included since he is so widely accused of having made it, and it has become a part of his political persona. Also its extremely funny ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 11:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So widely accused?! there's umm... one source that we found for this, do you have others? Chuck F 13:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam - You're starting to make me thinky Reithy was a clone of you, if he is so widely accused of having made it and it's a part of his poltical persona Why does google show a total of two links to this quote? one to this article(and pages that are just copies of wikipedia), another to this quote Chuck F 13:21, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look into me a bit closer Chuck, I think you'll find little in common w reithy. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For context, [4] has an article titled "LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM" which contains the "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." quote. The article is described as being "Taken from the Ron Paul Political Report". I don't know if this page has been mentioned before, but I couldn't find it in the archive and it's quite relevant. -- Scott Burley 18:08, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

That would be a second source, but I'm somehow guessing Chuck's requirement will now go to up to three sources. I suspect the reason there's very few references to it on the web is that it pre-dates widespread adoption of the internet by several years. RadicalSubversiv E 18:44, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
it's all good and dandy radical, but if you note the quote that I'm removing is nowhere to be seen in that article.. Chuck F 19:18, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think if we're going to quote someone (especially on something controversial like this) that we need multiple sources, at least one of which is in context. The first quote ("95%") meets this test, but the second one ("fleet-footed") does not. -- Scott Burley 21:05, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Chronicle article includes quote

A Lexis-Nexis search turns up "Newsletter excerpts offer ammunition to Paul's opponent; GOP hopeful quoted on race, crime" in the Houston Chronicle, May 23, 1996:

Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.
Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

Nowhere in the article does Paul deny the quotation or offer specific context beyond that. Similarly racist quotations are included as well. Hopefully this settles the matter. RadicalSubversiv E 21:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to get sucked into this revert war

So let me explain what I'm reverting. The apostrophe after "other people's money" is correct because it's a quote within a quote. The second quote should stay because it has bee documented by several sources (though I would still like to see it in context). Paul did publicly say that he didn't write the articles, see the Texas Monthly reference. Radical was right in that the "at no other time" phrase was too absolute, so I've changed it to be more open. And the fox news link was removed because the same page was already referenced by the [1] link elsewhere in the article. -- Scott UNIQ1193ab5a5e791280-math-00002E5A-QINU 06:31, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, apparently there's still some problem with the 2nd quote. It's quoted in Texas Monthly, as well as a number of other places. While I don't have it in context, it seems valid. In any case, it is most certainly covered by this section. -- Scott UNIQ1193ab5a5e791280-math-00002E5B-QINU 06:45, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

You know... is there some other way we can phrase that comments on race published in his newsletter section? I don't think quotes are the most important aspect of that event, I think it's more the content of the article. talking about that as a whole is even better, because which we can confirm it's content Chuck F 08:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chuck, we've verified that the quotes are accurate. They were included in two reliable press accounts which gave Paul plenty of ink to offer his side of the story, strongly suggesting that there's no "context" we're missing. Stop removing completely accurate material from this article because it doesn't match your point of view. RadicalSubversiv E 08:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think Chuck's right that the quotes don't matter so much. What we really need to do is summarize the article, which is impossible with just one quote. -- Scott UNIQ1193ab5a5e791280-math-00002E5C-QINU 08:59, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Ok, how about this:
Paul has taken some criticism for a racially offensive article in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report. The article, about the L.A. race riots and titled "Los Angeles Racial Terrorism," characterized blacks as "barbarians" and called the rioters "thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization". The publication cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point. The article goes on: "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." It blames "liberals" and the welfare state for telling blacks that they "are entitled to something for nothing". Paul later explained that this article was written by a staff member without his knowledge. He is not known to have supported racists views at any other time. -- Scott UNIQ1193ab5a5e791280-math-00002E5D-QINU 08:57, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
That looks fine for now, though I reserve the right to examine the sources more carefully and offer changes in the future. RadicalSubversiv E 09:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
User:208.62.52.1 - How is it out of context? Read the article. What do you suggest? -- Scott UNIQ1193ab5a5e791280-math-00002E5E-QINU 19:44, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/n/Talk%7ERon_Paul_archive2_d0a1.html"