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

181–190 of 313 posts

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#181

Post by fl3tch »

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…

> He's not even a libertarian: he's perfectly fine with States grossly abridging freedom, just not the federal government.

Exactly this. He's not a libertarian, he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. I think he has a very regressive political philosophy, that would empower local governments to discriminate against minorities, women, the disenfranchised, etc. People talk about how he wants to legalize drugs, but he would be perfectly fine with state governments creating even more draconian drug laws.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#182

Post by dantheman »

adabsurdo wrote: post #167
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…

>> But none of that really matters. I would bet that you are neither a woman, black, jewish, poor, or gay. So the fact, for example, that ron paul is a huge racist is something that you can discount at no cost to you. edit : wow, i see the ron paul brigade is out in force, as usual. thank you all! never been so proud of being downvoted.

Ron Paul is not a racist, and in fact sees racism as the lowest form of collectivism.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#183

Post by dantheman »

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).

this is incorrect, the bill you are referencing merely allowed states to ban abortion if they so desired and removed federal funding from abortions; this is very different than trying to force through a federal ban.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#184

Post by r00fus »

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…

Philosophy/Ideals without practice/pragmatism/policy indicate he's merely a populist.

When looking to who to vote for, identify where their money comes from. Then you can see how they might govern (e.g.: Obama got lots of money from the electorate-at-large, but a substantial amount from the financial sector - look where we are today).

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#185

Post by dantheman »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #175
tvon wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

The act being referred to merely allows states to ban abortion and removes federal funding from abortions, it does not ban them.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#186

Post by wycats »

dataminer wrote: post #178
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.

I think Ron Paul would consider ARPA to be military pork, and he is in favor of a drastically smaller military, so things like ARPA would likely end up on the cutting room floor as "pet projects" etc.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#187

Post by maratd »

fl3tch wrote: post #181
roguecoder wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> He's not even a libertarian: he's perfectly fine with States grossly abridging freedom, just not the federal government. Exactly this. He's not a libertarian, he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. I think he has a very regressive political philosophy, that would empower local governments to discriminate against minorities, women, the disenfranchised, etc. Peopl…

> He's not a libertarian, he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas.

This is not inconsistent with libertarian thought. Protecting life from violence is a primary responsibility of government. If you believe that the fetus qualifies as a life at any point between conception and birth, you would be against abortion. Simple as that.

If you want to fault him for believing a fetus qualifies as a life, fine, but that belief in itself has nothing to do with politics.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#188

Post by azar1 »

bmelton wrote: post #179
tvon wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

HR 2533: Sanctity of Life Act [1] "Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life."

[1] http://www.dailypaul.com/122553/ron-paul-hr-2533-sanctity-of...

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#189

Post by shibboleth »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #25
llambda wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting to think about consistency as something that is necessarily valued. I think the naive rationale goes something like this, "Well a politician should be consistent because they must represent the will of the constituency which elected them, thereby enfranchising those people and validating the institution of democracy." However, that said, consistency can be a burden. Imagine this applied to the startu…

he wants to limit the govt to do nothing but what is legally provisioned in the constitution That's essentially correct, but a bit of an oversimplification. A more accurate representation would be "he wants to limit the federal govt to do nothing but what is legally provisioned in the constitution". There are a number of things that he'd like to see the government do, but at a state or local level. For example, he's…

A few points to mention.. there is most definitely a federal law against murder: US Code Title 18 Section 1111.

I'm also concerned with your statements regarding abortion et al. These are serious issues that significantly impact people's lives. We shouldn't have a "playground" or a labyrinth of "mini laboratories" for such issues. What's to stop a state, say Alabama for hypothetical purposes, from testing out slavery again? It's economically beneficial, isn't it?

Also this statement seems contradictory: "with the rest of the country able to watch what happens, and then pick the best results from the other states." Who picks the best results? Certainly not the federal government under a Paul administration. Many supporters counter by stating that people can just move to another state... but unfortunately for the poor moving is almost impossible.

You say that we then pick the best result from the states, but that seems contradictory to Ron Paul's message.

Finally, the Constitution was written by rich white individuals who were basically looking after their own well-being (I may be overcritical, but you can decide whether I am or not by reanalyzing it). This requires critical analysis and a historical background: but how many clauses benefit the rich? how many the poor? how many benefit slave owners? The constitution is a relatively vague document, and although I agree that some branches are overextending their powers (i.e. executive) I don't think a strict adherence to the literal wording of the document will be any beneficial to solving the broad problems that exist today.

Sorry if my wording seems harsh, I don't mean for it to be. I had to hastily write this in a couple minutes before I head out the door.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#190

Post by rjbond3rd »

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…

Zavulon, why did you think he was rich? He's not. Why do you think he's pretending anything? He's not. Do you know the man, or are you just taking the easy path of buying into the hysteria?

He's flawed but you certainly didn't mention his actual flaws, which means you don't know him, you've simply read about him.

His worst crime is that he's homophobic on a personal level. But he's not one bit anti-gay on a philosophical level and he has gotten big endorsements from Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage. So you've lost the anti-gay argument.

And ditto for the other accusations. Please don't just be a part of the echo chamber. If you do, you're being rather easily manipulated, sorry.

Post reply on HN