Talk:Ron Paul

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I removed the following link:

I don't think a blog that criticizes a libertarian because he's not a conservative is a very relevant source for an encyclopedia article. If you absolutely think it's necessary, at least place it after the official Ron Paul sites. Jazzman831 14:33, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Running against Paul

How can Dondero be running against Paul for Congress, if Paul is running not for Congress but for President? Pandeism 17:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Err? I did some research about it. I couldn't really find much about it, but I did find this. As far as I can tell, he's going to run against Paul in D14 if Paul drops out of the primary race and runs for Congress again? That's as good a guess as I can figure. Jazzman831 18:25, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
He's running for both president and congress. Many politicians do so. It's not a conflict because the presidential election process tends to give you a pretty good idea pretty early on if you're going to get your party's nomination, and as such would still have several months to organize your congressional campaign if your presidential campaign falls through. And he has done a little campaigning in Texas, if I'm not mistaken. Warhawk 10:53, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
Thank you! That's what I figured, but he obviously is only talking about the Presidential race right now. Thanks for clarifying it for us. Jazzman831 10:58, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives against Ron Paul link

On the Mitt Romney article there is a "conservatives against Romney link." So why can't there be a conservatives against Ron Paul link here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chippeterson (talk)

See above for why I removed it. There is nothing wrong with links of conservatives who are against Ron Paul, though I will reiterate that the specific site you chose isn't a great one. (Thanks for putting it below the official links though). That site's main concern with Ron Paul is that he is not a conservative; but he never pretends to be a conservative. That would be like me placing a site on Barack Obama's page complaining that he's not a conservative. I left the link up anyway, but I wouldn't mind keeping it only as a placeholder until we find a better one. Jazzman831 18:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
Oh man I just took another look at the site. What I thought was the first page of posts was in fact the only page of posts. And if the name gives us a clue, it's your own site, Chippeterson. I now think there's no reason to keep this on an encyclopedia article. Feel free to find a more established blog, or better yet a news source or something to that effect. Jazzman831 18:22, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

If somebody really wanted to post something against Ron Paul, they could post this. [1] I'm not saying I agree with all this; I disagree with this author's opinion on an Iraq pullout, but this would be more "legitimate". DanH 18:25, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I would also like to go on record as supporting the removal of the aforementioned blog. DanH 18:27, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

It's much more then just one page. On top of the blog you find pages about Ron Paul's voting record and how it differs from what he says his political views are. It should have stayed on and I would put it back up if I thought it wouldn't result in me be being blocked from writing here on conservapedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chippeterson (talk)

Ah you are correct, I didn't see those tabs at the top. Still, there are only 6 posts to the blog (it is correct to say it's your personal blog, right?). It's not the content that makes me feel this is an unacceptable source, but the authority. The blog's only two days old and it has 0 comments. It also has no credited author. I'm sure you would like your blog to be on here, but it just isn't right for an encyclopedia. (Also, it doesn't bother me, but some people around here get miffed if you don't sign your post. You can do this by typing ~~~~.) Jazzman831 21:55, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

I think that this article should mention that Ron Paul is a traditional conservative, as opposed to a neo-conservative. anticommie


Since this is now protected, could someone please dewikilink the dates? Thanks. JazzMan 23:49, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Introducing new legislation

Is there any evidence to support the claim that Ron Paul introduced lots of legislation "probably more than any other single member of Congress." Seems like speculation to me. TRipp 15:06, 16 December 2007 (EST)


I'm not comfortable calling Ron Paul a "libertarian". He left the Libertarian Party over a decade ago and has been serving in Congress as a conservative Republican. His voting record is 100% conservative and he does not endorse libertarian positions such as legalized drugs. Why should be be called a "libertarian"?--Aschlafly 18:24, 30 December 2007 (EST)

He used to endorse the legalization of drugs, although he personally detests their use. [[2]] -- Jose83
"Used to" means he doesn't anymore, which is why I said a "former libertarian."--Aschlafly 18:34, 30 December 2007 (EST)
It seems that he used to endorse legalization and still does today [3]. That Youtube clip only shows his views in 1988, and I don't think they've changed all that much. I think he (like me) is personally a conservative, but doesn't believe in the government pushing his personal views. u8
When asked why he's a libertarian running as a Republican he usually responds something to the effect of "I'm the only true conservative running." HelpJazz 17:45, 31 December 2007 (EST)

What a glowing article!

Why, you'd think it was directly from his own website(s). Why, in fact, you'd be right. See here and here. (Among other things, the "Congressional Record" list and the line about being "proud parents" were dead giveaways, particularly with their lack of citation.) A lot of this also appears to be copied from a defunct version of his Wikipedia article. I think Conservapedia can do a little better than this. Jinxmchue 15:18, 8 January 2008 (EST)

The article isn't locked. HelpJazz 15:35, 8 January 2008 (EST)
I know. I also know what will happen if I try to change anything. Jinxmchue 00:10, 9 January 2008 (EST)
(Sorry about the delay) What is it you think will happen? You are allowed to make factual, sourced edits. If you never had the intent of changing anything, then what's the point of complaining? HelpJazz 14:36, 10 January 2008 (EST)
What will happen is that even with factual, sourced, original edits, it will end up degenerating into an edit war with the Paul supporters. I don't want to get anywhere near that action. Jinxmchue 12:07, 11 January 2008 (EST)
I don't see the point in complaining if you know what's wrong and know how to fix it. If Paul reporters rever facts then they are in the wrong. What is it you want to post that's so controversial? HelpJazz 21:21, 11 January 2008 (EST)

I believe Ron Paul is technically actually more conservative than the mainstream conservatives as wanting to get rid of things like the federal resrerve, FBI, etc. and return much of the country to the way the country was when it was founded is conservatism. He also has a very old view of a less power to the federal government and more power to the states that was a big argument when the country was founded and then the argument eventually just went away and it seemed both democrats and republicans agreed on having an overly authoritative federal government. RobertBobkins 15:32, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Is Paul Conservative?

I think so.
1. Strict constitutionalist
2. Christian, pro life
3. Loves the second amendment
4. Dislikes govt spending NotALiberal 23:29, 31 January 2009 (EST)