Talk:Ron Paul

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

Where is the criticism section?

Wow, this page is really biased (as said below). It doesn't mention he's a raving nutcase, it's poorly written, and totally not NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.221.206 (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so it's not NPOV? I see. And what makes you think "He's a raving nutcase" is NPOV? Ericster08 (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This page on Paul is way biased. Paul can't be called a libertarian, nor can he be called an honest politician in a sea of dishonest politicians.

How is it biased? The honest part is (and yes I know this is odd) factually proven by stated stances actually matching the voting record, I believe this is stated in the article. He IS actually a libretarian; he ran as libretarin in the presidential campaign of 198...8, was it? But whatever year it was, it was on the libretarian ticket, and even though he has stated he is Republican, many people, supporters and non (the latter group often disliking libretarians; saying "libretain" is a biased opinion is actually being biased against libretarians). And there is a criticsms section, which mentioned people calling him crazy (in a more heated way).Rayvn (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul missed the FISA reauthorization vote: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-437

He voted against sending aid to New Orleans (claiming libertarian values of small federal gov't): http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=16191&can_id=296 , yet voted for funding various projects in his own district with federal funds http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8Q0K7EO1.html

He said he favored impeachment of Bush (http://www.infowars.com/articles/bush/impeach_bush_over_north_american_union_agenda_ron_paul.htm) but then he voted to table the issue, justifying his stance by saying there "wasn't evidence for it": http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/67308/why_did_ron_paul_vote_against_impeachment/

Paul has said he opposes the Afghan war (http://www.counterpunch.org/paul2.html), yet he voted for it http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2001-342

Paul posed with the white supremacist leaders of Stormfront: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28353_Ron_Pauls_Photo-Op_with_Stormfront

Paul held a large convention on August 2, 2008. One invited speaker was John McManus of the John Birch Society (a white supremacist group).

He says there should be no separation of church and state and the founders wanted us to be an expressly Christian nation: http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/08/06/authoritarian-or-libertarian-ron-paul-on-churchstate-separation-secularism.htm

As a Christian, he co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, to prevent the courts from considering constitutional appeals against the Defense of Marriage Act which financially penalizes gay couples. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h108-3313

He said he wants abortion to be a state issue (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html) but then he co-sponsored a federal partial-birth abortion ban (not very libertarian of him): http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h108-760

--Joelrosenblum (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable sources above. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you didn't read any of those pages, because they all cite reliable sources. But for your benefit and that of others, I've updated and added links which are more direct on each issue. Also found him posing with some nazis.--Joelrosenblum (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Posing with some Nazis"? Oh come on. Anyone who goes to a fundraising event has even odds of getting a picture with the guest of honor. Here he is posing with a Korean woman: Image:RonPaul-June07-NHdebate.jpg. He must be an ally of Kim Jong-il! DickClarkMises (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, posing with Nazis. Specifically he's posing with the owner of stormfront and the owner's son, stormfront is a popular racist website, and those guys endorsed Ron Paul. Posing with a Korean woman is not the same as posing with a leading white supremacist, and the mere fact that you assert any Korean is the same as Kim Jong-il makes you sound like a racist yourself. It is possible that the stormfront people didn't tell him who they were, so yeah, it's one of the weaker points about Ron Paul, though he did know that stormfront had donated to him and supported him, and I don't think he refused their support. Oh, and the fact that he invited the John Birch Society to speak at his huge convention today is more evidence of his racism. Joelrosenblum (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)--Joelrosenblum (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Now lets examine some of your claims.

Claim A: Ron Paul was running for president at that point in time. If you do not remember. He returned to the hill to vote quite often during that time. But that particular voting instance if you remember was infamous as a suprise vote; sprung onto the Democrats at the last second. Ron Paul neither knew, nor had any indication that vote was going to happen that day.

Claim B: Ron Paul has explained this many times: even on Meet The Press with the late Tim Russert. He did not vote on that bill, he, and more specifically his aides who have a open book policy on those kind of things: inserted those earmarks. But he did not vote for the bill. There is a further explanation from Ron Paul in the Meet The Press interview.

Claim C: Frankly, I don't have evidence that shows he voted against these measures. InfoWars and Alternet are hardly Evidence or Trustworthy Sources

Claim D: Ron Paul opposes Nation Building. He's explained this quite thoroughly. He was for going into Afghanistan to stop Bin Laden. But against spending billions of taxpayers dollars to rebuild the country.

Claim E: Guilty by Association? Pitiful at best. This reminds me of when Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton attack Obama for some coincidence that he bought his house on the same day as Tony Rezko. Then the next day a picture of Hillary Clinton and Bill standing with Rezko appeared. At political rallies and event frankly anyone can take their picture with them. These figures are not very well known outside their circle. Ron Paul most likely did not know they were racists. Althought it is true that racists support Ron Paul. He is a avowed defender of their rights just as much as every other americans.

Claim F: The John Birch Society is not a White Supremacist group. Not even close.

Claim G: Yes Ron Paul is very much a christian, and usually when he speaks like that he's talking about state level goverment. There is a very big difference for him between state and federal goverment.

Claim H: Looking at the wording of the piece; its most likely Ron Paul was against States being forced by the Federal Goverment to recognize Marriages from other States. But he was against the constitutional amendment that banned marriage that was in the text of the MPA.

Claim I: Yes, Ron Paul has a specific statement on his congressional site adressing the issue. I reccomend you look it up. He is very much pro choice despite beleiving it should be a state issue. And he will often vote for pro-life measures because he does happen to beleive abortion is murder. Taking a bigger look at your implication. There are no specific stances within the libertarian community on Abortion. And the feeling are split down the middle very much. --Electronicmaji (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

LoL, I'm so sick of these demented demagogues that don't explore the issues before slandering Ron Paul. OH he voted against Katrina, why don't you read where he wanted the money to go, here is a quote:

"Considering the demonstrated ineptitude of government on both the federal and state level in this disaster, the people affected by the hurricane and subsequent flood would no doubt be better off if relief money simply was sent directly to them or to community organizations dedicated to clean-up and reconstruction. Indeed, we have seen numerous troubling examples of private organizations and individuals attempting to help their fellow Americans in so many ways over the last ten days, only to be turned back by FEMA or held up for days by government red tape. We have seen in previous disasters how individuals and non-governmental organizations were often among the first to pitch in and help their neighbors and fellow citizens. Now, FEMA is sending these good Samaritans a troubling message: stay away, let us handle it."

Was he right? We know how FEMA performed, the money should be locally distributed. And btw, when his district was hit with the recent hurricaine he voted against FEMA aid too. You lose. This article is fair and he's earned to have a decent wikipedia page. Go jerk off to the encyclopedia dramatica article on him if you want to see bashing points. And he didn't author the newsletters, he's not a racist, that's why you see him on Wolf Blitzer long after he broke that old and gone controversy, and why media always asks his opinion. Why there is no quote of him ever saying anything racist in person. You fail.

::::: Agreed, this ought to be NPOV flagged, too many ron paul supporters on wikipedia to maintain neutral articles.Icarus999 (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Puff piece much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.115.94 (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You don't mention anything that is fallacious in the content, or where it's supposedly not nuanced or has unreliable sources. To you it's a "puff piece" because it doesn't incorporate a few controversies that have died away a long time ago and that havn't stuck. Please, illustrate where in this article there is not valid and researched information or admit you are calling it a puff piece because it doesn't have a racist charge. By the way, go look at Obama's wikipedia page. There is no "controversy section" on his loony pastor, or connections with that building developer in Chicago, etc. Does an article become an instant "puff piece" because it focuses at the biography and positions of a candidate? No. The wikipedia pages should be clean from controversies that are flimsy, and that's all they are. Long gone. What's funny is this Icarus999 really showed his lacking neutral sentiments, practically calling for a purge even though the article is well within TOS and multi-sourced. And that other random person can go channel his vendettas to slum pages like encyclopedia dramatica as I stated above lol.

John Birch Society

While I personally wouldn't want to be associated with the John Birch Society, known for far-fetched conspiracy theories about the influence of shadowy world Communist organizations, Joelrosenblum's characterization of them as "white supremacist" and "more evidence of [Paul's] racism" cannot go unchallenged. Oh, there are probably racists in the JBS, formerly including one of their founding members, Revilo P. Oliver, who split from the JBS possibly largely on this issue. But I see no evidence that the organization as a whole is racist. It's always been my understanding that they've steered well clear of that. --Trovatore (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Why isn't he on a respective religion category? I usually check the categories and didn't see one there, and the article states he's a baptist? 68.205.231.242 (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL

I'm aware that exciting things may be coming up for Ron Paul, however until they come to pass, it isn't proper to include them in a Wikipedia article. That's essentially what WP:CRYSTAL is all about. —  X  S  G  07:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Bob Barr offers Paul VP position

Announcement's on Bob Barr's website. You can even view the letter there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.103.108 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

now

RP would commit suicide if he is paying attention to what is going on now with the federal reserve, inflation and huge levels of regulation and beurocracy.

( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.82.39 (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

... Jason (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he seems to be quite on top of it and is all over the media. See e.g. this interview. Terjen (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be mindful that this page is for discussion of improvements to the article, not a forum on Ron Paul. Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Separation of Church and State

Why is there no mention of Paul's controversial position on the separation of church and state? --76.243.208.110 (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? Secondly, a political position can't really be controversial, only controversial to the other side of the argument.--Gloriamarie (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

---So a position to allow NAMBLA free access to children wouldn't be controversial? Not to say that's what Ron Paul stands for, but an issue is controversial is the majority of the population agrees with it.