Talk:Ron Paul

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Some Bills Introduced by Paul in the 110th Congress; 1st Session

(Note: links to bills are to xml versions published at thomas dot gov)

  • H. R. 3216 - To authorize the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to certain acts of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.
  • H. R. 1094 - To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
  • H. R. 2597 - To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
  • H. R. 300 - To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

This last one seems to be a stealth gutting of the 14th Amendment's due process clause in that it removes from Federal Judicial Review, state legislation that is oppositional to the 14th Amendment:

  • United states Constitution; Amendment 14; Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

--hugh_manateee 17:30, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

And to me it sounds like the first attempt to restore the 10th Amendment and our Federal Republic in a hundred years.

--Bozimmerman 14:14, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

SW: Environmental Record

I spent a little time cleaning up the opening to the environmental section, to indicate there was specific criticism of Paul's Libertarian stance on environmental issues. In addition, I think a great project would be some development of this page on Green Libertarianism.

--Avelino 10:24, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Ad hominem and guilt-by-association logical fallacies

One should avoid ad hominem and guilt-by-association fallacies in an attempt to discredit ideologies with which some SourceWatch editors do not agree.

If taking a grant from a large corporation renders an argument or study or ideology invalid, then PBS or the Nature Conservancy or any other number of non-profit organizations would be "guilty by association".

Dear Sequoiatreehugger: I reverted your deletion of accurate material from this page. It is not fallacious to describe the primary funders of the organizations referenced our their ideological and political agendas. Part of the mission of this website is to connect the dots between the funding (source) of supposedly neutral research and the outcomes of that funding (watch). In the instance of PBS, it is the case that public broadcasting accepts donations from a wide variety of funders, corporate and right and left. But, some groups, such as those referenced, are funded primarily by interests that have a known agenda. And, the groups at issue do publish works that support that agenda, which is in distinction for the most part to PBS, despite some of the troubling developments and political manipulation that has been documented in recent years. We welcome your participating in SourceWatch, but any deletions that seek to expunge accurate material about corporate funded groups will be reverted by me and others. If you'd like to describe some of the environmental initiatives that you think should be known, I'd welcome that. Lisa Graves, Executive Director, Center for Media and Democracy, publisher of SourceWatch.


Ms. Graves:

I question whether or not this is the right place for such an edit. The first paragraph cites Ernest Partridge, a little-known and self-avowed progressive. For balance, I added:

"However, there are several libertarian organizations which promote environmental protection and stewardship through free-market mechanisms, including Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment and Property and Environment Research Center."

You added:

"...but they are funded by corporations and powerful right-wing foundations and organizations committed to deregulation of industry and to the privatization of public assets."

This is not needed here, as the links to the organizations provide the list of funding these organizations receive. It is used to revert the paragraph reverts back to its original, anti-free-market bias.

Clearly, SourceWatch is about bias, particularly leftist, Democratic Party, statist bias. SourceWatch is a collection of logical fallacies and guilt-by-association arguments. It smears free-market groups as "right-wing" while ignoring corporate and government funding to left-wing and governmental groups, such as the IPCC, that "are funded primarily by interests that have a known agenda."

It's also telling that the Executive Director of Center for Media and Democracy is so directly involved in gatekeeping.

--Sequoiatreehugger 21:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sequioatreehugger: It is not "telling" that I am involved in helping to edit the website I manage. It's telling that you seem intent on seeing conspiracies where none exist. SourceWatch does not have a "statist" Democratic Party bias or anti-free market bias. And, it is not inappropriate to note the funding sources of groups that are referenced in an article. SourceWatch helps watch the sources funding public policy, an ongoing project, that you seem uninterested in this except to object to the idea of mentioning the sources of funding of groups you favor. Lisa