Talk:Ron Paul

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived.

Why the hell is the newsletter controversy section twice as large as his entire presidential election section? Pathetic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.9.231 (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove navigation box that does not point to this article

{tl|editprotected}} Please remove the following navigation box from this article {{2008 U.S. presidential election}}. It does not point to this article, but rather Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. Thanks.

Controversy section inappropriate for biography article

I am removing the controversy section from this article. The controversy is adequately covered in the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 article, is inappropriate for a biography page, and properly falls under the campaign section. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree and have reverted the deletion. The newsletters are far more pertinent to Paul than they are to his campaign. Devpty01 (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please don't just do these things. This is a controversial article, so it's far more useful for us to discuss potentially controversial edits here since it helps prevent edit wars (to which you are no stranger, I might add). —msikma (user, talk) 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the deletion. I can understand why the section would exist in the campaign article, but why here as well? -LisaLiel (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would probably agree to a properly discussed plan to move the bulk of this controversy to the campaign article (there is I believe a great deal of overlap and repetition), but this newsletter stuff has been dogging Paul for more than a decade and is part of his biography. And for what reason is a carefully cited and neutrally stated account of controversy "inappropriate for a biography page"? --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This supposed "controversy" has not "dogged" Paul for about 20 years. It's only now resurfacing as a smear campaign to label Paul a "racist" by proxy, in order to block his momentum. Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee have plenty of dirt on them - much darker dirt, I may add. But they don't have "controversy" sections in their articles. If editors of this article were fair, they would allow expose' of the fact that the broadcast media has been unfair in its coverage of Ron Paul - who, although he has been steadily beating Giuliani in the primaries, has been outraising the other candidates, &c, is still getting less coverage. THAT's newsworthy. JLMadrigal (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the platform on which to get the word out about Paul. We write what is reported by reputable sources.

Regarding the supposed lack of controversy in the articles you mentioned, please see the following:

• Rudy_Giuliani#Marriages_and_family
• John_mccain#Keating_Five
• Huckabee#Controversial_public_comments
• Huckabee#Wayne_DuMond_case

Also please note that this isn't a general "controversy section," but rather a section specifically devoted to the racist newsletter controversy.--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to read up on your candidate Madrigal. It was an issue in his 1996 Congressional race. That was 11 years ago. So let's not act like it has been dormant for 20 years. And, like it or not, it is a factor. It belongs in both because it's not solely about his campaign, it's about the man himself. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to suggest that this is just a big smear campaign. The man let a racist newsletter be published for twenty years under his name, and still employs the person who published it (Jean McIver) even after finding out about it, despite telling everyone that he fired the people involved. And despite denying any connection to these newletters that bore his name—and were published by "Ron Paul & Associates"—for decades, he continues to make the same kind of prejudice remarks. Didn't he describe those working for the Transportation Security Administration as looking "more suspicious to [him] than most Americans who are getting checked"? But no, apparently, to some people, any kind of criticism that refers to this is part of some smear campaign. Are you trying to imply that the people who want the newsletter section to remain in this article are part of that, too? —msikma (user, talk) 07:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: I might have lost my WP:COOL with that last message, but I still find it deplorable that perfectly valid criticism is being deleted from an article for the reason that it's apparently "part of a smear campaign". I think it's insulting to those Wikipedians who are trying to make sure this article is at least somewhat balanced. —msikma (user, talk) 07:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is politics, so naivety can be left at the door. Of course it is a smear campaign - that's why we cover it on the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 page. The User:Msikma statement that "for decades, he continues to make the same kind of prejudice remarks" is completely unfounded. You have to look hard and apply imagination to find much (I have seen the attempts). Please be careful not to impose your prejudges on the page. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, which is why we should focus on covering the controversies rather than attempt to emotionally affect our readers. Terjen (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, I said "for decades" in reference to his newsletters. I didn't say "he continues to make prejudice remarks for decades", I said "he continues to make prejudice remarks". Clever way to twist a sentence.

Secondly, please don't say that we "shouldn't be naive"; it's simply not true that there's a smear campaign going on against an insignificant candidate who has viewpoints that a lot of people disagree with. He's simply being criticized as he should. I can't help the fact that there's a racist newsletter that was published right underneath his nose for 20 years. There is absolutely no excuse for this, and he's lucky that the media haven't made a massive deal out of this (of course, again, that's because he's really not very significant).

And lastly, you don't have to "look hard" to find these prejudice remarks at all! In fact, you don't even have to use your imagination. :) Like I said in my previous message, didn't he describe those working for the Transportation Security Administration as looking "more suspicious to [him] than most Americans who are getting checked," a while ago? He also sponsored legalization that would weaken the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and another that would deny Iranian students federal aid. These bills are all real, and there is simply no excuse or explanation for these things. Why would anyone want to deny federal aid to Iranian students specifically? Did he conclude that "those Iranians" are bad news already? There's so much more, too. I'm trying to make a point here rather than posting links to material worth adding in the article, though, so I'll stop here. The point is that I don't find it very strange he has written (or was at least strongly involved in) a newsletter that advocated very narrow-minded views for 20 years. —msikma (user, talk) 19:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"These bills are all real, and there is simply no excuse or explanation for these things." There very often is, because Ron Paul makes speeches about the bills he introduces. Here's one that has to do with students from terrorist sponsoring countries. MantisEars (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The controversy section should be removed from this article. This really has nothing to do with Paul personally. This seems like an attempt to link something to Paul for political reasons. This is a biography page about his life. 75.21.123.50 (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad the controversy portion is here. I came here for that very reason. Why would I ever look for information about Ron Paul under something like "Ron Paul's 2008 Run For President" or whatever. I check the contents...no controversy...back to the web to find it. If you are a supporter of Ron Paul, would you rather I learn about it from Wiki or CNN or a competitors campaign site? These questions are relevant to Ron Paul the person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.208.44 (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed statement - "but opposes a federal ban on abortion"

In the lede, there is a sentence which describes Ron Paul's pro-life views. Three weeks ago, on January 5, Terjen made an addition to this sentence. Previously, it had read: "Paul is strongly pro-life, and advocates overturning Roe v. Wade to let states determine the legality of abortion. Terjen's addition is in bold: "Paul is strongly pro-life, but opposes a Federal ban on abortion, advocating overturning Roe v. Wade to let states determine the legality of abortion.

Terjen provided a reference from this document, in which Paul wrote: "while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." However, Paul has made another statement about a federal ban on abortion. In this document, Paul wrote: "an outright federal ban on abortion" can be "done properly via a constitutional amendment". Paul's statements directly contradict one another.

What is Paul's opinion of federal regulation of abortion? As 71.145.152.70 noted in these edits, Paul voted in favor of a federal ban on late-term D&C abortions. In the reference Terjen provided, Paul claimed that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." Yet Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which sought to federally define human life as beginning from conception.

Is it reasonable, then, to state that Paul "opposes a federal ban" on abortion, when he has already voted in favor of one, and has stated that a federal ban on abortion can be "done properly"? No. Clearly, Paul is of the opinion that embryos and fetuses are unborn children, and that the only appropriate course of action is to create legal protection for them as human beings. He has sought to remove federal protection of abortion, and to replace it with federal protection of fetuses.

Clearly there is no place in this article for a statement that Paul "opposes a federal ban", when he has spoken and voted in favor of a federal ban. The lede should give a more accurate picture of Paul's views and actions towards abortion.

I suggest that we state something to the effect of the following:

"Paul is strongly pro-life, has introduced legislation intended to overturn Roe v. Wade, and seeks to "restore protection to the unborn".

Opinions? Photouploaded (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with this edit suggestion, and think it is worded properly. Paul has been clear all along in his position, but some editors here have chosen to be somewhat less clear. And, if I recall correctly from earlier discussions, he has introduced the Sanctity of Life act many times - it's not a passing position, it is central to his beliefs. Tvoz |talk 17:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Photouploaded cites Ron Paul's essay Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle as main evidence, but takes the quotes out of context, saying that Paul wrote "an outright federal ban on abortion" can be "done properly via a constitutional amendment". He correctly assess that this directly contradicts the statement I quoted in which Paul makes it clear that he opposes a Federal ban on abortion.

This contradiction can be resolved by reading the source: "State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction and not encroach upon it. The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government." Paul is apparently not advocating a federal ban, but matter of fact pointing out that this is the alternative to the path he favors. Reading the rest of the essay makes this obvious.

Photouploaded also refers to Paul's explanation on voting for The Partial Birth Abortion Ban despite arguing in the essay that "The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.[...] Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well." It is again obvious Paul favors that the jurisdiction remains with the states.

The Sanctity of Life Act includes some rather dumb language, e.g. "The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception." Duh. I believe the goal of the act was to legislatively overturn Roe v. Wade, as it also removes Supreme Court jurisdiction over such cases. However, we should not get into legislative analysis, as that would be very much in the realm of original research.

Paul is very clear in opposing a federal ban on abortion and in promoting that the states should retain the jurisdiction. Our introduction had it wrong for far too long, and it would be a mistake to return to the old language now that it has been corrected to clarify that Paul opposes a federal ban. Terjen (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The bill may contain "dumb language", but that's irrelevant to this discussion. It is a bill that Paul has introduced year after year whose intention is to have a federal mandate that would make it illegal for any state to have laws that protect the right of women to have abortions. Photo's wording doesn't have the words "federal ban on abortion" and is much more accurate and true to what Ron Paul's position is than the misleading "opposes Federal laws regulating or banning abortion, advocating overturning Roe v. Wade to let states determine its legality" which implies that whatever the states decide is ok. But his SoL bill speaks directly against that. Paul may technically favor letting states determine its legality, but he favors having a federal mandate which would by federal law prevent any state from affirming its legality and it is misleading and somewhat disingenuous to suggest otherwise. I've said this many times as this has been debated on this talk page over the last months: Ron Paul is clear on his position - it is we who muddy it up, perhaps trying to make it sound more acceptable to a broader base of people. Saying words to the effect of "Paul is strongly pro-life, has introduced legislation intended to overturn Roe v. Wade, and seeks to "restore protection to the unborn". is a lot more understandably accurate than what we now have. The current wording is carefully parsed, and not technically incorrect, but it is grossly misleading. Tvoz |talk 20:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you realize that the current wording isn't "technically incorrect". However, you are incorrect when stating that the Sanctity of Life Act's intention is to have a federal mandate that would make it illegal for any state to have laws that protect the right of women to have abortions. This is not a place to make up your own creative interpretations of legislation. See WP:OR.

Paul explicitly states on the House of Representatives website that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid."[1] This (and other writing by Paul) supports our statement that Paul "opposes Federal laws regulating or banning abortion". Terjen (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Terjen, I think I set up the Sanctity of Life Act article, so I am somewhat familiar with what the bill says. I don't think we should be debating the subject here other than as it pertains to this article, but it's hardly creative or original interpretation to say that a federal law declaring that life begins at conception goes hand-in-hand with a position that such life would have to be protected by other state - and Federal - laws. And that is the intention of the SoL act - all I'm saying is that we should not be misleading here and give the impression that although he is personally pro-life, all he is has done legislatively is stated that it's up to the states. If he did not propose SoL, his position might be consistent with the way you represented it - his personal beliefs about when life begins would be separate from his view on what the Constitution says regarding state vs federal authority. But in fact he proposes the SoL Act in each Congressional session because he would like to see it passed as law, and that law would prevent the states from following their consciences, if they chose to protect abortion rights. I don't think the article should say that he supports a Federal ban on abortion, but I think it should be clearer about what he does support. The current wording does not give a clear presentation of the totality of his position. Photo's wording does - or at least it gives a fuller representation. This article doesn't have room for a long discussion in the lede about this, of course - but it should not give the wrong impression. Tvoz |talk 23:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Creating the Sanctity of Life Act stub article hardly gives you any authority on interpreting the bill. Besides, even that entry does not state anything like that its intention is to have a federal mandate that would make it illegal for any state to have laws that protect the right of women to have abortions. I see a pattern in the discussion here. First the main argument of Photouploaded quotes Paul out of context, ignoring the rest of the source contradicting the position. Next Tvoz makes a layman's interpretation of a bill based on reading selected passages, conveniently ignoring contradictory parts. The latest interpretation of the Sanctity of Life Act: that law would prevent the states from following their consciences. Incorrect. That would be Roe v. Wade. I suggest you take the discussion about the real meaning of the bill to the Sanctity of Life Act entry and dish it out there, or perhaps better not. Bottom line: Paul opposes a Federal ban on abortion. Terjen (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] I didn't claim any authority on interpreting the bill, Terjen, I was responding to your patronizing attitude where apparently you are free to interpret it, but I'm not: "The Sanctity of Life Act includes some rather dumb language, e.g. "The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception." Duh. I believe the goal of the act was to legislatively overturn Roe v. Wade, as it also removes Supreme Court jurisdiction over such cases." You "believe" you know what the bill means, but I can't respond with what I think the words "sanctity of life" and the related portion of the bill mean. OK. And your characterization that I've made a "layman's interpretation .. based on reading selected passages" - do you have some reason to know what I've read or whose interpretation I presented? Are you providing some kind of expert testimony here that gives you superior knowledge of the meaning of the bill? You know - I see a pattern here too, but it's a different one. The pattern I see is the one I've seen for months editing this article, and that is the propensity for partisan editing, perhaps in hopes that some supporters will not completely understand what his positions - about which he is quite clear - are. There were attempts to distort the reporting of the newsletter controversy, and I'm seeing it here too. Yes, he says he opposes a Federal ban on abortion (despite voting for the Federal ban on late term D&C abortions) because he thinks it is a matter for the states to determine. But what he is in favor of is having a Federal law written which would be the grounds for defining abortion as murder which is illegal in all states. You seem to be the one selectively reading it - the name of the act indicates what its primary thrust is, and that is to define life - on the Federal level - as starting at conception. Not subject to any interpretation - read it yourself. There's no need to debate the "real" meaning of the bill - it's crystal clear. I've said before, you may recall, that a clear rendition of Paul's actual position on abortion would likely attract as many supporters as it would repel others, so I wouldn't worry about that if I were you. But it would be accurate and complete, something you seem to wish to avoid. Were you here when there were debates about whether the words "pro-life" should be included at all? Final word: I don't appreciate your use of "dish it out" or your sanctimonious declarations. The "disputed" tag should remain - in fact it should probably be replaced with an overall tag questioning the neutrality of the article or sections of it - but out of respect for a lot of hard work that has gone into trying to keep this piece neutral - by multiple editors - I won't put it on right now. Let's see if anyone else chimes in here - so far, I see two editors preferring a word change in the lede and one opposing it. We don't have consensus here. Tvoz |talk 08:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't rocket science, Terjen. Ron Paul is a vocal "pro-lifer" and has sponsored the according bills. Don't attempt to twist this; like Tvoz says, it's crystal clear what they were about. I'd explain in detail how one should read the titles of these bills, but there's no need to, as it's been explained already. —msikma (user, talk) 10:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Msikma, I am not disputing that Ron Paul is a vocal "pro-lifer" and has sponsored the according bills. But I don't think we should take your word for that it is "crystal clear" what the bills were about. You don't find the meanings of bills by reading their titles. Terjen (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It now reads that Paul "opposes federal laws regulating or banning abortion", which I think is accurate and complete information. The Sanctity of Life Act does in fact outlaw federal regulation (including banning) of abortion. It makes no mention of Roe v. Wade, as that is a Supreme Court decision and cannot explicitly be countermanded by the legislative branch. Congress can only make laws - if the Court decided that the SoL act was unconstitutional, they could rule it so, and we would have "Roe v. Wade" Part 2. The Act is mentioned in this article and there is a citation which includes the entire text of the bill. I certainly believe that Paul advocates overturning or negating the effects of Roe v. Wade, which is also mentioned in the article. Paisan30 (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Paul does not oppose federal regulation of abortion! Before a federal bill restricting abortion passed, Paul wrote: "If the next version of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban act reads like past versions in the House, I will likely support it despite the dilemmas outlined here. I cannot support, however, a bill like the proposed Senate version of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that reaffirms Roe v. Wade." Clearly, Paul's dilemma was not with federally restricting abortion, but with voting in favor of a piece of abortion-restricting legislation that also federally protected abortion. Paul proved this to be true, by voting in favor of the ban. In the same writing, Paul voiced his support of an "outright federal ban" on abortion, stating that it could be "done properly". Paul is clearly in support of ending abortion, and has taken steps at the federal level to make this a reality.

The sentence in the lede was grossly misleading to the point of being outright false. I have rephrased it, according to the support for that change, here. The sentence now reads:

Paul is "strongly pro-life", has introduced legislation intended to overturn Roe v. Wade, and seeks to "restore protection to the unborn".

Please see the article itself to view the references for these statements. Photouploaded (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Paul explicitly states that he opposes a federal ban on abortion,[2] so it is not true when Photouploaded states that Paul does not oppose federal regulation of abortion. Photouploaded again quotes Paul out of context, apparently from the Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle, saying that Paul voiced his support of an "outright federal ban" on abortion, stating that it could be "done properly". The source makes it clear that this is not what Paul intends. Repeating already debunked arguments doesn't further the case.

I think the current language explains Paul's position well: Paul is pro-life, but opposes Federal laws regulating or banning abortion, advocating overturning Roe v. Wade to let states determine its legality. I would be fine if the middle part of this text just said opposes a Federal ban of abortion. I would prefer that instead of saying "its legality" it said the legality of the procedure to make it clearer, but neither is a big deal. Terjen (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read Ron Paul's Weekly Column on Federalizing Social Policy, he says "Under the 9th and 10 amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." He wants the state legislature, not the federal government, to handle ideas concerning issues abortion. The portion "opposes Federal laws regulating or banning abortion" should be taken out altogether as it sounds like Ron Paul opposes all laws "regulating or banning abortion". The full sentence should read "Paul is pro-life, he advocates overturning Roe v. Wade which would hold the individual states' legislatures, not the federal government, responsible for matters concerning abortion."Nly8nchz (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It explicitly says "opposes Federal laws", and that can hardly be confused with "opposes all laws". The last part of the sentence already makes it clear that states can enact laws. Overturning Roe v. Wade will not "hold the individual states' legislatures....responsible for matters concerning abortion" - that's just confusing.Terjen (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Terjen, I hear what you are saying. My problem is with the wording. The wordking as it is does not make very clear that Ron Paul wants the states to handle laws on abortion, not the federal government. This might just be a personal preference, but I think the wording needs some help to cearly and concisely state Ron Paul's position on abortion and its laws.Nly8nchz (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps my suggestion above might help, changing "its legality" to "the legality of the produce"? As in "advocating overturning Roe v. Wade to let states determine the legality of the procedure". That will eliminate the ambiguous "its" in the current version, which could be read as referring back to "Roe v. Wade" rather than "abortion". Terjen (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reading the article as it is now written, it is clear that Ron Paul is opposed to abortion, but believes that it is a state matter. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Lew Rockwell did not write the racist newsletters. Here is proof

http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/01/24/ron-paul-racial-issues-and-the-racists-who-wish-to-kill-the-paul-campaign/

The racist newsletters were written by Bill White. It was this man that Jamie Kirchick used as a source.

"Reason magazine identified then prominent paleolibertarian activist Lew Rockwell" is a lie. It's as if Reason Magazine has the authority to "identify" any truth! They do not have that authority.

Bill White hates Ron Paul because he thinks Paul has been corrupted by Jews. Paul's economic principles, are principles that White believes stems from Jewish economists like Von Mises, Rothbard, and others who have educated Paul.

I think the whole entry on the racist newsletters needs to be erased entirely, as they are a vicious fabrication of lies. Reason magazine is run by objectivists, who hate libertarians. They hate libertarians because they believe them to be a weak and morally corrupt group. Objectivists are similar to libertarians, except objectivists are more militant in their beliefs. Whereas Ron Paul may say that although some Arabs practice things that violate personal liberty like stoning, the wearing of burkas, hijabs, they have a right to live any way they want, so long as they do not violate other cultures. Objectivists on the other hand see this as the equivalent of "sanctioning" such behaviour by the mere act of not engaging in violence with them. The Ayn Rand Institute and Libertarians may appear to be allies, but objectivists make them like oil and water.

It's sad that nobody here can even see this.

THIS is why those at reason magazine and other extremists hate Ron Paul and want to destory his campaign. By having the racist newsletters section on Ron Paul's wiki entry, you are doing EXACTLY what the liars want you to do. You are assisting in the character assassination of a very moral and NON-racist man.

I thus call for the newsletter section to be erased in its entirety. The link I have given PROVES Ron Paul did not write them, it proves Lew Rockwell did not write them. talk 02:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your link doesn't prove anything and as a blog would be considered unreliable as a source in any case. And we're not here to discuss objectivism vs libertarianism, just the article. We specifically state that it is unknown who wrote the newsletters - we report that they were published under Ron Paul's name by an entity named "Ron Paul & Associates", and he has acknowledged this. Unless there is reliably sourced information that the pdf files provided by TNR were fakes - which no one has claimed to my knowledge - then our section is valid. We include Reason magazine's article and readers can draw their own conclusions as to its veracity - just as we include LewRockwell.com as a source throughout the piece for other matters. Tvoz |talk 08:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The link does discuss some of the background to the newsletters and the efforts of White to create a controversy, but Tvoz is right as far as its lack of standing as a solid source because it's a blog. Also, the assertion that reason magazine is a bunch of libertarian-hating Objectivists is grossly misinformed. Indeed, some of its founders, supporters and writers are interested in Rand's ideas, but both the foundation and magazine are explicitly libertarian and have no connection to Objectivist groups or orgs. Not to get too far into the discussion aspect of this, but their coverage of Ron Paul (including the cover story in February's print issue) has been favorable. The newsletter authorship coverage in their Hit & Run blog is more tough love than any kind of smear. You would do well to direct your attention to those actually guilty of smearing Ron Paul. Twalls (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait.... Is that talking about Bill White (neo-Nazi)??? Yikes! No wonder Paul didn't want to say who wrote them. I wouldn't want to admit it if I hired that guy either. Devpty01 (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry if Ron Paul is accused of racism. That is actually a big plus if you are seeking the Republican nomination. --The Four Deuces (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Since Bill White was born in 1977 and the newsletters in question appeared starting 1989, he would have been twelve years old when he began editing the newsletter. --The Four Deuces (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Bill White has nothing to do with Ron Paul or his newsletters; he was a source for Kirchick's piece. If anything, White dislikes Ron Paul for not being a racist. Twalls (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What is Ron Pauls position on 'lobbying'

Shouldn't it be banned since it's a form bribery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.110.38 (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss Ron Paul's positions - check his websites. Tvoz |talk 08:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If the question is because there is no information about it in the article, it is clearly in support of improving the article and as such is encouraged here. Devpty01 (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an issue for the Political positions of Ron Paul entry. A starting point might be his writings on Campaign Finance Reform. See e.g. WHY IS THERE SO MUCH MONEY IN POLITICS?. Terjen (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

--69.149.15.249 (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Thankyou!

Straw Polls

Madrigal is making an issue of the straw poll wording. Looking at the wiki article on it, it looks to me like Paul won 18 of them. He did not win in 19 of them. 1) Where is the proof he won "most" and not "some". 18 out of 37 is not "most" of them to me. and 2) Who cares? Paul won the SC straw poll, but got trounced in the actual primary. He won in FL, but if you watch the primary tomorrow, you'll most likely see the same result. He won 3 in NH and got beat handily in the actual primary. He won in PA, but is polling at about 2% right now. Straw polls are pretty meaningless, so why is there a push to say "most" without any supporting article? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

With the primaries/caucuses underway, the degree to which the intro emphasizes straw polls is inappropriate, not that it ever wasn't. According to this very talk page, straw polls measure candidate support even better than phone polls, which, after all, are "not scientific," which is why we had to highlight Paul's straw poll showing in the lead for so long. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently they aren't better than phone polls. The phone polls have been much closer to the actual voting results than straw polls. Straw poll participants are usually much more politically active than the rest of the voters. Representing activists as the true measure is apparently not a that accurate when it comes to guaging support. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Newsroom hierarchies has deleted my statistics regarding the straw polls and second place finish in Nevada and Louisiana. "this falsely implies that he is a leading candidate. he's not." Falsely? How can a statement of fact be false? JLMadrigal (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is what you wrote with regard to Paul's campaign performance: So far, he has placed second in the primaries in Nevada and Louisiana. How about in Iowa, NH, SC, FL? Why'd you pick the best two to single out? That's exactly how a "statement of fact" can be misleading. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Singling out those two (and he only placed third in Louisiana, incidentally), constitutes undue emphasis of a classic sort. It is definitely biased. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he may have placed first (among candidates). The Louisiana GOP still has not released the results, and changed the rules AFTER Paul won the most delagates by the deadline. How is singling out the two in which he placed second anything other than a statement of the two in which he placed second? JLMadrigal (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as Orange Mike said--doing so is undue emphasis. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The "undue emphasis" claim doesn't hold water, since the disputed content is not a skewable viewpoint, but relevant facts. Readers want information in a nutshell. They want to know how well the candidate is doing in the election. Where did he place? They want to know how well he did in the straw polls (not meaningless abstracts like "some"). A fact is a fact. Not even the most sophisticated twist of logic can change that. Readers want and deserve unbiased information, not abstracts - and certainly not censorship.

"While Paul won won 18 out of 37 straw polls, he has seen substantially less support in traditional phone polls. Paul has placed second among GOP candidates in two early primaries - the Nevada and Louisiana caucuses."

Undue emphasis? C'mon kids. Put away your hatchets. JLMadrigal (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, you want to talk extensively about straw polls, which have no actual value and, thus far, have not translated into actual votes, but try to hide anything that doesn't paint Paul in a perfect light. Straw polls are popularity contests among activists gathered for a specific reason. If you hold a so-called straw poll at a tax protestor picnic, of course Paul does great. Duh! But winning 53 out of 75 votes at the picnic doesn't make you popular when the REAL votes start getting cast. Didn't Paul win a straw poll in FL? Didn't he just get handed a 3% vote there? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, if it weren't for the Internet, Paul wouldn't have ANY light - much less "perfect light". The contempt of the broadcast "journalists" for Ron Paul, and the resulting blackout, has created an unquenched thirst for Ron Paul. The thinkers among us are lucky enough to have an actual source of information. This massive information void is being filled by the Internet (in case y'all haven't noticed). Those who know Paul (and read their Constitution), love him. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you want to sound smug, I'll play. Some of us not only read the Constitution, but understand it. There is a difference between reading it and comprehending it. And some of us actually have education on it that wasn't an elective while going to medical school. You can spin and spin and spin until you get dizzy. The fact is that this article and related ones will be moot points in a short time anyway. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Let's go. Now why would it require special training to understand a simple clear and concise document that spells out the role of the federal government? Perhaps an "education" is required to learn how to "spin" it into something else. Anyone who speaks English is qualified. And a casual reading reveals that the Federal government is in violation of Article I Section 8 (the enumerated powers of Congress), Section 9 (the prohibitions of the combined states), and Section 10 (the prohibitions of the individual states), for starters. Shall I continue? JLMadrigal (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL. No, you don't need to continue. I've heard the same rap from dozens of people like you. If it was near as simple as you paint it to be, we'd have no need for the Supreme Court. Discussing it with people like you is a fools errand. You think you know so much, but don't know the most important thing; how little you actually know. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okidoki. Throwing in the towel, eh? Typical. And with a smiling retreat. Nice. JLMadrigal (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

C'mon, J.L., do you really not admit that some people think your interpretation has been obsolete since before 1865? Or do you not admit the validity of, say, the 14th and 16th Amendments? Because that's where I just shrug and walk away, hoping your tinfoil is thick enough. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson made sure that the US Constitution would not be a "wax" Constitution. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_18s16.html I'd be interested in knowing how the 14th and 16th amendments invalidate my "interpretation" of Article I - and where "tinfoil" comes into the picture. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thorowing in the towel? Don't flatter yourself sport. But this isn't a debate forum and not the medium to have that discussion in. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Militia Movements

I'm not sure if this is worth mentioning on the main page, I'll leave it to the other editors to decide, but Ron Paul has a strong backing by the militia movements, especially the Indiana Militia Corps. Their website, especially (and mainly) their newsletter, the Liberator, mentions Ron Paul multiple times as the candidate of their choice.

I'm not much of an editor, and I'll leave it to others to decide if it should be mentioned or not. Rebelyell2006 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A candidate cannot be blamed for the followers he/she attracts. It's a corollary of the 16th of Niven's laws: There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it. Unless there is evidence that he is currently pandering to this crowd, it's not encyclopedic content. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if someone does find that he is pandering to them, then it probably should be mentioned. Rebelyell2006 (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's covered by the newsletters. He's been accused of pandering to militias in those. Bartleby (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

please fix

the link to amazon for Paul's new book doesn't work. Please update: http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.149.85 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• We don't link to Amazon or any other retailer, per WP:EL; just link the ISBN, if any. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, no delegates for Iowa have been assigned yet - the two that CNN gives him are merely a forecast from the number of votes he received on January 3rd. There are county and state conventions yet to take place, and the numbers of Iowa delegates each candidate receives will almost certainly change. Please reword that phrase accordingly.Stewie3128 (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Federal Reserve: illegal, counterfeiting money ?

Why does the article not explain his rather remarkable viewpoint that the Fed would be illegal? [3]

• Did you discuss this already? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's the prohibition of gold money that is illegal according to Article I Section 8 Clauses 5 and 6, and Section 10 Clause 1. Check for yourself. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Do so. You'll find that JLMadrigal isn't being 100% straight here. Section 8 says nothing whatsoever about the subject, and Section 10 only says that states can't use anything but gold or silver for paying their debts. So the Section 10 cite is iffy, but the Section 8 one is completely fake. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

C'mon; let's assume a little good faith here, Lisa! I'm assuming Madrigal is referring to Article I, Section 8 (Powers of Congress), the fifth and sixth clauses (not formally numbered), which read, *To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;" By his idiosyncratic interpretation that means the feds can't prohibit the use of gold as money. That's different from my reading, but it's not fake! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

But it is. There's no interpretation that makes those clauses say anything at all about gold. Particularly when Section 10 mentions gold explicitly. Look, I think the Fed is horrible and should be done away with. But making false claims isn't going to help that to happen. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A little common sense, please. If states are required to make their payments in gold money (which they don't), then gold money cannot be prohibited. Article I Section 8 Clauses 5 and 6 show that the federal government MAY coin money (which it doesn't), but it doesn't give it a monopoly on coinage. Dr. Paul would like to put competitive pressure on the private FED bank, by removing it's unlawful monopoly. His executive power would allow him to do this immediately, because it is already the supreme law of the land (AKA Constitutionally prescribed). JLMadrigal (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about Ron Paul's life, not the legality of the central bank. Bring your speculation and original research elsewhere. ~ UBeR (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"speculation and original research" You obviously don't know what your are talking about. The FED is no more federal then "federal express" the central world banks are putting this country in the shitter, wake up! --Duchamps_comb MFA 00:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

CRITICISMS KEEP DISAPPEARING?!

Why are Ron Paul vandals permitted to habitually censor and delete criticism?

Why are criticisms and critiques deleted without trace?

Here's a few pointers Wiki "editors" might begin with; and balance out this one-sided Wiki "love-piece" propaganda as it presently is. In short, a complete misuse of Wiki!

Ron Paul's connections with bigots and they with him:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-berlet/ron-paul-and-the-bigots-_b_80985.html

Ron Paul's history with racism, racists, bigotry and gay-bashing:

http://www.ohdave.net/2008/01/ron-paul-bigot.html

Connections to with Right Wing agendas, fascist-style conspiracism:

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2008/01/ron-paul-nut-bigot-or-both.html

Ron Paul as embittered ideologue; venomous screeds for fellow Americans:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

Ron Pauls "moral equivalence" --failure to condemn terrorists and their sadistic acts:

http://njdc.typepad.com/njdcs_blog/2006/08/mckinneys_out.html

How Ron Paul exploited "racist, homophobic, paranoid bile" for profit:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/16/ron-paul-round-up.aspx

Rational Libertarians reject the bigotry and question Ron Paul's claims, authenticity and sincerity:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/124426.html

Ron Paul and the IRS

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/search?q=ron+paul

Ron Paul's Real Voting and Congress Record

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.49.83 (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello new user, may I suggest an account first of all. Second, there are serious problems with your sources, not only with per WP:RS but also WP:BIO. Blogs are already poor sources to use; to use them as criticism would be intellectual suicide. ~ UBeR (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

While it's true we can't use blogs as primary sources, they can be a very useful resource for further research (by us). It's possible to find sounder publications by use of these blogs. We should keep these links around on this talk page to see if they can be useful later. —msikma (user, talk) 21:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: by the way, if you see someone removing criticism, feel free to let it be known, just like you have now. We can immediately do something about it if you detail exactly what was removed and why this removal should be reverted. —msikma (user, talk) 21:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "pointers" from our guest per WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, which also applies to Talk pages. Terjen (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Terjen, WP:BLP is a policy with the purpose of preventing poorly sourced biographic text from being included in articles (and talk pages). It does not, and should not, however, prevent us from linking to blog articles on a talk page. A link to a site for the purpose of discussing this article does not equal "encyclopedic material". Besides, these pages may very well be based on truth, despite not sourcing the material in the appropriate way. Please remember that few bloggers actually use the scholarly reference style that we use here at Wikipedia. —msikma (user, talk) 07:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a "discussion" page. You have no right to incessantly censor and remove material contributing to that discussion just becuase it does not satiate your prejudices, as a Ron Paul groupie.

Grow up. And stop obsessively vandalising critical discussion here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.49.83 (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP. Making spurious claims against a living person and/or using blog postings to support yourself is not tolerated anywhere on Wikipedia. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You are removing anti-Paul material from this discussion page because it supposedly violates WP:BLP. However, these are just links to material which you haven't even proven to be needlessly biased or even defamatory. This (discussion) page does not even contain the material—only links to it. Please do not remove these links for the sake of preventing others from using them to add in criticism of Ron Paul; there has been a concerted effort by some of the contributors to keep this article free from criticism as much as possible, and the removal of these links seems to be part of it. I strongly disagree with that. —msikma (user, talk) 20:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, saying things like "Ron Paul as embittered ideologue; venomous screeds for fellow Americans" is rather contentious and blatantly in violation of WP:BLP. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But there are many publications that write about him in a very contentious way. The articles that detail everything Ron Paul wrote in his newsletters, which we are already using as reference in this article, for example. So just the fact that an article is vocally in strong disagreement with Ron Paul should not matter. I think the problem is rather that the links that were given are not valid sources. But there is still a strong difference between keeping around a few links on a talk page and actually quoting material in an article and using the links as reference. Let's face at least that. I strongly believe that you'd rather not see any kind of criticism of Ron Paul creep up in this article; you are a pronounced Ron Paul supporter, after all. —msikma (user, talk) 07:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What is ultimately important is the factual nature of the allegations and how genuine editors can use that material to reflect a balanced view of Ron Paul rather than this sickeningly, one-sided and distorted propaganda "love piece."

If needed, the minutia of the written presentation can be ironed out progressively, by experienced editors rather than this overt vandal "UBeR" obsessively censoring valid, credible and verifiable material.

However, the fixated and compulsive Ron Paul groupie "UBeR" is vandalizing, censoring, and deleting critique and criticism yet again attempting to deprive objective editors of critical material to work with.

In his vandalizing and censoring of criticism of his political messiah Ron Paul, this "UBeR" Ron Paul groupie, also peddles blatant falsehood.

Not all of the sources are any old "Blogs" as he or she, attempts to misinform and obfuscate.

The political writer Chip Berlet for instance, has a Wikipedia entry and is a reputable source with an established history of credible political reporting and analysis.

So does The New Republic from whence came revelations of Ron Paul's bigoted, homophobic, racist letters; and the use of such tactics to solicit money from extremists.

The evidence is even in Ron Paul's own handwriting! [4]

The Ron Paul groupie "UBeR" seeks to suppress Ron Paul's own handwritten material from evidence, readership, and Wiki editorial scrutiny and database.

In fact, most of the links deal with what Ron Paul has himself publicly written, asserted and examines [actual R.P. links provided] his actual public, political voting record.

The Ron Paul "UBeR" groupie is afraid of the evidence because it gives a deeper and more balanced insight into the type of psychological profile, personal and political personage, that Ron Paul truly is. An extremely flawed human being and political-machine apparatchik.

Group-think groupies blindly adore their gurus, pop icons, popes and political messiahs which one day, should the groupie ever mature; they will realize such feelings are associated with crack heads and more frequently, the opiate and anodyne of infantile human illusion.

We ask that "UBeR" please stop the suppression of facts; cease the fixated, childish censorship and serial vandalisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.6.84 (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous guest, UBeR has followed WP policy, you have not. Please stop the personal attacks. Terjen (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewording his "oppositions"

I'm not a huge fan of politics, but I decided to read up on Ron Paul. Generally I've been told he's a nice, pro-life guy. (relatives knew him) Anyways, the way these views are stated seem to be somewhat bias. I just feel these views should be elaborated to a point that they reflect his actual views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.38.230 (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you elaborate more please? ~ UBeR (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

He's saying that the article is biased. I guess he should have elaborated a bit more, but it doesn't exactly take a scientist to point out where this article goes much too easy on him (e.g. almost everywhere). —msikma (user, talk) 07:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No criticism section

This article has no section for criticism. It is important that we add criticism for his actions along every stage of his career in one section.--24.97.82.65 (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to add in information about this man, as there are many people who (sometimes strongly) support Ron Paul. Many people are watching the article and removing criticism, as we've seen plenty of times now. You can scream all you want, but it's simply very difficult to do anything about this. It takes a league of editors who are willing to work hard on this article if one wants to balance it out. I agree that at this moment, the article is strongly biased, and needs significant work—I personally would like to wait until after Ron Paul steps down as a candidate, as then the activity will have died down a little. —msikma (user, talk) 20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It will not be much longer now, his voter turnout are so low it's almost funny compare to the amount of "support" he get online. 24.222.16.170 (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes. It's "almost" funny that Dr. Paul is only talked about through the interactive narrowcast real-world media. Many unfortunate have-nots still haven't had the fortune of meeting their champion. Those sheep who are stuck behind the ol' talk-box will never know what hit 'em. Nyuk nyuk. They'll vote as they're told. JLMadrigal (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you please dial it down a bit, JLMadrigal? Thanks. Bartleby (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)