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

81–90 of 313 posts

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#81

Post by DiabloD3 »

waffle_ss wrote: post #23
toyg wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except insurance against "acts of God" is extremely hard (and expensive) to get. The free market has spoken: when emergency strikes, f*ck the poor people.

I'm not sure about how much more expensive it is, but if I lived in a hurricane-prone area I would probably investigate it and consider it a cost of living there. Otherwise, if I can just get bailed out by the federal gov't when disaster strikes, those who choose to live in the safer areas of the country are essentially subsidizing the risks I assume by living there. Think of it as a negative externality (stretching…

One of the Representatives of the State of Louisiana at the time of Katrina lived in an area that was not directly hit by the hurricane.

She had insurance that covered, flood, wind, and rain damage. The insurance company did not pay her a dime, even after she, and the rest of LA sued them.

There is no free market when insurance companies can buy judges to get their way out of doing what they were paid to do.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#82

Post by pwf »

megablast wrote: post #31
dkhenry wrote: post #4

What 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.

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.

His views on flag burning aren't exactly as you seem to think.

http://www.salon.com/2007/11/12/paul_3/

Mr. Speaker, we have some misfits who on occasion burn the flag. We all despise this behavior, but the offensive conduct of a few does not justify making an exception to the First amendment protections of political speech the majority finds offensive.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#83

Post by x3c »

davidw wrote: post #70
x3c wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not. I'm saying signal to noise ratio of political discussions on political sites is so low that any rational discussion drowns out in the noise. Plus, most political sites have a clear and strong bias, such that opposing ideas are rarely discussed based on their merits. Also, many techies who otherwise would not engage in political discussions (due to aforementioned reasons), can bounce off ideas here. I'm not c…

> 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.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#84

Post by dubfan »

jaysonelliot wrote: post #68
brentashley wrote: post #58

I have to say it's jarring to hear Ron Paul referring to "6000 years of human history" as though that is the totality of human history. While I still support him fully because everything he has to say wrt government and foreign policy is sound and principled, it's really difficult for me to reconcile this one thing.

Isn't that about how much written history we have? I don't think he's being a creationist here, at least, that's not how I read it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw - In this video he claims he does not "accept the theory of evolution as a theory". While he doesn't come straight out and use the tired "just a theory" attack, it sure sounds like it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eiR_U8vhIo - A reading from his book expounds on his answer to that question. He seems to think the question of evolution is "silly" and irrelevant to his campaign. He also attacks public schools and evolution with rather weak and banal rhetoric.

Ron Paul lacks the perspective to be commander-in-chief of this country.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#85

Post by jonknee »

j2labs wrote: post #8
jiggy2011 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a British person I don't know much about American politics but I often see this Ron Paul guy turn up in discussions about politics in general. He seems to a hero to many people including those who aren't the stereotypical republican voters. I have to admit I don't quite understand his appeal, his position seems to always just be to oppose any new legislation on government involvement in anything. His position alwa…

If he became president, you'd likely see him close down many government functions and make strong pushes towards states rights and small federal government. He is a hero to many because he holds stances that are antiwar and, generally, pro-individual liberty. I must say that I would be scared of a Paul presidency but I also love the way he's shaken up the republican party.

> I also love the way he's shaken up the republican party

He has not shaken up the GOP whatsoever. He has arguably shaken up the Libertarian party, but his base has nothing in common with the GOP base.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#86

Post by CWuestefeld »

veidr wrote: post #76
CWuestefeld wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how credible this is but it leaves me doubtful. Without checking out each quote, I believe the answer is that it's generally accurate, but you need to understand what these represent. First, there's the normal crap about taking things out of context... But more specifically, these are decidedly not things that Paul ever said or wrote. These are things that somebody else wrote in a newsletter that was usi…

Jeremiah Wright isn't my cup of tea, either, but 'anti-American'? That's absurd.

'anti-American'? That's absurd.

Well, it's not my phrasing.

- - - - - Begin Quote [1]

An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans.

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

- - - - - End Quote

[1] http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4443...

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#87

Post by teamonkey »

Angostura wrote: post #12
waffle_ss wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He says "no" a lot because the federal gov't has become way too bloated. There already is a free market solution to your scenario - it's called "insurance".

I'm intrigued. Who should have taken out insurance in the case of Katrina, for example?

Does this kind of insurance even exist? My home insurance has always had clauses about 'acts of god' such as these.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#88

Post by MattBearman »

The actual article is titled "Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Slams SOPA", which I think is a better title, especially for us non-US residents.

As while I'm hugely interested in the whole SOPA story, being from the UK, I had no idea who Ron Paul was, let alone that he was a presidential candidate.

Now that I know who he is, his stance against SOPA is much more interesting. Just a thought.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#89

Post by jsavimbi »

The thing I like most about Ron Paul is that he's unelectable as a national candidate, he knows it, yet has fun on Reddit and the national stage every four years.

The thing I like the least about Ron Paul is that some of his ideas are easily comprehended and adopted by people who I would otherwise consider intelligent and educated. It breaks my heart that for all intents and purposes, they are insane.

edit: had an extra "and" in there.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#90

Post by jiggy2011 »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #48
jiggy2011 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, perhaps the federal gov't is too bloated (I wouldn't really know , I'm british). My question more would be does he have a fundamentally different view on what the federal government is for? In which case I would expect him to say "we will do less of all of this stuff, but I think instead we should do more of this". Seems to me he's suggesting that the federal government do essentially nothing, except perhaps m…

Seems to me he's suggesting that the federal government do essentially nothing, except perhaps maintain enough of a military As I read his position, his philosophy is that of a pretty strict Constitutionalist. That is, the federal powers are limited to what's listed explicitly in the Constitution. Most of those powers can be found enumerated in Article I Section 8 [1] - - - - Quote The Congress shall have power To la…

Interesting. So essentially he is talking of not so much reducing the federal government but basically dismantling it in it's current form and reforming it into something that is basically responsible for the military (although interestingly that list provides no provisions for an airforce presumably because planes hadn't been invented when it was written, so I guess it would have to be ammended) and currency control.

Interestingly also it does provide for copyright control which could be viewed as being consistent with SOPA?

I wonder if his supporters realise what a fundamental restructure this would be and whether such a change would even be practical.

Has he outlines a plan for doing this? I assume he couldn't just turn up on day 1 and basically tell all federal employees to go home.

I can't imagine that you'd really need more than a few thousand federal employees (not counting military) to provide these services.

Post reply on HN