Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easier to switch states than to switch countries. If you don't like the draconian laws in your state you can move to another one that shares your views.
And when I'm out of states that share my views?
Try voting.
Ron Paul speaks against SOPA
211–220 of 313 posts
Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA
#212What 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.
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.
These are not credible at all. These are, when its all said and done, lies used to paint Ron Paul.
The very interesting thing is, why? What is the motivation of such people to bash Paul as a homophobe when there's decades of actions on his part that are anything but? What's the motivation of people to bash Paul as a racist, when he has freely associated with people of every color without any hatred his whole life? When in the 1970s he gave a poor family free medical care because he was a doctor and they couldn't pay? (and it didn't matter to him that they weren't white.)
I'll tell you the motivation. The people attacking paul now do not give a damn about the rights of gay people or about racism... after all, they themselves are racist, and they support a guy-- Obama-- who opposes gay marriage and gay rights and is widely known to be a homophobe, by his actions.
The motivation is that Ron Paul represents a credible threat to change the US federal government to one that protects rights of the people, limits itself from controlling the economy, and lets people be free to pursue their ambitions.
This is very threatening to people whose sole career has been peddling influence.
Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA
#213TLDR for your non net-savvy friends and relatives:
SOPA = takedown of websites without due process = censorship for those (corporations) who can afford big legal teams
Restriction of where you can link to = restricting dissemination of information = censorship for commercial interest over free speech.
Simple as that.
Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
I'd hesitate to describe HN as non-political. The majority of HNer's are very pro-capitalist and pro-business from what I've observed, which makes sense given the community's focus on start-ups. The popular political sentiments that you'll find on Reddit are very different from those you'll find on HN.
Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm saying signal to noise ratio of political discussions on political sites so low that any rational discussion drowns out in the noise. And you'd like to bring that here?
I'm not trying to be rude or condescending here, but if you read my reply in its entirety, you'll find the answer to your question.
The connection you aren't making is that politics leads to flame wars, on the internet. "Politics" regards deeply held beliefs people hold about how the world ought to be run. Also, the same discussions tend to be run over and over on ad infinitum. Hacker news doesn't need it. It does well by having a tight focus.
Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA
#216Earlier 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.
Uh-huh. I've paid attention to Paul just fine, and I can see he's not against Jews at all, unless we want to have a country - you know, like hundreds of other peoples.
Thanks, but I can do without his form of 'tolerance'. Anyone else in the GOP is preferable.
Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA
#217It'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…
You really believe connecting two computers would not happen without government "bootstrapping"? I hope this is not a serious position. I personally enjoy your simplistic vision of how an economy works. It's as simple as having the government water little seeds of innovation, and to simply hand it off to the "free market" to flourish and capitalize. You see, entrepreneurs operate in a market , in which they compete t…
See my other response on this thread. My comment here was based entirely on what actually happened, not some theoretical view of how economies work in the abstract.
Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I'm on my tablet right now so it's a little difficult to type lengthy responses, but hopefully these are sufficient.
First, it specifies a death penalty for Murder 1st Degree -- but we all know that there are plenty of states (most?) in which you cannot be killed for this. So there's a contradiction.
Actually, it isn't a contradiction. The wording for part B (which you are referring to) states "Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States." If you are confused as to what that means you can refer to 18 USC 7 which lays out a specific definition.
18 USC 1092 is only applicable to Chapter 50a, not 18 USC 1111. However, 18 USC 1111 is applicable to states (but not part B). There are several complex nuances to this. I won't claim to know all of them, but 18 USC 454 adds better clarification than I could explain.
Ummm... maybe the 13th Amendment? Honestly, I think you're being intentionally obtuse here.
Yes, I was exaggerating. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Replace slavery with abortion, child labor, or anything... the point is still the same.
The people of each state, or their duly appointed representatives, of course.
######################
We can keep discussing this as this is the single most important argument overclouding this entire conversation.
######################
To start the discussion, do you believe that the collective taxes of one state should go to benefit another?
It looks like you're so afraid that a small portion are going to be disadvantaged that you're insisting on a one-size-fits-all solution. But experience shows that such solutions are almost always worse in the end (e.g., NCLB), and by their very nature they hurt a much broader scope of people -- better to make your experimental mistakes at a small scope. Especially since experience also shows that legislative mistakes (again, like NCLB, but there are countless other examples) are almost never rolled back, because of political gamesmanship.
First off, it's not as small of a portion as you may think. NCLB is a good example of a federal program gone awry, but fortunately this administration is putting into place several policies to fix the fundamental issues of why NCLB didn't succeed. There is no reason why federal legislation can not give leniency to the states. If you are interested in learning about these policies let me know and I can generate a few sources for you to check out.
In what way is insisting on using Article V (the amendment process) in order to patch bugs inferior to ad hoc power grabs?
I understand your argument and why you feel that Article V is a good process, but it isn't. I'll give you reasons why but first I'd like to read your response to the question posed a couple sections above.
Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
"sanity" being "what you agree with". That's why we should flag political articles and leave them to other sites.
"sanity" being "what you agree with" is generally a truism in any context. HN is in a unique position to offer high quality discussion on topics that have become extremely important to hackers, much more important than some nostalgic ideas on what HN is 'supposed' to be. This is no time to stick our heads in the sand. We have a powerful platform and a powerful community here and it would be very foolish to waste them…
> it would be very foolish to waste them
Which is why many of us do not want politics here.
Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 tryi…
He doesn't "favor the death penalty" he calls for the execution of people based on their sexual preference in accordance with Biblical law. This man's endorsement was touted by Paul's Iowa campaign. So yes, I find that offensive and reprehensible; Paul should immediately repudiate the endorsement.
You're lying. That's why you're being down voted.