Talk:Ron Paul

Archive

• October 2004 - November 2004
• November 2004 - December 2004

I don't see the racism

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".

Okay, so it addresses statistics regarding African Americans being arrested for crimes; however, can you confidently rule out the possibility that this was referring to how many African Americans are arrested for victimless, nonviolent crimes on trumped-up drug posession charges by an overzealous police force? Consenting adult American citizens, especially minorities who are often profiled and targeted by police moralism, being locked up for "crimes" that harm nobody else is, in fact, an issue Libertarians take heart to.

I can see the article using "criminal" in a facetious tone. Regardless of whether or not Ron Paul wrote it, I'm still skeptical of the claim that there was a definitive racist or even hateful undertone to this oft-mentioned article clipping. I can see, though, how it could be interpreted the wrong way. --I run like a Welshman 23:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Perhaps the quotes can be interpreted that way (in which case, they should be changed), but the article was definitely racist. -- Scott $e^{i\pi }\,\!$ 08:37, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Ron Paul often has warned of the dangers of arresting people for victimless crimes. It seems clear that this article used the word "criminal" in a facetious tone. Just as if he had found a hypothetical statistic that 95% of soccer moms had at some point in the their life received a parking ticket and then said facetiously "I think we can safely assume that 95% of soccer moms are scofflaws" as a way of ridiculing the use of parking tickets to generate revenue for government bloat. To then say that he is biased against soccer moms is just silly. This should be removed from the article. Accusing someone of racism based on nothing more than this seems criminally POV. I use the word "criminally" here facetiously, of course. M Carling 09:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV, racism, and reporting all the facts

This is becoming absurd. The only POV here is Wikipedia's ongoing and severe systemic bias in favor of libertarian politics. (Does anybody ever get away with trying to remove controversial allegations towards Yasser Arafat with next-to-no explanation?) For a while, the argument was that the quotes might be fake -- now we have three different reliable sources. Now libertarians are appearing out of the woodwork to invent a less-racist context for the quotes without offering any sources whatsoever. Note that when Paul himself as asked about it by a major daily newspaper, the only context he offered was "current events and statistical reports of the time." If sarcasm was his intent, why didn't he say so?

It's not our job to make judgements about Ron Paul. Whether he's a lone heroic defender of constitutional restraints on government tyranny (which isn't that far from what the article said before the edit warring started) or a racist bigot is a matter for readers to decide. However, it is our job to arm them with all the facts, which includes reporting on noteworthy controversies and allegations, a category this clearly falls into. Moreover, we must report the substance and context of the controversy, which is that Paul has repeatedly been accused of racism.

I'm more than happy to work towards consensus here, but I will not simply sit by and allow the article to be white-washed because Paul is a sacred cow for so many libertarians. RadicalSubversiv E

I removed the sentence reading "He is not known to have supported racist views at any time" because it strongly implies that the remarks made in that very paragraph are not racist, which is exactly what he's been accused of. At the same time, the language about "racially offensive" implied that was an absolute fact, rather than an allegation. I have attempted to offer more NPOV replacements for both. RadicalSubversiv E 20:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• It looks pretty good, but the phrase "similarly controversial remarks" is a little weird. It could be interpreted to mean that he doesn't make controversial remarks at all, which is not at all true. It should be clear that the remarks were controversial because they were about race. -- Scott $e^{i\pi }\,\!$ 22:24, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, but I'm not coming up with a better way to phrase it off-hand. Suggestions? RadicalSubversiv E 07:41, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He didn't say anything about African-Americans, an idiot on his staff did in one of his newsletters twelve years ago. I have deleted the whole reference to him making similar or further remarks, it's unencyclopedic to tag him racist without explaining who is accusing him of it, why they are accusing and what the basis of their attack is. Libertas

My changes were deleted so I undeleted them. Is that OK? Libertas

Not without providing some explanation it isn't. Especially when you're a sockpuppet. RadicalSubversiv E 08:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That whole section is an obvious attempt at character assassination and nothing else, even if it is factually true. This pretense that it needs to be included for a NPOV is laughable. Actually, considering the obvious hate for the man and his principles, it is quite a testament to his character that the best the haters can come up with is "once in 1992 an aide of his wrote something that while trying to be smartass/funny came off as pretty ignorant and racist, hence Ron Paul is Evil and Racist(tm) QED".

Chuck's latest reverts

Chuck has just reverted numerous changes to the article, but has offered explanations for only two. I believe his explanations are inadequate, but I'm moving both quotes here as a show of good faith, for further discussion.

First, he removed "He has even voted against a federal ban on GHB, a date rape drug, on the grounds of its unconstitutionality." Chuck maintains that this should be presented as part of Paul's broader opposition to the drug war. I would have no problem with that, but it's not cause to remove accurate information. Chuck, for once, why don't you consider adding to information you want better context for, instead of removing it outright?

Next, he removed "In another article titled 'Terrorist Update,' the report declared 'If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.'" It's true that we've had discussion of this on talk before, but I continue to not understand why a properly-sourced, controversial quote from the newsletter shouldn't be included in that section.

RadicalSubversiv E 21:41, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First of all I am not chuck. In fact I put in the GHB reference which I think proves how highly principled a congressman Ron Paul has proven to be. The popular and easy thing to do was to vote for the ban, a no-brainer. But the fact is the constitution as written by our Founding Fathers does not permit such bans, no matter how worthy or essential. The states properly ought to retain and at their discretion exercise this power. I certainly agree it should stay in.

On the other one, I think it is very important to distinguish between the congressman and his staff. Perhaps the paragraph should be redrafted to make this especially clear. I don't think these views are racist, they are honest. But Ron Paul never said it and it should be clarified. Libertas

I am going to restore these two setences in the next few days if Chuck doesn't join this discussion. RadicalSubversiv E 04:49, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also propose to restore my changes too unless there is objection here, these include:

• Restoring to second paragraph a highly important explanation of Ron Paul's principled independence from GOP leadership and also the questions with his staff with the quote:

Ron Paul's Legislative Director in 2004 described President Bush as a "domestic socialist" and "war-monger" and has accused the GOP congressional leadership of engaging in trickery and deceit.

• Use of term medical practice rather than private practice which is not as clear
• Reinstating clearer header

Ron Paul's Newsletter Attracts Controversy Over Racial Claims

Libertas

Question: Was Ron Paul initially elected as a Republican in 1976? The article infers that he wasn't but I couldn't find out for sure.

Libertas

Campaign contributions

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

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: [1]. 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

Austin Chronicle

Need to add that the Austin Chronicle has taken a much more sympathetic view of Ron Paul after 9/11 in view of his opposition to the war on terror and the PATRIOT act. Also probably need an article on the Austin Chronicle.

"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)

Contrast on 9/11

Libertas has now contributed three different sentences contrasting Paul's views on 9/11 with some imaginary mainstream:

1. "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."
2. "The mainstream Republican and Democrat position is that Osama bin Laden's hatred of American pluralism and freedom prompted the attacks."
3. "Critics reject this reasoning, saying it is code for justifying the attacks on the basis of American support for Israel. In other contexts, Paul has made no secret of his opposition to Israel."

In addition to being somewhat contradictory, each is inappropriate, POV, and inflammatory enough as to require citations for these supposed views. Taking them one by one:

1. Is simply absurd, as even Libertas appears to recognize (see above).
2. Implies a mainstream bipartisan position which does not exist and is not cited
3. Invents "critics" making a very specific criticism of Paul's comments, without offering a citation of any such critics. In addition, it states that Paul opposes Israel, rather than U.S. policy in support of Israel.

I find all three unacceptable. RadicalSubversiv E 04:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Paul's quote is about cause, while Giuliani's quote is about justification; they are not the same thing. 9/11 can be said to have been caused by US policy without implying that 9/11 was justified by US policy. Giuliani was not commenting on Paul's statement and his quote is thus irrelevant. — Davenbelle 19:33, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

my removals

First off I don't see why that 25,000 thing is encylopedic, nor what his legalstive director called bush, you are putting in so many just random triva's that don't seem to be encylopedic at all. Aka this page looks like it's turning more into a statments paul have made that could be taken as being a bit different from mainstream, rather then an enecylopedica entry on a person Chuck F 08:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This does not qualify as a specific explanation for your removals of content, as far as I'm concerned RadicalSubversiv E 08:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't be silly, if that info is fine, then I'm just going to go and listen to limbaugh or some other talk show host, and start quoteting every single thing he says every mintue as an info on him in the enclyopedia. anyway onto more points here 1. the legalastive director is not him, this has not been a newsworthy event it has no real purpose here, it's like me going and starting to add things that Dick morris said to the Clinton article 2. the others seem sepfically npov editons to make him seem worse, and are really taken out of context, but in context they wouldn't be encylopedic at all.

Chuck F 08:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1) In many ways, congressional staff are the eyes, ears, and mouths of their member. The comments you removed are particularly unusual ones to be coming from staff, and seem notable for the article. If Dick Morris said notable things about Bill Clinton that will help inform the reader about the subject, please add them. 2) is so ungrammatical I can't figure out what you're saying. RadicalSubversiv E 08:52, 3 Jan 2005 (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)

Income tax

While I am here. the phrase caught my eye:

He believes in the complete abolition of income tax,

I am not an ecomomist, and I may be wrong, but I always thought that taxes are the main source of financing the state, the income tax delivering the bulk of it. If I am correct, then the article must explain how he suggests to finance the state (or trim the bureaucracy, or he is an anarchist, whatever). Otherwise he doesn't look smart. Sorry for intervention into not my business. Mikkalai 22:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The argument is generally that the size of the federal government should be drastically reduced, so as to be closer to what it looked like in the 19th century, when there was no income tax. Usually omitted is the fact that the federal government then was primarily funded through protectionist tariffs, which libertarians are also opposed to. RadicalSubversiv E 00:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Libertarians draw a distinction between protectionist tariffs which unfairly inhibit foreign competition, and uniformly-applied customs duties, collected for the sole purpose of funding the necessary, constitutional functions of the Federal Government. These taxes are considered preferrable to income taxes, since they don't require the federal government to invade the privacy of individual citizens.

Mikkalai, you are very welcome to comment and are probably right. It's just positioning really, I don't think the Congressman is seriously expecting the abolition of the IRS or taxes. But it's a helpful perspective I think to help us think about the size of government and its over-reaching.

Libertas

To Mikkalai, There have been over 200 communist and socialist groups in America since 1880. Since that time they have tried to force an income tax on America. Eight times was the law about instituting an income tax struck down by the Constitutionalists sitting on the U. S. Supreme Court. Where did these communist and Socialist groups get their idea of an income tax? From the Communist Manifesto which called for a graduated income tax. The Federal Government was first to be supported by taxes on Imports. But since we live in a Communist Free Trade, that goes and in 1913, the Income Tax was finally passed by a Constitutional ammendment. So there, We now follow the communist manifesto and not the document our Founding Fathers started. WHEELER 14:45, 11 Feb 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 ([2]) 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)