Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 313 posts

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#131

Post by nickpinkston »

chernevik wrote: post #117
jliechti1 wrote: post #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-... No…

CNBC had an interview where they basically let him talk for almost half an hour. He was great for five minutes, okay through to ten, and then the wheels just came off. He couldn't answer obvious follow-up questions (some with obvious Ron Paul answers). He was bamboozled by questions on the gold standard from people who actually speak monetary policy. Toward the end he was hardly coherent. I came away thinking his tal…

(Full disclosure, I was an activist for Paul during 2008)

I agree that Paul seems to have too narrow of a focus in his talk - he answers healthcare or fuel price questions half the time by saying these wouldn't happen with a gold standard / Fed, etc. I don't think he's thin in his views, but that (in typical libertarian fashion) he focuses just a bit too much on pure philosophy and not on pragmatism.

I agree with the previous commenters with his sincerity and trustworthiness. I think "The Incorruptible" can honestly be applied to his name. Whenever he gave a speech he just got up there and said what was on his mind - it's not all good policy, but he's serious and consistent.

The most likely result of a Paul presidency would probably be, not his legislative force, etc., but perhaps the waking up of America to what the establishment's power (and really the presidency itself) really is - fully controlled by interest groups.

I actually think that Obama is a genuine / smart guy, but he's too afraid (seemingly) to press his views. I think Paul would be fine pressing the views, but would probably be near censured by the true political ruling class.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#132

Post by chernevik »

jamesbritt wrote: post #124
chernevik wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CNBC had an interview where they basically let him talk for almost half an hour. He was great for five minutes, okay through to ten, and then the wheels just came off. He couldn't answer obvious follow-up questions (some with obvious Ron Paul answers). He was bamboozled by questions on the gold standard from people who actually speak monetary policy. Toward the end he was hardly coherent. I came away thinking his tal…

I came away thinking his talking points are great but get him off those and there's very little there. That describes nearly every single politician. Bill Clinton comes to mind as an exception, and no doubt there are a few others, but not among the anointed GOP candidates. This lack of depth and intellectual rigor does nothing to dissuade major news outlets from sticking a mic in front of nearly anyone or discussing…

Can't find it. I can find a number of ten minute interviews with him -- this one has him discussing the Fed with an expert, and I don't think he showed well.

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=1359402302

This is 15 December 2009, and it isn't "almost half an hour", and I don't recall the details so much as my impression of the guy's thinking.

They've had a number of long interviews with him.

17 May 2010 -- http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=1496298429

27 April 2011 -- http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000018858

31 May 2011 -- http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000024836

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#133

Post by spindritf »

jaysonelliot wrote: post #66

I could come up with a list of things that I don't like about Ron Paul personally, and a few things that worry me politically. But none of that really matters. He's the only candidate that I feel I could actually trust to stick by his campaign rhetoric, and the only one I would trust to actually defend the constitution. Ironic, given that we have a constitutional scholar in the White House and a historian running for…

> I could come up with a list of things that I don't like about Ron Paul personally, and a few things that worry me politically.

That's completely OT and not really related to your post in particular but what's with the disclaimers lately? Are we becoming the sort of community where you need to preface every thought with a bow to group's believes? Are we so stuck in the "singaling game" [1] even here, on a niche website and clearly among people smart enough to get the gist of a comment?

Or is it just me? As in I'm just noticing those more often?

[1] http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#134

Post by tempire »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #32
waffle_ss wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He says "no" a lot because the federal gov't has become way too bloated. There already is a free market solution to your scenario - it's called "insurance".

Right, perhaps the federal gov't is too bloated (I wouldn't really know , I'm british). My question more would be does he have a fundamentally different view on what the federal government is for? In which case I would expect him to say "we will do less of all of this stuff, but I think instead we should do more of this". Seems to me he's suggesting that the federal government do essentially nothing, except perhaps m…

In a way, yes. The role of the US Federal government described in the constitution was to make sure agreements were upheld between the states, and deal with international issues outside of the states concern. The rest is up to the people to decide for themselves, whether by individual liberty or local government bodies.

Specifically, that the people support the government, not the other way around. Ron Paul's favorite president, Grover Cleveland, says it well:

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution (federal aid for a natural disaster), and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland#Vetoes

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#135

Post by tempire »

efader wrote: post #127

Political pandering; I would not trust this.

It's not pandering; it's consistent with the philosophy he's been touting for the last billionty years. Every time he gets up to speak, he talks about freedom of the individual, and having the federal government get out of the way. It's almost comical how people continually want to know his positions, when he doesn't have positions, but rather a unifying philosophy that positions grow out of.

That's the unique thing about Ron Paul, he's not your standard politician, which is why he confuses the media so much.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#136

Post by espeed »

spindritf wrote: post #133
jaysonelliot wrote: post #66

I could come up with a list of things that I don't like about Ron Paul personally, and a few things that worry me politically. But none of that really matters. He's the only candidate that I feel I could actually trust to stick by his campaign rhetoric, and the only one I would trust to actually defend the constitution. Ironic, given that we have a constitutional scholar in the White House and a historian running for…

> I could come up with a list of things that I don't like about Ron Paul personally, and a few things that worry me politically. That's completely OT and not really related to your post in particular but what's with the disclaimers lately? Are we becoming the sort of community where you need to preface every thought with a bow to group's believes? Are we so stuck in the "singaling game" [1] even here, on a niche webs…

He's saying he prefers an authentic candidate with principles over candidates whom pander to the media to get votes, even if his views differ in some areas.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#137

Post by jamesbritt »

chernevik wrote: post #132
jamesbritt wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came away thinking his talking points are great but get him off those and there's very little there. That describes nearly every single politician. Bill Clinton comes to mind as an exception, and no doubt there are a few others, but not among the anointed GOP candidates. This lack of depth and intellectual rigor does nothing to dissuade major news outlets from sticking a mic in front of nearly anyone or discussing…

Can't find it. I can find a number of ten minute interviews with him -- this one has him discussing the Fed with an expert, and I don't think he showed well. http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=1359402302 This is 15 December 2009, and it isn't "almost half an hour", and I don't recall the details so much as my impression of the guy's thinking. They've had a number of long interviews with him. 17 May 2010 -- http://v…

Cool, thanks for this.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#138

Post by roguecoder »

jaysonelliot wrote: post #66

I could come up with a list of things that I don't like about Ron Paul personally, and a few things that worry me politically. But none of that really matters. He's the only candidate that I feel I could actually trust to stick by his campaign rhetoric, and the only one I would trust to actually defend the constitution. Ironic, given that we have a constitutional scholar in the White House and a historian running for…

I can't vote for anyone who, when reality conflicts with his mental model of the world, believes reality is wrong.

Paul's not just wrong; he works from false assumptions to come to consistently illogical conclusions. I don't care if my politicians disagree with me, but I certainly care that they live in a world of evidence-based decision making.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#139

Post by tempire »

scarmig wrote: post #125
jswinghammer wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On what basis do you say he's against gay rights? He has the most progressive opinion on marriage of any candidate. Which is to say abolish marriage licenses entirely. It's only very recently (in the history of marriage) that marriage became an issue to the state anyway.

If you believe that marriages should be altogether abolished, but before they are abolished you refuse to support efforts to make the discriminatory status quo more equitable... then, yes, you're against gay rights.

I think you're missing Paul's philosophy on the matter. His perspective on Federal government is that it's outside their jurisdiction to dictate morality. The constitution already states that all people are made equal; more laws are not necessary to enforce the issue.

It's not marriages that he wants to abolish, but government-issued licences for it. The government should have no say whatsoever in defining what a marriage is; it's an inherently personal and religious matter (I use the term religion to refer to a person's understanding of reality).

Once you remove the government from the equation, any attempts to force others to believe what you do by law dissipates, and everyone gets to do whatever they want.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#140

Post by gruseom »

spindritf wrote: post #133
jaysonelliot wrote: post #66

I could come up with a list of things that I don't like about Ron Paul personally, and a few things that worry me politically. But none of that really matters. He's the only candidate that I feel I could actually trust to stick by his campaign rhetoric, and the only one I would trust to actually defend the constitution. Ironic, given that we have a constitutional scholar in the White House and a historian running for…

> I could come up with a list of things that I don't like about Ron Paul personally, and a few things that worry me politically. That's completely OT and not really related to your post in particular but what's with the disclaimers lately? Are we becoming the sort of community where you need to preface every thought with a bow to group's believes? Are we so stuck in the "singaling game" [1] even here, on a niche webs…

It's just you. This is a rhetorical device that's been around for centuries.
Post reply on HN