Talk:Ron Paul/Archive 1

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.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

addition

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)

"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)


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 [[4]] 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" [5], 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." [6]. 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, [7] 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 e^{i \pi} \,\! 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 e^{i \pi} \,\! 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 e^{i \pi} \,\! 08:59, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

condensing

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 e^{i \pi} \,\! 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 e^{i \pi} \,\! 19:44, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)


Campaign contributions

Ron does not take corporate or pac money...he is funded by individuals.


I think it's interesting that these corporations still think they can buy Ron Paul's support when his voting record is the most principled and disciplined in the Congress. It's noteworthy in his case. Libertas

No, it's not, because the source you are citing does not necessarily indicate corporate support. A single individual can donate up to $4,000 to a candidate in a single election cycle, which opensecrets.org will then attribute to his or her employer. (A couple can donate up to $8,000, and will sometimes list the same employer for both spouses.) You need to go to the actual records and see if the contributor is a corporate PAC or an executive, and then cite that. RadicalSubversiv E 02:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, although it seems unlikely that anyone other than executives of these lobby groups would be donating nearly ten thousand dollars to an out-of-state Congressional campaign. I have no idea how to look up the individual actual records and no desire to do so. I stand by the reasonable argument that only executives of lobby groups are going to give that sort of amount. And the reasons the donate? I have no idea but it shows that Ron Paul enjoys strong support from around the nation for his principled positions. Libertas

We don't write encyclopedia articles by inference, especially ones that are contentious and frequently the basis for edit wars. opensecrets.org will let you look up individual contributors, though tray.com has a better interface for it; I'll try and find some time to dig up the actual records later. And please spare us the endless praise for Paul -- not only does it not square with your contributions to the article, it doesn't really belong here. RadicalSubversiv E 19:34, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
One more thing -- it should be noted that Paul's PAC support is negligible next to most members of Congress, especially in the majority, whose PAC contributions are typically closer to half a million per cycle, even for an uncompetitive re-elect. RadicalSubversiv E 19:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't really understand what inference you think I am creating, none is intended. As for praising Ron Paul, have you heard of the First Amendment? I am entitled to my views and have scrupulously kept them out of the article, which I thought was correct procedure. The fact is that Ron Paul IS the most principled Congressman of his generation, willing to lose everything to defend his principles. That makes him unique and worthy of endless praise. I hope my contributions are seen as utterly independent, substantiated and fair. If they haven't been, please go ahead and delete. As for the levels of PAC support, or one should think, the extent of the support Ron Paul is willing to accept, yes I would welcome that. Worth noting due to his strong support in his district that he was unopposed both in the Republican primary and also in the Congressional election. The fact that a Congressman like Ron Paul exists should give us all faith that the system CAN work. Libertas
Amen to everything you said. Your userpage also gave me a laugh :) ---Gloriamarie 06:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr No? No...

I would like to see the nickname "Dr No" justified with a source. I haven't found non Wikipedia references. Libertas

You haven't looked very hard. Try google: [8]. RadicalSubversiv E 23:40, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Good point, he even refers to himself that way. Libertas

Protected

The page has been protected. Please settle disputes on talk. 172 05:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think protection was actually needed here; please take a closer look at the edit history (specifically, the content of the diffs). Libertas has been making lots of different additions/changes to the article in the past several days, most of which have been fine. I've changed a few and partially reverted a few others -- the general trend has been a give-and-take which has improved the article. No one's even come close to violating the three-revert rule and edit summaries have been used extensively. RadicalSubversiv E 07:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello what disputes? I have made some changes, as has Radical and usually when he doesn't like my changes he's right. I haven't had a problem with anything he's done at all. Am I not seeing everything that I should? Libertas

Okay. I saw some back-and-forward reversion and I thought that protecting the page would spare someone from breaking the 3RR. I will unprotect it. I will protect it again if either of you ask me to do so. 172 07:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Libertas

Sheesh

Removing the Bin Ladin comparison IMO was quite appropriate. It seemed an attempted smear by dubious allegation of association. -- Infrogmation 17:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank for your constructive criticism. Much appreciated. I agree with radical's change, the point is Ron Paul is willing to embrace views many criticize often without being fully informed. Libertas

"long-time congressman"

Libertas wants the lead to say that Paul is a long-time congressman. (Previously, he has edited it to read that Paul has served since 1976, with a "break" of 12 years.) This is both inaccurate -- he served from '76 to '84, and from '98 to the present (both rather short stints, as Congress goes) -- and unnecessary -- the next sentence gives the exact dates of his tenure. RadicalSubversiv E 03:43, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Correction to RSE:

from ttyler5 in Paul's District: that's a total of coming up on 18 years, and Paul voluntarily quit the first time around. Last election he did not even have an opponent and outpolled his own party. I would call that "entrenched" as well as Long Time.

I agree, that is definitely "long-term." Representatives have to be re-elected every two years, so being re-elected nine times? That's the long haul.--Gloriamarie 06:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Present tense?

I am honestly befuddled by Mikkalai's reversion of the page. Firstly, because he persists in reinserting Libertas's inaccurate description of Paul as a "long-time" congressman, which I have detailed my objection to above. But secondly, because he claims to object to the use of the present tense. I find this odd, because his preferred replacement also uses present tense, as does the entire article, and as does much of Wikipedia. He might be objecting to the use of a present-tense transitive verb, but this is also done plenty of places elsewhere in the article and in the rest of Wikipedia. In neither case is there any basis is the Manual of Style for his objection, unless I'm misunderstanding it. Finally, Wikipedia is unlike dead-tree in that it covers quite a lot of transient events; however, serving as a representative in Congress isn't what I would call transient. Could you please explain? RadicalSubversiv E 20:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about "long-time". He looks like long-time, but is you object, it's OK with me. Also, sorry for unclear explanations. Let me be more wordy.

There is a principial difference between wikipedia and a printed encyclopedia: the latter one has a natural timestamp: date of print. Therefore it is OK when Encyclopedia Britannica (1911) writes that Sir Brillinghat caught the largest fish ever in history, I understand that it could be quite possible that in year 1956 Abu Farhun ibn Gurqamzai could have caught an even bigger fish.

Wikipedia does not have this natural time reference, and exactly for this reason the rule is established to keep statements independent of the current moment. Also, for this reason the articles about current events have the corresponding warning.

And for this reason I insist on inclusion of the terminal date (2006) of the Congressman's service, to put the statement into a proper time frame, valid even in year, say 2007.

Sorry for confusing; I thought that this "timelessness" policy was pretty clear. Mikkalai 22:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your last change is an improvement, but strongly implies that Ron Paul will only be a Congressman until 2006, which, excepting the possibility that he may run for Senate, is unlikely. It is true that his current term ends then, but so does that of the entire House, the vast majority of whom will be re-elected. RadicalSubversiv E 23:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the reelection is a mere formality, in best Soviet traditions? Anyway, if I didn't convince you, I will no longer object if you remove the date. Let us hope that in year 2047 or earlier someone will fix the date after all. Mikkalai 23:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A U.S. House member from Texas is probably safer in his re-election bid than a Soviet official. People have been extremely good about updating articles to reflect election results, so I wouldn't worry too much about this getting stale. RadicalSubversiv E 00:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Radical, please explain

As noted on your talk page, I followed your suggestion about providing a contrast to Ron Paul's views on 9/11. And you then rejected it. If you wish to retain any credibility here, you will explain yourself.

I have asked for your ideas about to present the counterpoint and you do nothing but revert. You have no right to revert without justification, so I request you discuss it here before acting that way again.

Libertas

I reverted with justification, which I have every right to do. I've refrained from doing so again, but I'm still very concerned about the quote implying some kind of equivalence between Ron Paul and a Saudi prince. Previously, it seemed your intent was to somehow demonstrate that Paul's views run counter to some other views of some unstated individuals. This is unacceptable, and requires stating who Paul disagrees with. Your latest edit, however, didn't do that -- it invented a connection between Paul and a Saudi prince, and then offered Guiliani's criticism of the latter without content. I've rewritten it so as to be improved slightly, but quite frankly, I think the best thing to do is to simply state, without comment, that Paul's views on terrorism diverge with those Bush and the Republican leadership. RadicalSubversiv E 00:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I won't comment on your reversion further, but I have no problem with your re-write, I only put Alwaleed reference in to explain but what you've done is perfectly fine. Remember, I put the quote in because you suggested I do it. It was good advice. I think it works well now. Libertas

My Change

Using the link about the publication ([9]) I changed the article from african-american to rioters. The publication says, "The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism."

The publication is from 1992 and is archived on a site about the Holocaust. It would seem this is not a proper reference. A search for "'thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization' ron paul" on google returns only this encyclopedia article. The inclusion of the publication, IMO, is an attempt at character assasination; and a poorly referenced one at that.

Even after all of my changes I still don't think the article is very neutral. --Nyr14 13:17, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

It is properly referenced, read the article in Texas Monthly. I am replacing the section about Ron Paul's comments on race. Please read the archives of this talk page, we've been over this. Rhobite 16:02, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Date of the article? Perhaps even a link?

--Nyr14 16:18, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

It's right there in the references section. No link, it's a subscription-only site. That doesn't make it any less of a valid reference. I believe you can get it through the Google cache. Rhobite 16:44, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it is. I didn't see the references section.

--Nyr14 00:43, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please fix this line on ron Paul "Paul's libertarianism is not absolute: He voted to prohibit adoptions by same sex couples in the District of Columbia." it is in violation of serveral wikipedia policies including Wikipedia:No_original_research and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite_sources.

1. It assumes that ron paul voting against these adoptions is un-libertarian. Under Wikipedia guidelines "In summary, if the facts, opinions, or arguments you want to include in an article have not been published by a credible or reputable publication, you're engaged in original research" goes along with 4, as no source has been citied

2. It is written from an uneutral point of view, it assumes that voting to prohibit adoptions by same sex couples in the district of Columbia is unlibertarian and states this as a fact. without even delving into any Paul's reason.

3. Information is unverifiable

Thank you203.112.19.195 07:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


OK, guys, I am attempting to learn to use this and can't find where to start a post or section. My correction is a small one, in the article the Texas Democrat, Bob Casey, who originally held the seat Paul was first elected to, is labelled as a "liberal" while in fact he was one of Texas' foremost conservative Democrats of the time. How do you enter a section here and offer the data etc for a correction? ttyler5, new account member from paul's district in Galveston County, Texas.

iraq war opposition section

is this section still necessary? it's extremely bare and this fact is mentioned multiple times previous in the article. would anyone be heartbroken if i took it out? Thepedestrian 04:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

took it out. Thepedestrian 00:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, now there is absolutely nothing about his vote against the Iraq Resolution (to authorize use of force). Considering that he is the only republican in the house of reps that voted against this resolution I think it deserves mention somewhere. I don't see the "mentioned multiple times" Thepedestrian talks about above. Funkyj 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Funkyj. His opposition to the war in Iraq is very unusual among Congressional Republicans, and he declared that opposition even before many Democrats did so. I think it should be put back in. Snarfangel 03:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed put it in the article. It is one of his positions as he has demonstrated multiple times. Lord Metroid 18:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate to vote against the use of force in Iraq, in either the Republican or Democrat parties. Clinton voted for it, Edwards voted for it, and Obama wasn't part of (federal) congress when it was passed. Did I leave anybody out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.164.93.52 (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
Dennis Kucinich also did. Barack Obama was against the war and gave speeches about it at the time. They are the only three, as far as I know, who were against the war from the beginning. Paul is particularly notable since he was Republican... and that should definitely be mentioned in the article. --Gloriamarie 06:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Paleolibertarianism

The article on paleolibertarianism has this line, which i agree with: "[Paleolibertarianism is commonly distinguished by] radical decentralization in politics (most paleolibertarians subscribe to some form of anarcho-capitalism and do not associate with any political party)". Ron Paul fails on all three accounts; he's not a paleolibertarian; merely a paleoconservative. Bob A 20:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Paul is said in the article to describe himself thusly, although no source is provided. More importantly, he does closely associate with Lew Rockwell (his former employee), who is described as a principal of paleolibertarianism. I think most paleolibertarians would describe paleoconservatism and paleolibertarianism as being at least somewhat related. I know that many here at the Mises Institute frequently cite notable paleoconservatives including Rose Wilder Lane, John T. Flynn, et al. Ron Paul is published by the Mises Institute, has received awards from the same, etc. If there was a verifiable, notable source stating that some notable individual argued that Paul wasn't really a paleolib, we could use that, but otherwise it seems to me that your position amounts to original research, which of course violates WP:NOR. Dick Clark 20:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Then you should update paleolibertarianism. Until then, this article contradicts wikipedia's own definition. (One solution is to add that his paleolibertarianism is only purported.) Bob A 21:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, as far as I can tell, Paul doesn't definitively come down as outside of the bounds of paleolibertarianism as described in the article. The article, as you have quoted, says that "most paleolibertarians subscribe to some form of anarcho-capitalism and do not associate with any political party." I think that everyone would acknowledge that Ron Paul is not a usual paleolibertarian, but that doesn't mean that he isn't one at all. In other areas, Paul's policy positions fall squarely within the realm of paleolibertarianism, including:
  • His weak association with political parties (has run under the LP and GOP banners)
  • His "antipathy with conservatism in general, except for the most distinctly paleoconservative types," which is well known (i.e., his "Dr. No" moniker in a legislature controlled by the "conservative" party)
  • His "sharp opposition to war and interventionist foreign policy," including his ardent opposition to the War in Iraq, opposition to taxpayer-funded foreign aid, etc.
  • His pro-life stance, which is indicative of his cultural conservatism
Dick Clark 22:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Two objections: first, he doesn't support radical decentralisation; he does some, but he supports the union. Second, it may be true that some paleolibertarians vote, but it's a bit much to work for the federal state; Hoppe says that paleolibertarians should neither work for the federal state nor associate with anyone who does. I say we have the article say that he claims to be a paleolibertarian. Bob A 23:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The article already couches the application of the term paleolibertarian in a manner such as you suggest. It says, Paul professes a limited government paleolibertarian ideology (a libertarian ideology mixed with social conservatism). His regular votes against almost all proposals for government spending, initiatives, or taxes, and his frequent dissents in otherwise unanimous votes, have irritated some of his Republican colleagues and have earned him the nickname "Dr. No". That seems pretty straightforward. That wording clearly says that Paul claims such a philosophy as his own, but the article doesn't—in the encyclopedic voice anyway—say that Paul is definitively one. If we had notable criticisms in which Paul's adherence to the tenets of paleolibertarianism were questioned, then we could include such a clause. I am not aware of such a source, although if it existed it would be a valuable addition to this entry. Even if it were the case that many sources were available to challenge Paul's claim, his name would probably still belong in the paleolib category by virtue of the fact that he claims to be one. We can let readers decide for themselves if it is an accurate assessment. Dick Clark 16:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry; i didn't notice that. Bob A 17:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me point out that the paleolibertarianism article describes paleolibertarianism as "a combination of radical libertarianism in politics and cultural conservatism in social thought. As far as I know, this would seem to describe Congressman Paul. Thus, I think the sentence: "Paul professes a limited government paleolibertarian ideology (a libertarian ideology mixed with social conservatism)," is quite accurate. Moreover, his deviations from mainstream libertarian beliefs are noted in the "Social issues" subsection. Unregistered User 71.96.165.158 0:11, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

So the paleolibertarianism article seems fairly confused (or just confusing). For example it claims Rothbard as a paleolib and defines paleolibertarianism in opposition to left-libertarianism; the latter, according to left-libertarian, is associated with Rothbard! I suppose these could be referring to two different moments in the development of Rothbard's thought, but it does make the thing kind of hard to follow. FWIW I always associated Rothbard with the more anti-corporatist elements of the American Libertarian movement—does anyone remember the LP(RC)? --Trovatore 22:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I can remember Rothbard writing about the modal libertarian. Maybe that's a good opposite of what a paleolibertarian is. Intangible 22:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

CAFTA

A recent addition says that a position of Paul's that doesn't "square with libertarianism" is opposition to CAFTA. But of course a fair number of purist libertarians oppose such agreements on the grounds that they don't go far enough, that they set up a regime of managed trade rather than true free trade. (I'm not really one of them; I'm still willing to go for "something is better than nothing" on free trade, but I can kind of see the point.) So the question is, what's the reason for Paul's opposition, assuming this opposition is correctly reported? --Trovatore 05:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul wrote an essay on the topic. Basically CAFTA was a page document when tariffs could be lower with a 3 page bill. CAFTA created a regional court infrastructure and Paul argued expanded government. Jcmiller 16:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The section as it reads now is still severely misleading. If someone can't reword it so it's not deceptive I'll remove it in a few days. Arker 01:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarity Needed

I found this quote very disturbing indeed; "This is consistent with the views of Osama bin Laden who justified the attack on the same basis. Opponents of bin Laden argue that there can be no justification or excuse for mass murder." This quote came under the section entitled; "Contrast on 9/11" with the following below it; "Libertas has now contributed three different sentences contrasting Paul's views on 9/11 with some imaginary mainstream:"

I'm sorry but I'm just a little uncertain what this is pertaining to. And sorry again for sounding dumb here, but I hope no one actually believes that osama bin laden has been found guilty for the crimes of 911, if so then they seem to have some secret intelligence that the rest of us don't seem to have, then could you please inform the FBI to update their "Most Wanted" page on their website to iclude that he has been found guilty for the crimes of September 911 also!!! [10]

But then again if this intelligence of yours is derived from FOX News (trial by media / bush), then the comment wouldn't surprise me in the least!!! This all raises the question, plus a million other questions about 911, of which Ron Paul and many others like the 911 Truth Movement try to address, and that is WHAT the hell REALLY happened and WHO is REALLY responsible???? Check it out for yourself.—Cantsi Wontsi 17:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Impeachment

On the Bush impeachment page, I tried to include Ron Paul, but someone deleted because of the prisonplanet source. But isn't this important enough to be included on this page and that one? Tim Long 04:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I second that.Terjen 19:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

2004 LP Convention

"Though only elected to Congress as a Republican, Paul remains on good terms with the Libertarian Party and has addressed its national convention as recently as 2004."

I was at the 2004 LP convention, and I certainly never saw Ron Paul there, nor did I hear that he was going to be there. Perhaps the year is wrong? Otherwise, someone's going to have to show me some documentation that he was there and I never saw him. In the interim, I've added a Citation Needed tag. -- Calion | Talk 02:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Using archive.org he's listed as a speaker for the 2004 LP convention.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040806022454/www.lpconvention.org/speakers.shtml

( Sorry, If I'm doing something wrong with this post. First time contributing anything to wikipedia ) --67.10.130.15 12:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Voting Record Correction

Under the "Dr. No" area, the vote count matched the link to the vote, however the vote was on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, not the No Child Left Behind Act. I changed the bill that was linked to, however this may change the meaning, as it may be a better example to show that he was one of 45 reps to vote no on the NCLBA. However my guess is the intent is to show he is one of a very few dissenters, rather than against the NCLBA. Eplondke 21:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming Election?

There's a banner on this article indicating an ongoing or upcoming election. Apparently, the election in question is the one back in November, in which case the banner should be removed. If not, does it refer to November 2008? I doubt that. 206.124.31.24 05:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It does refer to 2008, because he's announced as a candidate. --Golbez 06:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, he wasn't when I posted it, and Hitlery was and still is. 206.124.31.24 19:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know a thing about updating wiki, but former Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik came out in support of Ron Paul at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum this weekend. Here's a link to an article on it. Do with it what you will. [11]

Introductory material

Is it just me, or can this be tightened up ...especially that second paragraph. (WP:BETTER) — RVJ 08:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidacy Announcement

I saw Ron Paul announce his candidacy live on Washington Journal this morning, but I'm having trouble finding a source. Plenty should be out tonight and tomorrow. Give me until then to find them if you all can't.--Zombiema7 13:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Got the citation. It's up.--Zombiema7 09:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of citation

This appeared in the article without citation:

Ron Paul's name has been linked in the blogosphere to a controversial "remix" of Apple's 1984 ad. In the Orwellian ad titled "Vote Different" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo) posted on YouTube (among other places), Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is seen on a screen as drone-looking people watch. A heroine, sporting an iPod and wearing a white T-shirt with an Obama for President logo, is chased by what looks like a SWAT team as she runs into a theater and throws an axe-like object at the screen, shattering it. The "drones" then are freed from the Orwellian message. The ad then ends with a white screen and the words, "On January 14th, the Democratic primary will begin. And you'll see why 2008 won't be like "1984." The screen then goes black and a morphed version of the Apple logo, shaped as an "O," appears. BarackObama.com then appears under it.

When we're writing on the article about a living person, we should be more careful about attributing acts or words to him without citing to a reliable source. I've moved it here until one can be found, if possible. Coemgenus 23:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is laughable. Why would Ron Paul want to promote Barack Obama's campaign? Wouldn't he have placed Bush in Clinton's role and a Ron Paul runner throwing the axe at Bush? Statements like that are absurd and should be removed, unless somebody can find proof to back it up. Life, Liberty, Property 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I moved it here on the off chance it was true. Assume good faith, and all that. Personally, I can't imagine why Ron Paul would even care whether Obama and Clinton won the Democrats' nomination. Coemgenus 19:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think it really should be mentioned in this article for the weak link between the two. It is true though, just not important enough. I saw it posted on Lew Rockwell's blog.[12] --Kalmia 21:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Campaign article creation?

I was thinking it might be time for a Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 article now when the campaign has started to take off and as more information becomes available the Ron_Paul#2008_Presidential_Campaign section are going to become crowded when information such as for an example:

Among other things shall be presented in the article. Lord Metroid 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Maybe, or just make it a redirect for now. I was thinking about this in the past, but fugured it should be put off until it started to get to dominate the article too much. Either way, I won't stop someone who does either right now. --Kalmia 21:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

article's sections

The sections that reference another main article are stripped down too much now. I may enlarge them to include a very general summation. I believe this is the format that is used elsewhere on Wikipedia. Does anybody object? If so, why? --Kalmia 07:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No objection. Oh and the new article for his campaign looks good so far.--Zombiema7 01:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Citations in the Introduction

"Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited big government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency..." "...Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution..." "...He has never voted to raise taxes..." A little enthusiasm is ok for an introduction, but if wiki's going serve as a Ron Paul cheerleader, can we at least cite some of these statements? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iankinzel (talk • contribs) 07:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC).


Tonight debate on MSNBC

Some of us who edit this article should be on here (and related articles) during and soon after tonight's debate to revert any vandalism by neocon attack dogs. I have a feeling there may be some. --Kalmia 19:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Some of the other pages to watch:

--Kalmia 19:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If it becomes enough of a problem, maybe we should get all Ron Paul articles semi-protected. That would the Wikipedia equivalent of Barack Obama getting Secret Service protection because he received a death threat. From what I've seen around the Internet, there are alot of people who want to spread misinformation about Ron Paul. I would also suggest that we make certain that anybody who vandalizes Ron Paul articles gets warned because allowing users to vandalize without being warned encourages vandalism and of course Wikipedians occasionally forget to warn vandals. Life, Liberty, Property 04:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)