Talk:Ron Paul

From RationalWiki

Just because Ron Paul respects the white supremacist/neo-nazi right to reedom of speech, doesnt meant that he is one! 12.75.66.251 14:16, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, thank the gods for that, right? CЯacke® 14:23, 17 November 2007 (EST)

yeah! Let's hear racial epithats uttered at poor black and jewish children on the way to school. Let Neo-Nazi groups protest about the Holocaust in front of the Washington Monument! Seriously, nobody else is honestly going to think their freedom of speech will be violated if their's is removed except for the libertarians (maybe the anarchists), and they are so out of touch with the world (the gold standard threw us into the Depression, idiots) that no one will honestly consider their opinions. Oh, and no sane person would vote for Paul. Being in the War is 1000 times better than living in his theocracy. ^{— Unsigned, by: sumdumgai / welcome this user / contribs}

Yeah, those crazy libertarians and the gold standard. Oh wait, also current chairman of the Fed Ben Bernanke. I always knew he was crazy. (And last time I checked, anonymousguywiththewritingstyleofafifthgrader, you are still allowed to have racist protests in the United States. Gasp! What kind of civilized society lets people say things?! Bring on the thought police please please please please please!) Lurker 23:54, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Personally, I think that any group that incites violence should not be allowed to speak. Encouraging genocide of other people is not only unproductive, it is counterproductive. BassoonsAreSexy 02:09, 7 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] Libertarian

Why are we saying he isn't a libertarian? Is this a big-l/small-l issue? Because he has run as a Libertarian in the past, and even though he now runs as a Republican, he's still pretty libertarian. Lurker 01:00, 20 November 2007 (EST)

He is VERY much in favor of additional government control at the local level, he is in favor of government control over marriage, he is in favor of government control over abortion, he is (IIRC) anti-free trade. Even if he ran as a libertarian before, he is not one now. As for Orwellian vs. Madisonian, it's Orwellian because it is against the understood meaning of the phrase. The phrase "We the People" stands for Constitutional values, and this is very anti-constitutional. Researcher 02:15, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Well said. human 02:31, 20 November 2007 (EST)

It would I suppose be safe to say that he's a Libertarian only at the Federal, and International level. Once one gets down to the State and Local level, I don't think there could really be much debate about which way he leans there. --Eira ^yay! 19:08, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Maybe it could be interpreted as a sort of wp:parochialism? As in, "the big government should stay the hell out of our affairs and leave us to run this place as we want." --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:16, 14 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] Recent anonymous edit/revert

I actually sympathize with the recent edit. It seemed to do a good job of explaining the man's positions without being nasty. Was there a reason for the full-scale revert? (I figure it's likely the editor should have posted it up here first.) Researcher 20:55, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Perhaps the trigger was pulled early as it was an anonymous IP and we have been having some vandalism......lets see what we ahve. tmtoulouse ^persecute 21:02, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Upon review I would say that there was a lot of content removed with the re-write. I think working through things a few points at a time would be better, assuming our ananoymous editor wishes to stick it out with us and work through the article. tmtoulouse ^persecute 21:03, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Sound fair to me. Researcher 21:04, 21 November 2007 (EST)

OK, who supports the old version? Elassint Throw things at me 21:09, 21 November 2007 (EST)

I have attempted to merge the two versions together to maximize the amount of information presented in the article. tmtoulouse ^persecute 21:13, 21 November 2007 (EST)

YAY! Elassint Throw things at me

[edit] woo master

this info should be integrated. tmtoulouse ^persecute 01:42, 2 January 2008 (EST)

[edit] Race cars go VROOM!

Okay I have been spending more time than is healthy (which is probably none) trolling RP supporters, and the ronpaulforums.com has been a wealth of entertainment. There are some great posts but this one had me really laughing.....this is the Ron Paul revolution in action: race cars!. It's this strange mix of immaturity, ignorance, whack job, testosterone bull shit that makes these people so fun! tmtoulouse ^persecute 14:12, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Hey! Not all Paulites are bad. I can't help it if 99% of them make the rest of us look bad. Lurker 02:37, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Er, your a Ron Paul fan then? tmtoulouse ^persecute 01:11, 29 January 2008 (EST)

That was funny, Lurker. human 11:10, 29 January 2008 (EST)

TMT: Yes. Human: Thanks. Lurker 17:58, 29 January 2008 (EST)

Per this ref, Paul supports school prayer.75.62.26.190 10:40, 15 February 2008 (EST)

   Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.

   To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.

   * Proposed Legislation:H.J.RES.52, School Prayer Amendment, 6/13/2001 (Murtha)
   * H.J.RES.12, School Prayer Amendment, 2/7/2001 (Emerson)
   * S.J.RES.1, School Prayer Amendment, 1/22/2001 (Thurmond)
   * H.J.RES.108, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 9/21/2000 (Graham)
   * H.J.RES.55, Voluntary School Prayer Amendment, 2/13/1997 (Stearnes, Hall, Watts)
   * H.J.RES.78, Amendment Restoring Religious Freedom, 5/8/1997 (Istook, et. al.)

I don't think you understand the difference between freedom to choose and cumpulsory atheism. I am an atheist by the way. MarcusCicero 12:07, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Perhaps you do not understand the situation such an ammendment would create for the one or two students in a class who are left out when the teacher leads the rest of the students (voluntarily) in a prayer for a religion to which they do not subscribe. Religion is best left out of government-sponsored activities. PoorEd 13:20, 15 February 2008 (EST)

First, from your edits there is a 99.87223% probability that you are not an atheist. Second, there is no "compulsory atheism", unless your religion makes you force your classmates to pray with you...then, yes, you should be compelled to pray silently like everyone else.162.82.215.199 13:58, 15 February 2008 (EST)