Disgusting: Wikileaks store carries pro-Snowden t-shirt product by Obama-hate designer

[MADem]

54. Ron Paul must not be a "true libertarian," civil or otherwise, then; he fails two out of three.

Because he came out against marriage equality, very specifically, with a decisive statement. He has weasel-worded here and there, to try to bullshit people who aren't paying close attention, but his "man and woman/marriage is a sacrament" POV is pretty clear:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Same-sex_marriage

Asked his opinion on same-sex marriage in October 2011, Paul expressed his support for marriage privatization by replying, "Biblically and historically, the government was very uninvolved in marriage. I like that. I don't know why we should register our marriage to the federal government. I think it's a sacrament." In the same interview, when asked whether he would vote for or against a state constitutional amendment like California's Proposition 8, he said, 'Well, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman."[140]

Previously, in a 2007 interview, Paul had said that he supports the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.[141] He also said, "Matter of fact, I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function, I think it's a religious function." Paul has stated that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[142] He has also said he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[143][144] When asked if he was supportive of gay marriage, Paul responded, "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[143]

Paul had also said that at the federal level he opposed “efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman.” He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states and local communities, and not subjected to "judicial activism."[145] He has said that for these reasons he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, had he been in Congress in 1996. The act allows a state to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The act also prohibits the U.S. Government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage.

He has opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would amend the US Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, because he worries that with its passage “liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.”[145]

Paul has been a cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in each Congress since the bill's original introduction. It would bar federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Speaking in support of the Marriage Protection Act in 2004, he urged those of his fellow congressional representatives who “believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage” to vote for the bill because its passage, requiring only simple majorities in both Houses of Congress, would be much more readily achieved than the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which, as a Constitutional amendment, would require not only much larger majorities in both Houses but also ratification by the state legislatures.[145]

And he's no fan of voting rights--he is full of excuses, e.g. he doesn't think there's a problem anymore, and thinks that ensuring voting rights for a sizable percentage of our population:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Voting_Rights_Act
In 2006, Paul joined 32 other members of Congress in opposing the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, originally passed to remove barriers to voting participation for minorities.[300] Paul has indicated that he did not object to the voting rights clauses, but rather to restrictions placed on property rights by the bill.[301] He felt the federal interference mandated by the bill was costly and unjustified because the situation for minorities voting is much different than when the bill was passed 40 years ago. Many of Texas' Republican representatives voted against the bill, because they believe it specifically singles out some Southern states, including Texas, for federal Justice Department oversight that makes it difficult for localities to change the location of a polling place or other small acts without first receiving permission from the federal government.[302] The bill also mandated bilingual voting ballots upon request, which Paul objected to on the grounds that one of the requirements of gaining United States citizenship is ability to read in English, and that as it currently stands it often forces large expenditures to prepare materials that are in some cases never used.[303]

The fact that he's regarded as a hero by Snowden and Assange is problematic. It's just unreasonable to not infer some kind of common cause.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/julian-assange-backs-ron-and-rand-paul/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-ron-paul_n_3414992.html