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

91–100 of 313 posts

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#91

Post by vaksel »

rationalbeats wrote: post #78
vaksel wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's bs. he had a 30 year career in politics, if he was really a racist, there'd be some video proof to support it of him actually saying this...or hell anything else to support that...but there isn't + then there is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8... the bottom line, is that if the worst thing that they'd been able to dig up about him, are some comments from ~20 years ago that weren't…

I have a hard time accepting that answer. Those quotes were taken directly from these newsletters http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rXxdXLObxdk/TvFkFgQzpSI/AAAAAAAAFh... It has his name, his face, and says by Ron Paul He also benefited financially for over 2 decades from these newsletters. You had to write a check to Ron Paul to get these newsletters example http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vT7kX8KDLI4/TvFnrfhhwVI/AAAAAAAAFk... So…

let me put this into developer context:

let's say you build a user generated content startup. It's one of the projects you built, so after a few months you forget it and go work on another startup. Then while you were 100% focused on your new startup, one of the users posts up some rant on your old one that you barely check.

Should you be held responsible for something put up on a domain that's registered to your name? After all, you made a whole $2 off adsense clicks.

How much money do you think a local ~town/county level newsletter makes anyways? Millions?

Bottom line, is that one lapse of leadership/judgement/what have you is nothing compared to most people...and let's not forget that it was 20 years ago and he has been squeaky clean since then. Which isn't something you can say about any other politician....so either hold others to the same standard...or cut the guy some slack and focus on policy, especially considering the lack of "evidence" in this case.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#92

Post by nextparadigms »

MattBearman wrote: post #88

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.

The first time I heard of Ron Paul was when he was basically the only one who stood up for Wikileaks in Congress and defended them when everyone else was calling them traitors and terrorists. I really liked that and I've been following him since:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM20w0jHH8A

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#93

Post by CWuestefeld »

damncabbage wrote: post #80
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…

Here's a nice break-down of exactly why the newsletter debacle is so damning (and how it contrasts with how Wright was handled): http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/re-thinking-...

Your linked article has some merit, it isn't something to dismiss out-of-hand. However, there's a significant flaw in it, where he discusses how Obama was excused but Paul isn't:

Obama did it with Jeremiah Wright, openly grappling with the past toxic association, owning it, explaining it. Paul has not had the wherewithal or presence of mind to do that. Indeed, he has not even named the association, the first step to disowning it.

But this is false, he did address it four years ago. I've linked and quoted that statement below. [1]

Also, Sullivan goes on to say "And unlike Obama with Wright, Paul got money from these newsletters."

You'll have to make your own value judgments here, but I think Obama comes out worse. It's true that Paul profited. However, it seems clear to me that Obama's relationship with the real perpetrator (Wright, in his case) was far closer than Paul's. Obama chose Wright to baptize his daughters, and used Wright's ideas for the title of his book The Audacity of Hope. This make me believe that Obama had a close, respectful relationship with Wright, and that some of Wrights ideas molded Obama's own. None of these things can be said of Ron Paul with respect to those newsletters.

[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/08/idUS233377+08-Jan-...

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'

"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#94

Post by patrickgzill »

narag wrote: post #6

Ron Paul currently leads the majority of Iowa polls. IIRC Mr. Paul was a minoritary candidate in last elections. Please, people from the USA, Could you tell what has changed? Or is Iowa special?

Ron Paul hasn't changed his views. But what has changed are the views of many Americans as to the importance of RP's views.

Before, talking about the Federal Reserve and Wall Street was boring.

Now, people are looking at the criminal behavior of those on Wall Street, and looking at the behavior of the Fed with a more critical eye.

And the only politician who was talking about this before things went askew, was Ron Paul.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#95

Post by dantheman »

llambda wrote: post #13
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…

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…

If people want to increase the scope of federal power to grant it a role in education or any other myriad of issues, then there is a clear process - pass a constitutional amendment granting it that power. For example, alcohol prohibition required an amendment yet somehow the war on drugs did not.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#96

Post by jeltz »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #27
llambda wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After Katrina he made remarks[1], and here I'm paraphrasing, that amounted to saying that neighboring states shouldn't have to pay for the misfortune of other states, i.e. through FEMA. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07...

Right. It appears to me that he would almost want to make states completely autonomous entities in which case why have a federal government at all? Ironically it would seem if he was elected as president he would basically work to put himself out of a job.

You can still have a bloated federal government administration with autonomous states, so I do not think he will be put out of work. Just look at the EU.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#97

Post by jiggy2011 »

steins wrote: post #74
toyg wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The free market doesn't owe you anything indeed, but society , which the government represents, is a very different thing. Sorry, I'm European and hardcore US "free-marketism" is so incredibly alien from here... I mean, the free market wouldn't ever give me 24 days of paid vacation every year, so why should I want more of it?

Maybe you should make yourself valuable enough to actually earn 24 days of vacation a year?

If you are valuable enough your employer probably doesn't want you to take any vacation. Your only real bargaining chit is being able to get a job elsewhere which means that if your skills are specialised enough and your employer is the only game in town where you would be that valuable then you actually have little to no bargaining power.

Also when you have a large number of staff who all doing essentially the same job they will usually get roughly the same vacation time or that would be regarded as unfair.

Just because somebody works as say a programmer but doesn't happen to be numero uno rockstar-ninja coder doesn't mean they don't deserve some time off every year.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#98

Post by sp332 »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #79
cheez wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read this as follows: "I should force people, at the threat of violence, to give me 24 days of paid vacation." That's pretty much what you are saying. I agree with you: the free market doesn't provide everything but that is what charity is for. Government is not charity. What kind of charity is it when they will send you to jail or bankrupt you for not tithing on time or enough?

The problems with charity as a model for providing what is provided currently by the government is that it is basically dictated by being able to make a plea to people with enough spare money to donate. So if a billionaire for example has a relative who suffers from a rare type of cancer for example they will be likely to donate a disproportionately massive amount of money to research and care for that particular typ…

The problems with charity as a model for providing what is provided currently by the government is that it is basically dictated by being able to make a plea to people with enough spare money to donate.

But the government just gets money from the people. Also, they get mandates from the people. So getting the government to tax you to pay for someone else's problem is exactly the same as paying for the problem yourself. Except now you've got a bunch of politicians involved. I don't see how that's supposed to make things better.

If people in a society want to pay for poor people's problems, they can just do that. On the other hand, if people don't want to pay for that, then of course they would never vote for a law to make them do that. I can't think of a case where people would rather be taxed by the government instead of giving money to charities.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#99

Post by dantheman »

cbs wrote: post #55
toyg wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the downvotes, but what's wrong about what I said? He's openly anti-abortion, and promoted anti-abortion legislation at Federal level (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul... ). Presumably, he would do the same once elected.

promoted anti-abortion legislation at Federal level Ron Paul: States Rights, unless its something I'm against. Just like any politician I guess.

I'm not a lawyer, but IIRC that act merely made it legal for states to prohibit abortion if they so desired. I'm pro-choice, but think that abortion, much like murder should be decided at the state level.

Re: Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

#100

Post by jiggy2011 »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #81
waffle_ss wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps Ron Paul would do away with whatever mechanism allows the insurance companies to buy judges? (assuming what they are doing is legal).
Post reply on HN