Ron Paul speaks against SOPA • Hacker News Board

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#171

Post by kingkilr » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 6:23 PM UTC

jswinghammer wrote: post #44

megablast wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Excuse me, what? He supported both the Defense of Marriage Act as well co-sponsoring the Marriage Protection Act, "which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act." That sentence alone is so offensive to my sensibilities as a citizen as to permanently disqualify him from my vote.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#172

Post by shibboleth » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 6:23 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…

Political scientist here. The United States has tried relying on charities in the past. Here's (partially) why it didn't work out: people are selective to the charities they donate to and charities are often selective to the people they choose to help (some charities target war veterans, some children, some minorities, some certain neighborhoods). This leave a large, noticeable gap of many people left ignored. It's not a matter of whether people wanting to be taxed or wanting to give to charities; of course no one wants to be taxed. The government took the responsibility from the church and various charities because they weren't providing enough help across the board to citizens in need. I'm not saying don't donate to charity or volunteer, you should, but I am arguing that government, albeit in need of improvements, is one of the best mechanisms for helping the needy.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#173

Post by thebigshane » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 6:24 PM UTC

gahahaha wrote: post #150

dataminer wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those adjectives are inherently subjective: the opposite of objective.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#174

Post by white_devil » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 6:25 PM UTC

zavulon wrote: post #149

ericingram wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why yes, for example this quote from the Ron Paul Newsletter proves that's he's a filthy racist:

But outside of a minuscule band of KKK members, there are few whose racism is the defining fact of their lives.

Case closed! Ron Paul is a racist!

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#175

Post by CWuestefeld » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 6:26 PM UTC

tvon wrote: post #163

sp332 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

megablast said he wants laws... against abortion and CWuestefeld pointed out that, although he doesn't like it, he doesn't support federal laws against it.

From his campaign page: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/ And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including: Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after hi…

Passing a law outright banning it is unnecessary if life is defined at the federal level as beginning at conception.

This is false. Such an official definition would probably be only symbolic. The thing is, the federal government does not have any general police power.

Even if, by their definition, abortion were murder (and there's a lot more defining to be done before we could arrive at that conclusion), it really wouldn't matter. Consider that today, we would define all living people as "alive" (duh), the federal has no laws forbidding murder! Any murder charge is the result of state laws (other than in national parks and in DC, but those are a different argument).

The only way this could affect real life legalities is in the way it interacts with the 13th Amendment. But since that's got the goofy doctrine of incorporation, there would be no net change unless the Supreme Court were to recognize the right with respect to this new/clarified definition. And that just puts the ball right back into the SCOTUS court, which is where it sits today anyway.

(I upvoted you because I think it's worthy of discussion, but this is the way the answer is going to fall out in the end)

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#176

Post by abstractionupon » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 6:28 PM UTC

roguecoder wrote: post #144

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…

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…

You have to understand that he hasn't shifted his positions in 30 or so years, except on DADT and the death penalty. So to say he isn't a straight-shooter is absurd.

As for the newsletters, they dealt with economics primarily. Could he have done a better job of overseeing the newsletters? Sure. But they were released over the span of a decade or more and as a whole contained only a few articles with questionable content. I mean, is someone making noise about Gingrich's or Romney's questionable ethics and corruption? Is someone asking why Romney's people bought all the HDD's from Mass. state computers before leaving office? Is someone calling other GOP candidates racist for supporting racial profiling and the drug war? Of course not. But a 20-year old ghostwritten dead horse has been re-re-exhumed and is being paraded on every network "news" show. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture?

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#177

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

dubfan wrote: post #130

dantheman wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

For Paul to claim that someone could hold a "scientific opinion as gospel" shows that he has either forgotten his scientific education that he no doubt received during his Ph.D. candidacy, or that his meaning was lost in his sweeping rhetoric. In this age of climate change, resource depletion and environmental degradation the most powerful country in the world needs a Commander-in-Chief that demonstrates the ability…

He's an MD not a PhD, as for showing ability to take science into account, I'd say that the politicization of science has been extremely detrimental to the publics trust in it. I've done a lot of research into the philosophy and history of science, and basing policy on "cutting edge" research seems to be wrought with disaster. In general scientists and engineers are extremely optimistic in the systems we can design, control, and understand. In government, we need a conservative approach that waits for science to be firmly established before acting, though a case be made against it, and in general it's better to directly convince the public to do something than use the threat of violence. Of course counter examples do exist (leaded gasoline and CFCs).

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#178

Post by dataminer » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 6:31 PM UTC

wycats wrote: post #155

It's not surprising that Ron Paul would be against SOPA. That said, libertarians like Paul would have been against funding the projects that led to the Internet, and are today against funding similar government projects that might lead to future innovations. In many cases, innovations are bootstrapped by government funding or research, and then handed off to an appropriate role by the free market. Libertarians are us…

However if a project was useful for military it would have gotten the funding from military budget. I don't think Ron Paul wants to dismantle the military.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#179

Post by bmelton » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 6:32 PM UTC

tvon wrote: post #158

bmelton wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More specifically, Ron Paul doesn't believe that ANY abortion legislation should be passed at the federal level, whether or not it is for or against abortion, and believes that right should be held by the states.

What a cop out. Ron Paul wants to define life as "starting at conception", he wants to do this at the federal level , and he wants states to ban abortion (which they'd frankly have to do if life was defined as starting at conception).

I haven't heard anything from him that sounds anything like that at all, and it definitely isn't how I understand his position to be.

In the absence of asking the man directly, can you cite a source?

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#180

Post by shibboleth » Fri, Dec 30, 2011, 6:32 PM UTC

cbs wrote: post #57

narag wrote: post #6

Ron Paul currently leads the majority of Iowa polls. IIRC Mr. Paul was a minoritary candidate in last elections. Please, people from the USA, Could you tell what has changed? Or is Iowa special?

Current conventional wisdom is that after Iowa, Paul will leave the "top tier" of the Republican race. He has always been ignored by traditional media and this is the highest hes ever risen, so there is a possibility he may find the staying power. To get to the meat of your question: why Paul now. Paul has always been a solid choice for people dissatisfied with the traditional Republican party. Many of his libertaria…

Winning Iowa, or at least winning expectations, correlates with additional fundraising and additional support leading into the following states: NH, SC, FL, NV. A winner is able to build up momentum into those states and have the chance to continue a successful campaign (Obama for America 2006-2008). And to be honest, Iowa and New Hampshire both are special. I've been to both states countless times and the people are fervent in understanding today's issues and the candidates' stances on those issues, more so than any other state in the country. But you are partially correct with your final assessment, winning Iowa does not guarantee a successful campaign run.