Talk:Ron Paul
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? âThe 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. âThe 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)