Talk:Ron Paul/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

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)

Ron Paul is a libertarian/conservative or a paleolibertarian. He isn't a paleoconservative. Just because he is part of the Republican Party, that doesn't mean he's truly conservative. Ron Paul supports gay marriage. Nashhinton (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what planet did you discover this information on? He is personally against gay marriage, supported the discriminatory DOMA, and is completely fine with states denying equal rights and benefits while they continue to define marriages. --16:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Paul and the "libertarians" in his wing are very much for enforcing "Christian morality" at the state and local level. He's for a smaller federal government, but also big state and local governments.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, I recognize that he's completely fine with discrimination of all sorts at the state level. He also is fine with it at the state level, once in a while: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR07955:@@@D&summ2=m&. Government just small enough to tell you what Ron Paul thinks is wrong with homosexuals. --ShadowofLords (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Very true. I would like to see a true Libertarian run some day.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Er, Gary Johnson? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

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 ^beleaguer 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 ^beleaguer 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 ^beleaguer 21:13, 21 November 2007 (EST)

YAY! Elassint Throw things at me

woo master

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

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 ^beleaguer 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 ^beleaguer 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)

“” Paul sponsored a resolution for a School Prayer Amendment: H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55: 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. H. J. RES. 78 (1997): 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)

Recent wandalism

Paulites perfoming a little revisionism to push truths down the memory hole? -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

yup. Тy^talk 19:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Something else I noticed. About the double billing thing.... http://www.optimiskeptic.com/2012/09/12/u-s-news-world-report-crew-blow-it-big-time/. Someone needs to check their sources. ^{— Unsigned, by: WhitestBoy20 / talk / contribs}

Irrelevant if true. The much bigger issue is the comments that follow about Paul being making his district a bunch of welfare queens.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What is this crap?

"There has been some controversy over support for Ron Paul by extremist groups, tax protesters, and neo-nazi organizations such as Stormfront."

I see how you guys are trying to smear Dr. Paul.

it won't work.

The US communist party endorsed Obama. ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.189.254.24 / talk / contribs}

A quick search for that and all I found was a bunch of right-wing blogs frothing at the mouth at the endorsement, mostly all referencing the same WND story. Got any references from the actual party? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 23:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) And that's bad because...?

And stop calling him "Dr." Ron Paul hasn't been a practicing doctor for 35 years. I doubt he can even legally practice medicine anymore. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The most terrifying part - he was an ob-gyn. Who would want him touching your girly parts?Godot I hate sluts 00:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

EC. Also, nothing like a career politician who rails against "the government." That's some credibility right there. What a colossal asshole libertarians are. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 00:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, he has consistently refused his government pension. He also refused to accept payments from Medicare and Medicaid when he was still practicing. I presume this had the added side benefit of weeding out the poor people from his care. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Rand Pauldroid, U MAD?

If you can't handle legitimate criticism of your glorious leader then don't bother posting here. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

EC I think the pension thing/personal gain is less relevant in the grander scheme of things; if he really believed that the State should be irrelevant, he should be out creating new alternatives to state power, not working within the structures that he argues are inherently unjust. Also, he should stop promising to criminalize abortion. Colossal asshole. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 00:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Have we ever talked about his infamous Sacha Baron Cohen encounter?

In Brüno. "He's a queer!" *runs away* Osaka Sun (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

How much is George Soros paying you?

LOL at this weak article.

It will not stop Dr. Paul from becoming president.

Stormfront is a website full of white supremacists and NAZIs. They only endorsed Dr. Paul because he does not want to give foreign aid to Israel.

Does that make Dr. Paul a NAZI?

Because he does not want to give foreign aid to Israel?

Also Dr. Paul is Paleoconservative. He was once part of the Libertarian party but not any longer. Moonshot926 (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Haven't heard that one in a while. Ty^{Bother me} 00:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

George Soros? Never heard of him. EVDebs (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's true, the ONLY reason Stormfront endorsed Ron Paul is because he might not want to give foreign aid to Israel. Also he publishes newsletters in his name with racist content and defended them personally up until 1996. Also his economic policies would be hugely detrimental to minorities. Also he would have voted against the civil rights act because he believes property rights are more important than human rights (the same reason he DID vote against renewing the voting rights act).

Seriously though... thank you for this. Hearing those same defenses being used on this site actually made me chuckle, and I much appreciated your humor. --ShadowofLords (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"The doctrine that 'human rights' are superior to 'property rights' simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others." ListenerX^TalkerX 03:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me you only quoted Atlas Shrugged ironically. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

^^ Please please please let it be sarcasm or irony. If 'human rights' are superior to 'property rights' then individuals cannot be held as property, as their human rights surpass the property rights of the individuals who would consider them property. In the same way, an individual's right to buy food for themselves at a locations open to the public surpasses the rights of the owner to the property to deny them access because of the color of the skin. --ShadowofLords (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I put it there for counterpoint; we have seen what happened when people got too carried away with denying property rights. Most of the libertarians who think property rights superior to human rights work from an axiom they call "self-ownership," by which one owns oneself and cannot be enslaved. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on my check from Dubya! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you quote-mined out the part about the relationship between "incompetents" and "their betters." Nothing like a little social hierarchy to make a philosophy a bit more appealing to the "betters," eh? ^{— Unsigned, by: P-Foster / talk / contribs}

Whinge all you want; it will not change the fact that the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent. Rand's error was in setting herself, or any human authority, up as judge and jury to determine who was competent and who was not; those designations are beyond the scope of human judgment. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If judging competency is beyond the scope of human judgment then how can we even know that competency exists at all? It seems to be a useless concept of competence if it can't be judged by anyone. --ShadowofLords (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ya' know, in addition to all the other massive errors she made. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC) When it comes to competence, it is difficult to nail down because the rules of the game are always changing, with a very large number of things to be competent at and a similarly large number of different ways to be competent at them. To cite a very simple example, the manuscript-copyists of medieval times were considered competent at producing copies of documents, but were blown away by the printing press. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul prevents Ron Paul from being the next president. -- Seth Peck (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Property rights are protected by the US constitution. Are they not? Am i wrong? Life, liberty and property? 24.189.254.24 (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that was just in a draft of the Declaration of Independence. They changed "property" to "pursuit of happiness." The Constitution just says that your property cannot be taken away without due process of law. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Dr. Paul is constitutionalist. The federal government has rapidly increased size over the past years. It all started by Woodrow Wilson with the federal reserve and income tax plus the Espionage Act of 1917 . And then with FDR and all his federal programs. These men have long been and war and have tricked the public with their utopian nonsense. Moonshot926 (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, Soros isn't paying all that much these days. If you'd like to just step this way... Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 05:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who claims to be "constitutionalist" is lying, and Ron Paul is a bigger liar than most. He doesn't support the Constitution at all; he wants to gut it and go back to the Articles of Confederation, or some facsimile thereof. And given his past history, it's almost certainly in the name of white supremacy, when it isn't just sheer contrariness. EVDebs (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

His primary influences were Austrian-school economists, not the KKK. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

FDR preventing the poor from starving to death is unconstitutional. UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, does anyone read our articles?

We've been more than critical of George Soros without going into conspiracy. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"FDR preventing the poor from starving to death is unconstitutional". Please explain what you mean by that?

There were major problems with the National Industrial Recovery Act(NRA) being unconstitutional. Small business owners felts disadvantages by big big business (big business had played a major role in drafting the NRA's production codes). Organized labor felt betrayed by the promise of the NRA when business formed company unions to keep out organized labor. There was also protest that the NRA allowed for discriminatory codes to be instituted. During Schecter V. United States the NRA was ruled unconstitutional.

There were also problems with the Agricultural Adjustment Act(AAA). The program hurt tenent farmers in the south. Cotton planters took federal money to remove land from production and then ordered the tenant farmers to leave. Black farmers were particularly hurt. The AAA displaced many black farmers. During United States V. Butler the AAA was ruled unconstitutional.

In 1937, FDR drafted a bill for Congress titled the "Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937," which became popularly known as the "Court-packing Plan," for Roosevelt's attempt to add as many as six new Justices to the Supreme Court.

Under the Constitution, Supreme Court justices can not be removed for disagreeing with the President. Nor do they have a mandatory retirement age.

Executive Order 6102 signed on April 5, 1933 made it illegal to own gold in the United States. He confiscated privately owned gold.

Yes, that was blatantly unconstitutional. It violated the right of THE PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

FDR's whole presidency was unconstitutional. Moonshot926 (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You may have a point with some of that, although a lot of it is exaggerated ("whole presidency was unconstitutional"?! ha!) But the problem with Ron Paul is that he holds a lot of policy positions that people hate. Some of his policies are very right-wing, and some are very left-wing. It makes him opposed by everyone. For example and generally speaking, his foreign policy is anathema to the right, while acceptable to the left - i.e. ending unconditional support for Israel. Contrariwise, his domestic policy is reprehensible to the left, but pretty okay with the right - i.e. being ardently pro-life and supporting constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage and abortion. Of course, people on the left oppose his policy to end all humanitarian foreign aid and people on the right are often uncomfortable with eliminating the barrier between church and state, so that's not a perfect division.

And of course, his policies are terrible in a wholly practical sense. Eliminating the EPA would ensure that the environment will get even worse a whole lot faster, and switching to a gold standard would be disastrous.

I can only be thankful that he stands less chance of becoming President than even Rick Perry.--^talk 12:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, we've got a gold bug. And I don't think we've ever agreed with the NRA or FDR's court-packing. See New Deal. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding same-sex marriage, Paul supported DOMA and said same-sex marriage at the federal level is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty." Yet he's also said that he supports the right for gay couples to marry (as long as they don't "impose" it on anyone). So his stance on same-sex marriage is kinda confusing. To me that caters more to the left. (I got this from Wikipedia, BTW) Sam ^Tally-ho! 23:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

WOW. That article on the New Deal was just biased and stupid. It is laughable to say the New Deal did anything to end the great deppresion. In fact, it made the deppresion last much longer. The United States had 50 recessions before the great deppresion. They all ended in less than 18 months without any government intervention. This includes the depression of 1920–21. The US unemployment rate in 1933 was 24.9% and the US unemployment rate in 1939 was 17.2%. The unemployment rate went down but it was still extremely high. After 6 years of the New Deal the US economy was still in the shitter. The high unemployment rate only ended with WW2 and was 4.7% in 1942. Moonshot926 (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

We've met your kind of people before. Did you forget the Long Depression?

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

Guess where that quote came from. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, WWII spending still counts as spending. Ron Paul would have opposed it anyways. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that quote came from Dwight Eisenhower. He was a moderate Republican and he supported a social safty net. But you forget one thing. Both Truman and Eisenhower rejected Keyesian economics. It is true that Truman had the Fair Deal and Eisenhower had the Interstate highway system but they both maintained balanced budgets and payed down the national debt.

Truman said this about Keynesian economics.

"Nobody can ever convince me that Government can spend a dollar that it's not got,"

Also, neither the New Deal or WW2 really ended the Great Deppresion. WW2 got manufacturing going in the USA. That is true. But the deppresion did not really end until 1947. Spending and taxes were cut after the war and the private sector began to rebuild. That is when the depprsion really ended. Moonshot926 (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That old chestnut? 'Sides, I don't see what this has to do with Ron Paul? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

When were taxes cut, other than for low-income earners? And Saying Truman/Eisenhower weren't Keynesian is No True Scotsman at its finest. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There is much talk of how income taxes on the rich were about 91% in the 1950s. That was because they had been hiked to that level for World War II; if I recall correctly the government has done barely anything but lower those taxes since that war ended. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about before Kennedy started reducing them back in the 60s. Truman's Fair Deal was very close in policy to FDR's. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that the government has done a few other things as well. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 03:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The top marginal income tax rate was cut from 94% in 1944-45 to 82% in 1948-49. It was raised in 1951 to 91% to pay for the Korean War. But JFK cut it down to 77%. I don't think JFK would fit into the Democrat party today. Since he was a war hero who hated communism and cut taxes. http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiUMoonshot926 (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Also you are all forgeting something very basic. The greatest and longest period of economic expansion in US history was 1865-1911. There was no federal reserve and no income tax. Capital investment increased by 300% every decade. Real GDP doubled every decade. The economy grew at a rate of 6.8%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age Moonshot926 (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, we have an article on that, too! Waddya know... Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 03:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Wimpy article. I see that you guys can not deny facts. At least you admit it was the longest economic expansion in US history. The USA went from an agricultural basket to an industrial powerhouse. America produced 25% of the worlds goods by 1914. Also it was the largest population boom. The US population went from 38.5 million in 1870 to 92.2 million in 1910. Why did so many immigrants come to America? Because of opportunity and freedom. Wealth and real wages increased dramatically. Like i said, all of this happened with no income tax or federal reserve and with little regulation. Moonshot926 (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Plus the most dangerous economic contractions and the living conditions that made Marx an international figure. Great idea!

Seriously, if you want child labour to be a political reality, then you might as well say so right now. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Recession is part of the business cycle. I would think you would know that. Wealth and real wages went up dramatically for everyone in that 50 year period. There were bad living conditions then. True. But there are also bad living conditions now. Some people don't ecven have homes. Wages for the poor have been almost stagnant for the past 30 years. This is caused by inflation, taxation and regulation. There was none of that in the Gilded Age which is why there was prosperity. Moonshot926 (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you honestly listen to the theories you peddle? Osaka Sun (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There was child labor in the US at one point. That is true. There was also slavery in the USA at one point. And at one point women and balcks did not have the right to vote. Do i want to go back to any of that? Of course not. What you are doing right now is called a straw man argument. Moonshot926 (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do you agree with any or all of these positions, Moonshot926?

• Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
• Overturning of Roe v. Wade and elimination of all right of access to abortion.
• Elimination of any rhetorical or practical separation of church and state.
• Elimination of the EPA.
• Establishment of a gold standard.
• Elimination of all humanitarian aid.
• Closure of as many foreign military bases as possible, preferably all.
• Elimination of the Civil Rights Act and associated enforcement, such as the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.

I'm just curious, because even though you're a supporter of Ron Paul, you don't seem very interested in discussing him.--^talk 04:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not really a supporter of him but just think this article is weak and biased.

• Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. No i do not support that.
• Overturning of Roe v. Wade and elimination of all right of access to abortion. No i do not support that.
• Elimination of the EPA. Yes i support this.
• Establishment of a gold standard. No because that is unrealistic.
• Elimination of all humanitarian aid. i support the end of all non-emergency foregin aid.
• Closure of as many foreign military bases as possible, preferably all. I support closing all the bases in the Mid East, Africa and the Balkans.
• Elimination of the Civil Rights Act and associated enforcement, such as the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. Does Ron Paul really want to do this? Moonshot926 (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, you don't seem like you could be a Ron Paul supporter, since you oppose a lot of his positions. I'm surprised to find you arguing so hard for someone who wants to do so many things you'd dislike. The article is certainly biased (we don't have a NPOV, we have SPOV) and may be weak. You can try to help fix it, if you'd like. (Ron Paul about CRA, btw))--^talk 05:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparent internet popularity

How have Ron Paul supporters been able to dominate Youtube? This doesn't make sense considering that he loses heavily in polls against both other Republican Candidates and Obama. Is it that his youtube supporters cleverly organize themselves to create an appearance of popularity? What is it? Mr. Anon (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that they are especially well-organized. However, Ron Paulbots are generally young white boys men. Like most people in that age group, they are fairly internet-savvy. They also show a fanatical devotion to Ron Paul, and are sure that practically everything the man says is correct. They are also sure that anyone who disagrees with Ron Paul is a victim of a terrible conspiracy against him (because Ron Paul is right about EVERYTHING). --ShadowofLords (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Late to the party: Paul voters tend to lean obsessive. Laptops are cheap and for the last five years at least webcams have been standard features. The barrier to entry for obsessive lunatics has never been lower. EVDebs (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Final year in Congress

Ron Paul is stepping down. I breathe a sigh of relief, and hope that his son won't be re-elected, but I don't know the best way to eloquently say "Good riddance you old kook!" here on RW. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

NAACP mini-irony

When the NAACP condemns you, they're idiots and not to be listened to:

"'If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?' Dr. Paul asked." -Dallas Morning News

When the NAACP says you're not racist, their word is final:

"Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment." -Nolan Chart

Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not especially indicative of Paul's thinking. It's pretty much endemic to any belief system that relies on ad hockery in its own defense. EVDebs (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Snarkiness

• Some of these projects are pretty horrible too.... but got the feds to spend $750,000 on a public transit centre...

That's just one example. The Bundesbank and German courts, too, evidently are paranoid Paulbots according to this article. It's a liitle out of control and over the top. Not that snarkiness is bad, it's a little too parachial here and tailored to a narrow audience predispoessed to be anti-Paul. So let's arm them with facts, not misinformation. Let's get on the same song sheet. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 18:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Another example:

• He doesn't just want to audit and end the Fed, but also to audit Ft. Knox's ... just in case someone replace them with metal bars that are merely painted gold (with link to Conspiracy theory)...On the positive side ...he was ...a driving force behind the audit of the Fed ...

nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 18:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what your complaint is here. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

ok, look at the second example. The crazy wingnut wants to audit the fed; on the positive side, he joined with the heroic socialist Bernie Sanders in their courageous efforts to audit the fed. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 01:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we're reading that differently. He want to audit the Fed (debatable), end the Fed (retarded) and audit Ft. Knox (stupid). It may need some re-wording, but that's why this is a wiki. Go do it yourself.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Bruno

Is this the man in the Bruno film?--Albannach (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this real?

I'm not certain I trust either Anonymous (which could mean anybody, including people who want to hide their axes even as they grind them) or the web site this is on, but there are some interesting claims here. Anonymous Hacks Neo-Nazi Website, Finds Ron Paul Connection Pashley (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"It has been suggested..." before the article nakedly calls him a racist & homophobe; pretty piss-poor way of hiding unsourced, unresearched bias. Not very scientific, rational, or ethical. nobs^{One who's been there.} 02:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This whole piece is garbage, an encyclopedia article with ellipsis mid quotes? Could we at least pretend to jest with real quotes? If I wanted to laugh at blatant agenda pushing, I'd push random on conservapedia. --24.183.99.219 (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hilarious

The quote you people use to discredit Paul is from a fictional character on a show that even many liberals have acknowledged was total crap. I miss the days when liberals actually offered a serious intellectual challenge. Burkean (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Great, the statement is from a fictional character. That doesn't make it wrong. Please, prove that Paul didn't write "Blast 'Em?", which attempts to tell people how to get away with murdering blacks, or prove that murdering blacks is a good idea. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't just the fact that it was a fictional character. I am aware of the fact that Ron Paul has associated with racists in the past (as have many liberals) and may continue to do so at present or indeed in the future. In any case, shooting someone trying to steal your car hardly constitutes getting away with something, wouldn't you agree? I suppose you would expect citizens to call police (who may or may not show up sometime within the next century) and hope they catch the guy because they always do such a great job. As to the validity of citing the Newsroom, one need only peruse the articles of hatefully rightwing publications such as Salon to discover that Sorkin has completely lost his shit. A guy uses his show to compare the tea party to the Taliban and you wanna tell me about Ron Paul shooting carjackers? Incidentally, people have called criminals animals in a non-racial context many, many times. If you can find somewhere where Paul says blacks should be shot for no other reason than they are black, you might have a point. If Paul wants all the blacks snuffed out, he has a funny way of showing it, considering his push for lenient sentences for non-violent offenders and so forth. Maybe the extremely intelligent fictional character from the so blatantly demagogic tv show even liberals are embarrassed by it might not have realized that many more people's rights are violated by the drug war than whether or not carjackers are shot. But apparently he thinks defending the rights of carjackers is more important than "legalizing weed". Burkean (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"liberals are embarrassed by it might not have realized that many more people's rights are violated by the drug war than whether or not carjackers are shot." You see you say that as if it's an obvious truth when it's not. Shooting people who aren't armed, even if they are committing a crime, is wrong to many people which is why you aren't allowed to just kill them. In typical Burkean fashion most of your paragraph seems to drag the conversation away from what he wrote and instead opt to ramble about the War on Drugs and attack the guy behind The Newsroom. ClothCoat (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"Shooting people who aren't armed..."...I know you just write me off as a lunatic, but it seems strange to assume that those who are involved in carjacking would be unarmed. If someone resists arrest or commits a crime, police often have to assume they're armed. You need equipment to break into a car. That, by definition is a forceful act. In your sphere of what is ethical, someone doesn't have the right to shoot to stop a criminal. They are supposed to rely on an often lazy and apathetic (not to mention corrupt) police force which may or may not do something about it. This is justice to you? What if they're actually taking the car? You are no doubt aware how much many people rely on their car very much. I suppose people really should have their license plates memorized but I know a lady in her early sixties who lives in my neighborhood. Her car was stolen. It was never found because she did not remember the license plate (among other things). If someone shot a gun to stop this person, to treat them as though they used excessive force seems overboard and a travesty of justice. How Orwellian, to treat the prevention of a crime as a crime itself. Many is the time an armed black person (sometimes elderly) will shoot another black (often a male youth) in the prevention of a crime against them. Are we to treat this as black on black crime? Or is it only wrong when a white person shoots a black criminal? What if someone breaks into another's home and they are shot. Should the resident first check to see if they are armed before shooting? How could one safely accomplish this? Should it be treated as murder and/or excessive force if someone shoots somebody who breaks into their home? Should they just wait for the police to show up, and just see what happens in the interim (stolen valuables, perhaps a loved one killed here or there?).

The main point was not to attack the fictional character or the Newsroom (the atlantic and salon have already done a good job of that), but to defend Paul. The war on drugs was brought up not just as some random aside, but because the character himself brought it up, and seemed to downplay its importance. He characterizes the war on drugs which has destroyed families, left hordes of innocent people to rot in prison as mere "legalizing weed", so yeah, he seems to act like it is not as big a deal as someone trying to advise people on how to defend themselves against criminals without running afoul of a legal system which treats them as though they are the criminals. He also seems upset that Paul charged for this. Should he give it away for free? Why would that even matter? Besides, racial insensitivity aside, if Paul's main objective in life is to rid the world of as many black youths as possible, he has a funny way of showing it, given his consistent stand of defending their rights against searching, raiding, and draconian sentencing laws. The character implied that people who did defend themselves were low lifes trying to get away with something, and that he doesn't care if Paul wants to end the war on drugs, even thought ending that war would go a much longer way towards emancipating African Americans from unnecessary intimidation, losing loved ones, and destroyed lives, rather than defending the right of carjackers to not be shot. Maybe this fictional character should think about that, if he cares about the rights of Blacks Americans so much (you do remember the Newsroom is just a show, right?) Burkean (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Just an FYI since you seem to keep bringing this up: You are the only person bringing up carjacking. You are addressing a point no one made. There are a lot of other people working for legal weed and reduced penalties that are much better alternatives to Ron considering a number of his other views as mentioned in the main page. If those are the only two points you want to make on why Ron is great while ignoring the rest like they don't exist...it seems pretty dishonest in my opinion. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

“”An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example).

—Ron Paul, not advising people how to get away with murder

“”[Carjacking] is the hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos. .... I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.

—Ron Paul, not contrasting "urban youth" with whites, and not comparing said "urban youth" to animals

This isn't about any larger issue -- it's about what Ron Paul said. Ron Paul said more or less exactly what Sempat said that Paul said. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

See, this to me is part of the larger point I was making. In our insane criminal justice system, people can be held criminally liable for stopping/shooting a criminal. That is the only reason that Paul is saying this. He knows, just as you and I know, that a person can literally get in trouble for doing this. Therefore, the best plan is to cover your tracks. It is complete lunacy that people should have to do this, or worry about whether or not the cops might find out that you did this. Such a person should be praised for defending themselves and others, and not have to conceal their actions as if they are the moral equivalent of a criminal. Furthermore, Ron Paul's tendency to be prejudiced against blacks (perhaps born out of experience) hardly undermines his credibility when it comes to ideas about liberty in general and in this case self defense. The idea that "he's probably a racist" ends the discussion is just another example of people at rationalwiki acting like that particular issue is the end all and be all. To say that this invalidates him as an independent thinker/politician/champion of liberty is just as ridiculous as saying we shouldn't read Solzhenitsyn anymore because sometimes he could be quite anti-Semitic. Burkean (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it very unfortunate that the primary method used for stopping criminals is one that can potentially end their earthly existence, though? Surely giving civilians the right to execute extrajudicial death penalties simply if they experience someone as being sufficiently intimidating isn't a very good idea. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, you are quite right about the primary method being unfortunate. However, that is the world we live in. There are some people who only understand force, and will only stop harming others if forced to. I would certainly agree on one of your points; namely that "intimidation" is waaaaay too broad and people shouldn't be allowed to shoot, kill, or harm others simply because they look suspicious, or because they give someone a look. Perhaps I misunderstood Paul's original newsletter, but he didn't seem to be advocating that. An actual act of criminality has to take place first. It is just like in war. The first shot has to be fired before you can react. Preventative war is a dangerous idea, as is the concept of pre-crime, if you are at all familiar with minority report. I'm not so sure about the other point concerning earthly existence. I can't really embrace an ethical perspective which says you should allow people to steal from you.

And it doesn't seem very humanitarian if it's happening to someone else either. One would then be in the position of saying "It's not my problem that this person is being robbed or hurt, the police will handle it". There are some who feel that those who knowingly allow or do nothing about a theft are essentially aiding and abetting. I'm not sure I agree with that, but it seems strange to me that it would be more ethical to let them go, and take from a victim, rather than shoot them (bear in mind shoot does not have to mean the end of earthly existence). I also feel that slapping on the label "extrajudicial" gives it too much of a sinister undertone (not saying that was intentional on your part and in any case, that's just my opinion), as if the person practicing self defense or defense of others is some ruthless outlaw who cares nothing for others. After all, it is the criminal who is showing no respect for others and breaking the law in the first place. This also ignores the crimes where the victim really has no choice. It's one thing if someone wants to be a total pacifist or really altruistic and let someone who is stealing their money or valuables go because they don't wish to harm them. However, it seems to me we could agree that if someone is about to kill you or a loved one that it is much more ethical to kill them (or not even kill, just wound and prevent them from perpetrating the crime) rather than allow them to kill either yourself or a friend/loved one. In that case you would be allowing a guilty person to live and a presumably innocent person to die. Burkean (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The crime is irrelevant. I was giving an example. If the example isn't good, then what actions are permissible to stop with such force and which are not? And who in the hell decided that you get to determine that anyway? Of course, you didn't actually address what I said, you just started going on about how all I talked about was the drug war, pretended I didn't address criticisms of Paul, then announced that I was dishonest. The fact that there are other people with a different viewpoint from Paul's working for legal weed really wasn't the point. Furthermore, I was merely pointing out that the fictional character from the fictional show who was apparently so full of insight seemed to downplay the importance of the issue, which is ironic given its significance for black americans, when he was chastising Ron Paul for saying something about blacks. The idea that Ron Paul was recommending shooting young blacks at random for the heck of it when they had done nothing wrong is what's dishonest here. Of course, the only reasons I believe such nonsense is because I'm a brainwashed right wing cracker lunatic who forgot to "check my privilege". Lulz. As for these other horrendous things Ron Paul apparently believes, perhaps you disagree with his economic views, but that isn't what's at issue here. Aside from that, there is that whole only one with the balls to stand up to the military industrial complex thingy. You assume that I agree with your view of taxation, regulation, currency manipulation, and government dictates over various actions, behaviors and activities and that I am in denial over things Ron Paul says or believes. This is the problem with rationalwiki. You assume that anyone who disagrees with you is either a fraud, a liar, or is insane. It's not really possible to have discussions under those circumstances. And even if you think someone holds views which are to your mind crazy, that isn't dishonest. M'kay? Burkean (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

1) Never stated you were {a brainwashed right wing cracker lunatic who forgot to "check my privilege"} - Your words.

2) Never made a statement about his economic views.

3) Never stated anything close to your agreement with my views on any of those points.

4) Never stated you were a fraud or insane.

I do think it was dishonest to tunnel vision on two points. The point no one made about defending carjackers and seemingly (to me) making Ron Paul out as the only champion legal weed and reduction in penalties you now say does not matter. I do wonder why that took so much space to go it over then if it does not matter. Also, considering your block text of jamming words in my mouth for postions I never stated...I believe my thinking of dishonest motives is very justified.

If you are just going to take every person who disagrees and make them into the straw man of what you believe people who disagree with you think then no one is going to get anywhere. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

How is it dishonest of me to agree with Ron Paul's approach to criminals? What examples of crimes stopped by private citizens would be better to use? Quite rich of you to lecture me about straw manning, when the site uses quotes from fictional characters from heavily biased tv shows, and does all they can to try and prove Ron Paul is a Nazi. These antics have been criticized above by others on this talk page, so it isn't just me. When did I say legal weed doesn't matter anymore? The guy from Newsroom did that. Obviously, we have a difference of opinion on how to handle criminals. I never said that made you evil. But you have no legitimate proof I'm dishonest. I think the conception that people shouldn't be allowed to shoot criminals in the act of a crime (which is what Paul was talking about) puts undue pressure on the non-criminal citizen. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less. Not dishonest. Any snark on my part about your views was after you and others implied that something insidious was going on. Two wrongs don't make a right but turnabout is fair play. I'll be happy to adjust my tone if and when anyone on rationalwiki acknowledges that someone who favors less regulated capitalism might not be completely bonkers (never gonna happen). Burkean (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Burkean, you said: "Furthermore, I was merely pointing out that the fictional character from the fictional show who was apparently so full of insight seemed to downplay the importance of the issue, which is ironic given its significance for black americans, when he was chastising Ron Paul for saying something about blacks."

You have never in any previous post pointed out any "downplaying" of the issues. In fact, you spent a full paragraph telling us how crazy Sorkin, and thus his shows, are. This seems dishonest.

You said: "The idea that Ron Paul was recommending shooting young blacks at random for the heck of it when they had done nothing wrong is what's dishonest here."

Nobody has said that this is what Paul said. Instead, I have reiterated that Paul attempts to show people how to get away with the murder of black carjackers. This seems dishonest.

At this point, I do not see much purpose in continuing this conversation. Burkean, you seem to prefer putting words into the mouths of others, rather than discussing the issue at hand. If this continues, then much text will be wasted on achieving nothing. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You claimed that I have never in any previous post mentioned downplaying. Yes I have. The downplaying I have referred to multiple times was the fact that the fictional character in the newsroom acts as thought the ending of the drug war is a secondary issue to Paul's other views. "I don't care if he wants to legalize weed". That is a clear example of downplaying. Criticizng the rabid tone of the newsroom (mainstream media only legitimate news source, life was better when we could only get news from a few channels, UVA rape fiasco a la rolling stone, tea party=taliban) and the lunacy of sorkin was not the whole of what I said and I made multiple references to the apparent downplaying of the war on drugs' significance on the part of this character. And again, shooting someone in the act of committing a crime against you shouldn't be considered "getting away" with anything. Burkean (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I do not see much purpose in continuing this conversation. Burkean, you seem to prefer putting words into the mouths of others, rather than discussing the issue at hand. If this continues, then much text will be wasted on achieving nothing. I need to agree based on Burkeans actions. I don't enjoy having words I never said stuffed in my mouth, or even the views of what others said long before I read anything as some sort of justified turn about. Which is fair play when done to the person who did so, not on random people, as a longshot at Burkean's education. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I was merely making a sarcastic joke about what many on the left often say about those who hold such views as myself. No deliberate attempt to literally claim you had said this or that was made. Your hurt feelings concerning my "putting words into your mouth" seems quite strange when people on this site throw some pretty harsh criticisms at those who are on the right end of the spectrum. I guess it's a difference in how we define things. The joke I made about what you probably think (a joke mind you, not what you actually think) did not seem any more harsh than the things said about libertarians (uninformed, racist, want the poor to suffer, etc.) by many on this site. How this is flawed thinking on my part I guess is just beyond my capacity so I guess I'm flawed intellectually and could be of much greater intelligence and understanding. Then again, on my homepage, I never claimed to be of anything but average intelligence. Burkean (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Interest officially ended. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 15:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Neo-nazis

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 / talk / 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)

Anti-Semitism

Does someone here has a source for that claim? I don't dispute it, I'd just like to insert a few references to his stuff into the article to back that categorization up.--Arisboch (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The best source I've found for it is already a ref in the article. Apparently a lot of important people Paul surrounded himself with were members of a major neo-nazi organization, and Paul Himself directly spoke to their leadership. And don't be confused they're the very anti-Semitic flavor of neo-nazis. Sufficient? Ikanreed (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There was no word in that article, that claimed, that Ron Paul wrote anything antisemitic. Looks like the Association fallacy.--Arisboch (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Does he really need to say it to be antisemetic? He actively works with people who are in order to give them a platform in order to say this crap, and try to give them the means do so in political venues. That's almost worse. At least the neo-nazi's are brave enough to stand up for their beliefs. Not helping them get the means to do whatever they want and pretend like he didn't know what they wanted after they spent the last 20 years shouting it from rooftops. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The article did not contain ONE word from him about the Jews. Just association with them doesn't make him one ("just" an useful idiot for them, which is, of course, bad enough).--Arisboch (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. It doesn't matter what he does...he is only antisemetic if he says he is? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, he is only antisemitic, if he says something or does something antisemitic.--Arisboch (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Look at the info in WP, the Ron Paul bio & the ATP party. Neither says or implies Paul is anti-Semitic. At best, references are to (alleged) Paul supporters with questionable views, statements, or activities. Does that make Paul an anti-Semite on an off-Wikipedia site? nobs^{ISIS is SISI spelled backwards.} 15:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Further (allow me to rant momentarily): The charge of anti-Semitism is almost wholly based on his lack of support for Israel; in reality, what exactly is the difference between Ron Paul's foreign policy views and Barack Obama's? They both are appealing to the same constituency. Only Paul's is probably viewed as "principled" by supporters, whereas Obama's is viewed as hypocritical and motivated by political correctness. nobs^{ISIS is SISI spelled backwards.} 15:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I haven't seen any smoking gun pointing to Paul's anti-Semitism as his (in)famous newsletters seem to be racist, rather than anti-Semitic. The closest thing I've seen to anti-Semitism was in a newsletter from April 1993 in the wake of the World Trade Center bombing which cited an anonymous Jewish friend for the speculation that the bombing might have been a false flag operation by Mossad. A similar weak if possible indication was his praise of Bobby Fisher in a November 1992 newsletter (see prior link), where he rhetorically downgraded Fischer's anti-Semitism to being "very politically incorrect on Jewish questions". In short: It seems pretty certain that Paul has either actively or passively endorsed racism through the newsletters - but evidence of anti-Semitism seems at best circumstantial. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

OMG. He even refers to the ATF as "jackbooted thugs"; Eric Holder understands from personal experience the mistrust people have of law enforcement. nobs^{ISIS is SISI spelled backwards.} 16:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)