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

71–80 of 84 posts

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

#71

Post by dram »

mikeash wrote: post #51
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.

Rand Paul is a conspiracy nut who thinks the UN is going to take away our guns: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/11/r... "You can bet the UN is working to FORCE the U.S. to implement every single one of these anti-gun policies...." It frightens me mildly that someone like this has power, although he's certainly far from the worst in Congress.

But the policy goal is to eventually have gun registrations and eliminate global gun ownership over time.

The UN Arms Trade Treaty does create an international database of dealers, brokers and affiliated workers in finance, security, transport etc- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty#Criticism

All this is gradual, incremental steps towards a defined ideological model- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration

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

#72

Post by nhangen »

ebbv wrote: post #14
HarryRotha wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your calling someone a corporatist who has fought against every corporate bailout thrown together in Washington? Thats rather silly mate. I'm not very into any 1 ism myself, but I've studied enough to realize that there are pointed differences between corporatism and capitalism. The Pauls seem to be capitalists. Many others who claim to be capitalists are corporatists.

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

He fights against senseless, bloated regulation because he is a libertarian, and that's what libertarians do...they fight against bloated government in order to enforce only that which is required for the country to function.

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

#73

Post by nhangen »

mikeash wrote: post #51
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.

Rand Paul is a conspiracy nut who thinks the UN is going to take away our guns: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/11/r... "You can bet the UN is working to FORCE the U.S. to implement every single one of these anti-gun policies...." It frightens me mildly that someone like this has power, although he's certainly far from the worst in Congress.

Do you own a gun?

Edit - Reply:

Reason I ask is because you said 'our guns' and I wondered if you really meant 'your guns.'

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

#74

Post by mikeash »

rubikscube wrote: post #70
mikeash wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rand Paul is a conspiracy nut who thinks the UN is going to take away our guns: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/11/r... "You can bet the UN is working to FORCE the U.S. to implement every single one of these anti-gun policies...." It frightens me mildly that someone like this has power, although he's certainly far from the worst in Congress.

Yes, I forgot that the UN has been a champion of the right to bear arms. Don't they subsidize the NRA? Seriously, I'll trust Rand Paul, the one who actually has experience in politics, including the UN, rather than the one throwing the conspiracy smears.

The nuttiness isn't the UN's goal, but the vast overstatement of their power. The UN has no control over US internal affairs, and no matter how anti-gun they may be, talking about how the UN is going to come take our guns is just plain conspiracy craziness.

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

#75

Post by mikeash »

nhangen wrote: post #73
mikeash wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rand Paul is a conspiracy nut who thinks the UN is going to take away our guns: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/11/r... "You can bet the UN is working to FORCE the U.S. to implement every single one of these anti-gun policies...." It frightens me mildly that someone like this has power, although he's certainly far from the worst in Congress.

Do you own a gun? Edit - Reply: Reason I ask is because you said 'our guns' and I wondered if you really meant 'your guns.'

What does it matter? The craziness has nothing to do with guns, but rather the idea that the UN is going to do, well, anything when it comes to US internal affairs.

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

#76

Post by nhangen »

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…

There are many people that don't believe in a woman's right to abortion.

Also, I'm fairly confident he believes that same-sex marriage is a state issue, and should not be touched by the federal government.

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

#77

Post by pessimizer »

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…

And it's what enables corporations and corporatism entirely. There's no contradiction in what you're saying and what you're replying to.

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

#78

Post by SeanKilleen »

rubinelli wrote: post #7
hkmurakami wrote: post #2

I recalled this line by Lawrence Lessig during Rand Paul's filibuster regarding drone strikes on American citizens: There is plenty to disagree with Rand Paul about. But this filibuster is not. Thank you, sir. http://twitter.com/lessig/status/309415470879100928 I feel the same way about his efforts on Internet rights.

Even when you don't agree with the guy, it's refreshing seeing someone defend a position because he believes in it, and not because his job depends on it.

A little bit of an issue on that one. He reversed his position a little while later and said that it was just about that one word. In that same statement, he advocated the use of a drone to kill someone who robbed a liquor store of $50. I shit you not.

See http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/23/1204296/-Rand-Paul-...

(article is biased liberally; I'm more of a moderate but it's where I saw the information.)

I'm happy that he actually used the spoken filibuster instead of hiding behind rules-based filibusters (which have been the cause of some of the worst obstruction in our country's history), but I no longer hold the belief (as I did right after his filibuster) that it was some sort of principled stand.

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

#79

Post by mieses »

nhangen wrote: post #72
ebbv wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

He fights against senseless, bloated regulation because he is a libertarian, and that's what libertarians do...they fight against bloated government in order to enforce only that which is required for the country to function.

He fights against regulation at the federal level, not at the state and local level, which is more constitutionalist than absolute libertarian. This would allow states to implement consistent laws where it makes sense and different laws where it doesn't. Rand Paul is not for a libertarian utopia without rules, like most people here claim.

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

#80

Post by magnusj »

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!

How??? Everything in that sentence is true. The US has a laissez faire regulation of killing devices/guns/assualt weapons. And my view is that it's an infringement on my freedom (since I have to factor in a greater risk of getting killed when being in public spaces in the US). Please provide some evidence that those two facts are false.
Post reply on HN