Live data from Hacker News

Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

torrentfreak.com

101–110 of 313 posts

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#101
The censorship of Ron Paul really is pretty incredible. The Daily Show clip was already mentioned in this thread - here's another example I noticed the other day in the Chicago Tribune:

I just pulled out three random stories: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-io... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politicsnow/la-pn-iowa-ri... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-pn-romney-...

Notice how every candidate name mentioned in the article (for the first time) is also a hyperlink, except Ron Paul.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how credible this is but it leaves me doubtful. Without checking out each quote, I believe the answer is that it's generally accurate, but you need to understand what these represent. First, there's the normal crap about taking things out of context... But more specifically, these are decidedly not things that Paul ever said or wrote. These are things that somebody else wrote in a newsletter that was usi…

Here's a nice break-down of exactly why the newsletter debacle is so damning (and how it contrasts with how Wright was handled): http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/re-thinking-...

The newsletter debacle is 'damning' simply because the US corporate media has decreed it so.

The newsletters are definitely offensive, and are reasonable cause for disliking Paul as a candidate and perhaps even a person, but as others have pointed out, they are relatively mild as far as political skeletons in the closet go. If the media favored him, they could be easily downplayed as have been countless much more serious missteps and outright crimes by mainstream candidates in the past.

I was personally very disappointed when I found out about the newsletters and disgusted by the idea that Paul would even associate with people who would think manipulating racial tensions for political expediency is morally acceptable. But let's put it in perspective--in the last decades the lies and criminality of the US political class have led to the wrongful deaths of millions, illegal torture, vast illegal wiretapping programs, vast financial fraud and unprecedented transfers of wealth to the very richest people in the world, stripping of civil liberties that have been fundamental since the Magna Carta... need I go on?

How much airtime do we see devoted to examining establishment political figures' complicity in these and laundry lists of other history-making type crimes? I'm sorry, but the idea that Ron Paul's lapse in oversight on some barely-circulated newsletters 15 years ago somehow ranks as 'damning' on the scale of political transgressions is, quite frankly, utter horseshit. This is just continuation of the usual program--distract from the real issues and manipulate public opinion through manufactured divisiveness and tabloid journalism.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#103
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to be interested in what he had to say until I saw this: http://murphysbride.tumblr.com/post/14876601176/bacon-beer-a... I don't know how credible this is but it leaves me doubtful.

it's bs. he had a 30 year career in politics, if he was really a racist, there'd be some video proof to support it of him actually saying this...or hell anything else to support that...but there isn't + then there is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8... the bottom line, is that if the worst thing that they'd been able to dig up about him, are some comments from ~20 years ago that weren't…

While they are scrambling to pick something from 20 years ago that he didn't even write, there are many cases in which he actually came out against racism. It's amazing how that seems to not even matter, but a couple of sentences from a newsletter he didn't write 20 years ago, do.

http://ronpaulracistimpossible.blogspot.com/2011/12/unabridg...

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#104
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that about how much written history we have? I don't think he's being a creationist here, at least, that's not how I read it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw - In this video he claims he does not "accept the theory of evolution as a theory". While he doesn't come straight out and use the tired "just a theory" attack, it sure sounds like it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eiR_U8vhIo - A reading from his book expounds on his answer to that question. He seems to think the question of evolution is "silly" and irrelevant to his campa…

From his book liberty defined: http://libertydefined.org/issue/17

No one person has perfect knowledge as to man's emergence on this earth. Yet almost everyone has a strong religious, scientific, or emotional opinion he or she considers gospel. The creationists frown on the evolutionists, and the evolutionists dismiss the creationists as kooky and unscientific. Lost in this struggle are those who look objectively at the scientific evidence for evolution without feeling any need to reject the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. My personal view is that recognizing the validity of the evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one's view about God and the universe. This is a debate about science and religion...and should not involve politicians at all.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#105
post #4

What is great about Ron Paul's stance is that I am confident based on his continual display of principled politics that if elected he would stand by this. Who cares what the other candidates are tickling our ears with. Paul is the only one who I feel would actually stand up to the Movie Industry.

Ron Paul has some great ideas, he was against iraq war, iran invasion and more. But he hates gay rights and is very strong on Religion. He want laws against burning the flag, against abortion, and more. He has extreme views, that you either hate or love.

What irks me is that this is how a lot of people I've met approach presidential candidates.

They gloss over important things like how Ron Paul is planning to implement $1 trillion in budget cuts, a reduction in the cabinet, etc and go straight for his personal beliefs which he doesn't allow to dictate his political career. He even voted against the ban on gay marriages.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#106
post #85
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he became president, you'd likely see him close down many government functions and make strong pushes towards states rights and small federal government. He is a hero to many because he holds stances that are antiwar and, generally, pro-individual liberty. I must say that I would be scared of a Paul presidency but I also love the way he's shaken up the republican party.

> I also love the way he's shaken up the republican party He has not shaken up the GOP whatsoever. He has arguably shaken up the Libertarian party, but his base has nothing in common with the GOP base.

Let's put it this way. Without his supporters, the Republican party can't win the general election. So either the Republican party accepts them if they want to ever beat the Democrat party again, or they reject them, and they might end up forming a strong 3rd party later on, and help change the laws so they are more fair towards 3rd parties.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#107
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to be interested in what he had to say until I saw this: http://murphysbride.tumblr.com/post/14876601176/bacon-beer-a... I don't know how credible this is but it leaves me doubtful.

Also this is worth reading[1]. Paul seems to be directly linked to an anti-gay rhetoric that is leading part of his campaign. [1] http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-hired-ant... Edit: I'm curious to know why anyone would downvote this? When presented with direct evidence, is it really logical to immediately push it away? Oh well... To the commenter below, if you had read to the second paragraph of the…

I didn't downvote (I don't have enough points yet), but I can already see some problems with that article. For one, it's based on newsletters published 20 years ago which he's repeatedly told the media that he did not authorize to use his name. The only other thing that's trying to stick to Ron Paul in this article is completely based on hearsay. So no, it's not direct evidence.

EDIT: I seriously hope you're not trying to tell me that Ron Paul is a terrible person because one of his supporters favors the death penalty.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#108
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except insurance against "acts of God" is extremely hard (and expensive) to get. The free market has spoken: when emergency strikes, f*ck the poor people.

I'm not sure about how much more expensive it is, but if I lived in a hurricane-prone area I would probably investigate it and consider it a cost of living there. Otherwise, if I can just get bailed out by the federal gov't when disaster strikes, those who choose to live in the safer areas of the country are essentially subsidizing the risks I assume by living there. Think of it as a negative externality (stretching…

> but if I lived in a hurricane-prone area I would probably investigate it and consider it a cost of living there [..] those who choose to live in the safer areas of the country are essentially subsidizing the risks I assume by living there

The problem with this logic is that there are extremely few (if any) locations in the United States that aren't affected by severe natural events (blizzards, heat waves, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, flooding, earthquakes, etc). I live in one of the more moderate locations in the USA (western MA) and in the past 11 months we've had an earthquake, tornado, hurricane, an ice storm that left much of the region without power for about a week,and 80 inches of snow in February alone.

We all subsidize each other - maybe you had more moderate weather this year while we got whacked, but the situation could reverse itself next year.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#109
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's bs. he had a 30 year career in politics, if he was really a racist, there'd be some video proof to support it of him actually saying this...or hell anything else to support that...but there isn't + then there is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8... the bottom line, is that if the worst thing that they'd been able to dig up about him, are some comments from ~20 years ago that weren't…

While they are scrambling to pick something from 20 years ago that he didn't even write, there are many cases in which he actually came out against racism. It's amazing how that seems to not even matter, but a couple of sentences from a newsletter he didn't write 20 years ago, do. http://ronpaulracistimpossible.blogspot.com/2011/12/unabridg...

For example:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/12/race-bait...

The new ad from Revolution PAC is pretty powerful. James Williams, a black man, talks about his efforts to get medical attention for his pregnant white wife at a Texas hospital in the 1970s. The crescendo comes when a young doctor named Ron Paul broke through the indifference of the staff to give them the help they needed. Their baby would be stillborn. And Paul paid their medical expenses. Then Williams extols the virtues of Paul — his honesty and willingness to take on the establishment.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#110
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to be interested in what he had to say until I saw this: http://murphysbride.tumblr.com/post/14876601176/bacon-beer-a... I don't know how credible this is but it leaves me doubtful.

Frankly, anyone who has paid attention to what Paul has actually said or done in the last 20 years knows this in no way represents his views. In fact, quite the opposite, Paul is by far the most open and tolerant in the GOP field. The fact that some people are willing to focus on these says more about them than about Paul.

The mainstream media works its magic by taking a mural 100 miles square and repeatedly hilighting the same 50 square inches. They do this in order to create the perception that fits their agenda, and ignoring the rest. It's an extremely effective technique. It's very easy to control what people think, not by lying to them, but controlling what they think about.
Post reply on HN