Talk:Ron Paul/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Views on Race 

message: 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)
thread_title: District and Contact information

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Page unprotection 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reprotect 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ban on date rape drugs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent changes to Ron Paul article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Fleet of foot" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revert wars 

message: Very interesting congressman deserves an interesting article. Here it is. Ijijujijijijijijijijjijjj 14:38, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on new version

message: 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)
replies: text: Vandalism? I don't think it qualifies. Protection may have been warranted but not due to vandalism. Condilee 18:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Reprotected 

message: 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)
replies: text: Okay. What changes to the article should be made to reflect that? -- Infrogmation 20:40, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's my original diff. RadicalSubversiv E 20:52, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one objects to this, then? I'll change the article if not. -- Infrogmation 22:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, I think the original diff was an improvement. - Nat Krause 05:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Republican vs. Libertarian 

message: 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" , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Views contrary to the Libertarian platform 

message: 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)
thread_title: Chronicle article includes quote

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sheesh 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "long-time congressman" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Present tense? 

message: Using the link about the publication () 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)
thread_title:  My Change 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  iraq war opposition section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  CAFTA 

message: 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!!!      
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)
thread_title:  Clarity Needed 

message: On the Bush impeachment page, I tried to include Ron Paul, but someone deleted because of the www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/100706impeachbush.htm 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)
replies: text: I second that.Terjen 19:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impeachment 

message: :"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)
thread_title:  2004 LP Convention 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Voting Record Correction 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Got the citation. It's up.--Zombiema7 09:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidacy Announcement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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.  --Kalmia 21:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of citation 

message: 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:
* His exploratory tour around New Hampshire and his attendence at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum at February 24
* Information about his announcement on C-SPAN at March 12.
* His signing of the 'American Freedom Agenda' Pledge at March 20
* He has accepted to be debating Nancy Reagen in May and to be one of the debators in the first New Hampshire presidential debates in June.
Among other things shall be presented in the article. Lord Metroid 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  Campaign article creation? 

message: 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)
thread_title: article's sections

message: "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)
thread_title:  Lack of Citations in the Introduction