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

I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

camtyler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 84 posts

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#31

Post by threeseed »

pvnick wrote: post #10
ebbv wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ron Paul and Rand Paul are corporatists. They happen to be right on a couple of issues but they are wrong on almost everything else. A list of things they are wrong on: - Civil rights : The Pauls have long been against the Civil Rights act though they recently pretend they aren't. - Environmental regulation : They want none. Our major cities would look like those terrible pictures/video from China. Some of you may be…

Your post contains zero information apart from "Here's a bunch of talking points. You go research them" Edit: Ebbv recently changed his post to elaborate on his points, so while his argument now basically boils down to "I'm a hardline liberal and this is where the Pauls and I differ," my post is no longer relevant.

No. Your post contains no information. The post above has a list of issues that they believe Rand Paul has questionable positions on.

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#32

Post by rubikscube »

jimzvz wrote: post #21
ebbv wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He fights against bailouts, sure. But he also fights against all regulation.

Regulation is exactly what enables corporatism.

Succinctly and accurately put. I know there's more that agree on HN, but those who repeat the government lines verbatim from their government school seventh-grade textbooks seem to be the most vocal around here.

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#33

Post by threeseed »

rubikscube wrote: post #28
ebbv wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ron Paul and Rand Paul are corporatists. They happen to be right on a couple of issues but they are wrong on almost everything else. A list of things they are wrong on: - Civil rights : The Pauls have long been against the Civil Rights act though they recently pretend they aren't. - Environmental regulation : They want none. Our major cities would look like those terrible pictures/video from China. Some of you may be…

I'll address just one of your lefty talking points. "Right to choose : They are against a woman's right to choose." Why don't you finish the sentence, pal? Right to choose what exactly? Many people recognize that women do not have the right to murder their unborn child. One good thing from the Gosnell case is that the reality of your agendas are becoming more exposed by the day.

What are you talking about ? "Right to choose" is common parlance. There is nothing debatable about its use in this context.

It means a right to choose whether to have an abortion or not. You're just being ridiculous now.

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#34

Post by jimzvz »

ebbv wrote: post #22
jimzvz wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation is exactly what enables corporatism.

Uhh, no. Regulation is what requires corporations to dispose of pollutants properly instead of just dumping them in rivers. Regulation is what requires corporations to give workers proper safety warnings, equipment and training rather than just putting them in harm's way. Regulation is what requires corporations to disclose their accounting to investors instead of telling them whatever they want. Regulation is what r…

Maybe we have a different definition of corporatism because none of your points have anything to do with it.

Regulation allows Company A to influence the government to implement regulation that favours Company A and hinders Company B or individuals X.

Now perhaps regulation is required to a certain extent (especially with regards to the environment) but many of the potential issues are already covered by criminal law. What is certain is that without regulation, corporatism would become very difficult.

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#35

Post by pvnick »

magnusj wrote: post #13
tocomment wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the parts you don't like? I don't follow him that closely but doesn't he have a lot of pro-freedom views?

He is first and foremost social conservative, leaning libertarian on a few issues, and a state rights man on most issues (which isn't really about freedom. It's born out of a realization by reactionary southern people, that they can't get enough national support to implement their desired anti-freedom policies on a federal level). For instance, he opposes women's right to abortion (except in certain cases), same-sex…

>the laissez faire regulation of killer devices in the US is, in my view, a huge infringement on freedom

That is some professionally constructed doublespeak. Orwell would be impressed!

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#36

Post by rubikscube »

magnusj wrote: post #13
tocomment wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the parts you don't like? I don't follow him that closely but doesn't he have a lot of pro-freedom views?

He is first and foremost social conservative, leaning libertarian on a few issues, and a state rights man on most issues (which isn't really about freedom. It's born out of a realization by reactionary southern people, that they can't get enough national support to implement their desired anti-freedom policies on a federal level). For instance, he opposes women's right to abortion (except in certain cases), same-sex…

If you're so against things that can kill, let's see you call for the complete prohibition of alcohol. Many people die from alcohol-fueled murders, as well as drunk driving, and alcohol is still legal. Alcohol is not NEEDED BY ANYONE. I am making the devil's advocate case. At least with guns, the primary purpose by the majority is for self defense against criminals. It is reprehensible to see the inconsistency of your gun-grabbing position. Even more so in light of your support of women being allowed to murder their unborn children. Like I said above, at least the Gosnell case is opening the eyes of more people to the reality of the abortion agenda.

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#37

Post by sultezdukes »

ebbv wrote: post #8
pvnick wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is little else of Rand Paul worth paying for. Anytime either of the Paul's do something great that hits the news (many times a year), the armchair pundits on the internet make vague references to everything else they do which makes them not worth voting for. Some of the only people in congress who'll stand by their values and whom you know from what to expect. It's contrarian bullshit and I'm sick of it.

Ron Paul and Rand Paul are corporatists. They happen to be right on a couple of issues but they are wrong on almost everything else. A list of things they are wrong on: - Civil rights : The Pauls have long been against the Civil Rights act though they recently pretend they aren't. - Environmental regulation : They want none. Our major cities would look like those terrible pictures/video from China. Some of you may be…

You're a leftist, so of course you disagree with the Pauls. What's your point again?

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#38

Post by rubikscube »

magnusj wrote: post #13
tocomment wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the parts you don't like? I don't follow him that closely but doesn't he have a lot of pro-freedom views?

He is first and foremost social conservative, leaning libertarian on a few issues, and a state rights man on most issues (which isn't really about freedom. It's born out of a realization by reactionary southern people, that they can't get enough national support to implement their desired anti-freedom policies on a federal level). For instance, he opposes women's right to abortion (except in certain cases), same-sex…

homosexual "marriage" eh? I guess you like being a useful idiot. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-activist-says-ga...

"It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie."

Re: I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.

#39

Post by sultezdukes »

pvnick wrote: post #35
magnusj wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is first and foremost social conservative, leaning libertarian on a few issues, and a state rights man on most issues (which isn't really about freedom. It's born out of a realization by reactionary southern people, that they can't get enough national support to implement their desired anti-freedom policies on a federal level). For instance, he opposes women's right to abortion (except in certain cases), same-sex…

>the laissez faire regulation of killer devices in the US is, in my view, a huge infringement on freedom That is some professionally constructed doublespeak. Orwell would be impressed!

The leftists think stuff like that works.
Post reply on HN