Ron Paul speaks against SOPA • Hacker News Board

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#141

Post by stfu » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 5:41 PM UTC

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…

HN's voting "thingy" is obviously engaging a middle-ground positioning, especially when it comes to political views. Moreover I suspect that arguments are taken more serious when putting some "I try to be aware of my biases" upfront.

Especially among (more or less) non-political communities like this one an argument starting with a"I am an independent voter" premise is most likely going to get a better reception than a "I have been for years a dedicated follower of politician x". Not that I am a fan of this, quite the opposite - but there are other sites much more suitable for political "confrontations".

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#142

Post by thebigshane » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 5:44 PM UTC

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…

You have to admit that most people immediately roll their eyes when they read another die-hard Ron Paul supporter. That disclaimer lets people know/believe that this isn't a fanatic speaking. While I agree with Robin Hanson that I wish we didn't need disclaimers, it truly is an effective way of signalling, and often essential in tone-less, emotionally-ambiguous internet discussions.

Disclaimer: Ron Paul supporter (hopefully not too fanatical)

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#143

Post by sliverstorm » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 5:46 PM UTC

fragsworth wrote: post #126

scarmig wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now, it's illegal to ban abortion in any state. Ron Paul wants to make it legal for states to ban abortions, as Ron Paul is personally pro-life. This isn't something that is driven by some deeply-held libertarian principles. Many (most?) libertarians are pro-choice.

You've missed the point entirely. Ron Paul wants to make it legal for states to ban abortions, because Ron Paul generally favors state powers and is against federal powers. It has nothing to do with his personal opinion on abortion. He's made this clear several times, but most people don't seem to understand it.

It's telling that folks can't wrap their head around the idea of someone holding personal beliefs, yet not attempting to press them into federal law.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#144

Post by roguecoder » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 5:50 PM UTC

maratd wrote: post #118

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 feel the same way. In fact, I'm sure most of Ron Paul's supports feel the same way. I find his foreign policy views deplorable and offensive. You know what? I will still be voting for him. I'm tired. I'm so tired of the lying. Gingrich, Romney, Obama, Bush, etc. will say anything to get elected. Once elected, they all behave the same way. I'd rather have an honest man I disagree with in the White House, than a man…

He's either lying now about the newsletters or he was lying then and in 1996 and profited from those lies.

I don't understand why people think he's an honest straight-shooter, any more than I understood that meme when it was applied to McCain. He's a politician playing a roll, that's all. He's not even a libertarian: he's perfectly fine with States grossly abridging freedom, just not the federal government. It's the same Southern conservatism that has been prominent since they lost the Civil War. Paul was smart enough to realize that you could sell this to a broader audience if you wrapped it in libertarianism is all.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#145

Post by ericingram » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 5:50 PM UTC

maratd wrote: post #118

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 feel the same way. In fact, I'm sure most of Ron Paul's supports feel the same way. I find his foreign policy views deplorable and offensive. You know what? I will still be voting for him. I'm tired. I'm so tired of the lying. Gingrich, Romney, Obama, Bush, etc. will say anything to get elected. Once elected, they all behave the same way. I'd rather have an honest man I disagree with in the White House, than a man…

If you don't agree with Ron Paul, it's because you've spent far less time studying the real implications and economic intricacies as he has. He's right on everything.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#146

Post by thebigshane » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 5:57 PM UTC

nickpinkston wrote: post #131

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…

(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…

A truly frightening situation would be in the near impossible case that Ron Paul does get elected president: that he ends up looking just as paralyzed and neutered as President Obama and we find out that it isn't a matter of conviction or fearlessness but that the collective power of interest groups and the media has just gotten too powerful.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#147

Post by jeltz » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 5:58 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #98

jiggy2011 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problems with charity as a model for providing what is provided currently by the government is that it is basically dictated by being able to make a plea to people with enough spare money to donate. So if a billionaire for example has a relative who suffers from a rare type of cancer for example they will be likely to donate a disproportionately massive amount of money to research and care for that particular typ…

The problems with charity as a model for providing what is provided currently by the government is that it is basically dictated by being able to make a plea to people with enough spare money to donate. But the government just gets money from the people. Also, they get mandates from the people. So getting the government to tax you to pay for someone else's problem is exactly the same as paying for the problem yoursel…

> If people in a society want to pay for poor people's problems, they can just do that. On the other hand, if people don't want to pay for that, then of course they would never vote for a law to make them do that.

In most countries people do not vote for individual laws. Instead we trust the politicians to write laws we like. This means the government being a single huge entity can have a more holistic plan where less obvious groups get left out in the cold.

I for one have no idea what groups really need help in our society and do not want to spend time to figure it out so am very happy that I have a government doing that job for me. Sure they do it quite poorly but I am positive I would do a worse job.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#148

Post by 1212jtraceur » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 5:58 PM UTC

jiggy2011 wrote: post #90

CWuestefeld wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to me he's suggesting that the federal government do essentially nothing, except perhaps maintain enough of a military As I read his position, his philosophy is that of a pretty strict Constitutionalist. That is, the federal powers are limited to what's listed explicitly in the Constitution. Most of those powers can be found enumerated in Article I Section 8 [1] - - - - Quote The Congress shall have power To la…

Interesting. So essentially he is talking of not so much reducing the federal government but basically dismantling it in it's current form and reforming it into something that is basically responsible for the military (although interestingly that list provides no provisions for an airforce presumably because planes hadn't been invented when it was written, so I guess it would have to be ammended) and currency control…

> Has he outlines a plan for doing this? I assume he couldn't just turn up on day 1 and basically tell all federal employees to go home.

You might be interested in reading Paul's proposed budget for his potential term in office. He realizes that instantly switching to a constitutional federal government would be terrible, so he takes a more gradual approach.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-resto...

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#149

Post by zavulon » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 6:01 PM UTC

ericingram wrote: post #145

maratd wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel the same way. In fact, I'm sure most of Ron Paul's supports feel the same way. I find his foreign policy views deplorable and offensive. You know what? I will still be voting for him. I'm tired. I'm so tired of the lying. Gingrich, Romney, Obama, Bush, etc. will say anything to get elected. Once elected, they all behave the same way. I'd rather have an honest man I disagree with in the White House, than a man…

If you don't agree with Ron Paul, it's because you've spent far less time studying the real implications and economic intricacies as he has. He's right on everything.

I agree with Ron Paul on economy more than any other candidate, but he's racist, anti-semite and a homophobe, or at least pretended to be one in order to get rich, which I find highly unlikely[1][2]. In my opinion, no matter how right on economy he is, we can't have someone like that as a president.

[1] http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-5...

[2] http://twitter.com/#!/RP_Newsletter

Edit: sorry if it was tongue-in-cheek! FWIW, I didn't downvote you.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#150

Post by gahahaha » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 6:01 PM UTC

dataminer wrote: post #71

j2labs wrote: post #62

The economist has a great write-up of Ron Paul: http://www.economist.com/node/21542199/

How was that a great writeup when it discounts him in the first paragraph, using adjectives like wacky, radical, no-hoper and quirky? I was expecting it to be an objective look at Ron Paul's policies by Economist.

"""wacky, radical, no-hoper and quirky"""

That IS a great summary of Ron Paul, so the Economist is being reasonably objective - as they usually are. Only the libertarian fringe and people who don't know much about anything support Ron Paul.