![The Internet The Internet](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/internet_64.png)
![Politics Politics](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/politics_64.png)
Ron Paul's New Primary Goal Is "Internet Freedom" 948
Charliemopps writes "Ron and Rand Paul are shifting the central focus of their family's libertarian crusade to a new cause: Internet Freedom. From the article: 'Kentucky senator Rand and his father Ron Paul, who has not yet formally conceded the Republican presidential nomination, will throw their weight behind a new online manifesto set to be released today by the Paul-founded Campaign for Liberty. The new push, Paul aides say, will in some ways displace what has been their movement's long-running top priority, shutting down the Federal Reserve Bank. The move is an attempt to stake a libertarian claim to a central public issue of the next decade, and to move from the esoteric terrain of high finance to the everyday world of cable modems and Facebook.' This seems like welcome news to me. Let's see if they can get more traction here than they did with the Fed."
First thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
I made a contribution to one of Ron's 2008 "money bombs." From that simple action, I started getting spam from Ron, the Campaign for Liberty, the Rand Paul campaign, and state campaigns. All with "no one's listening" return addresses.
Somehow, this move reeks of opportunism - they have not shown any real understanding of Internet privacy, and certainly haven't "walked the walk."
Re:First thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Internet allows the only real free flow of information nowadays. That's why keeping it open is so important. Without the Internet, the only information we'd get would come from CNN, Fox, BBC, ABC, CBS, etc.
The Internet is only free press. Hence the desire to keep it unfettered.
Re:First thing... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Good catch.
FTA:
They apparently don't understand "Net Neutrality." They seem to think it's some political content issue rather than preventing throttling of packets based on their source or content.
Re:First thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh... dude, have you actually READ the proposed "net neutrality" rules?
Hint: They have nothing to do with what you and I mean by "net neutrality." They're just a Government power-grab, and nothing else. THAT is what Dr. Paul opposes.
Re:First thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that Ron Paul would be opposed to net neutrality full stop, since it involves the government meddling in how private corporations run their business. Sure, without net neutrality we're effectively giving a few major corporations the power to control and censor an important channel of communication, but in Paulworld that's not real censorship because it's not the Government doing it.
Re: (Score:3)
Whose Freedom To Do What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ron and Rand Paul are shifting the central focus of their family's libertarian crusade to a new cause: Internet Freedom.
Depends what you mean by freedom. According to this Ars Technica Article [arstechnica.com], he means the freedom of corporations to decide who gets to speak and what they get to say on the Internet.
This seems like welcome news to me.
I'd say that depends pretty heavily on whether you want citizens to be free to speak, or network providers to be free to generate revenue by restricting speech.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Whose Freedom To Do What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your idea of "freedom" is expropriating others' private property for your own freedoms, just because those others are large business entities, right?
Nope, I'm actually a pretty hard-core free market guy.
My idea of freedom for network providers is this:
1. You want immunity from liability for what you carry? Fine, you have to be agnostic to what you carry. If you want discretion, you are liable.
2. You want exclusive rights to spectrum and access to rights of way? Cool, but you have to act in the public interest -- which includes supporting the most important freedom we have; free speech.
You don't have to do those things, but you can't use our spectrum, our rights-of-way, and be granted immunity if you do not give some quid-pro-quo to society for the privilege. It's like the free market, you have to pay for what you get -- but since the goods and services you are getting are public resources and civil liability privileges, your payment is to society and the transaction is managed by our government.
Re:Whose Freedom To Do What? (Score:5, Insightful)
My idea of freedom includes the people joining together to protect ourselves from warlords and corporate officers (or both simultaneously).
Your idea of freedom is Mad Max.
Verizon, AT&T -- all backing Rand Paul (Score:5, Insightful)
"Internet Freedom" sounds like a phrase designed to make being anti-Net Neutrality sounds good.
And no wonder: Verizon and AT&T are heavy contributors to Rand Paul's campaign. [fastcompany.com]
Make no mistake: there's nothing "free" about the state-granted monopolies the wireless and cable industry have. Since they're monopolies, they ought to be regulated.
And if regulation is removed, you know that the telecom industry will be hitting up Google and Netflix for cash right away.
"Internet Freedom" means freedom for Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T to charge siteowners like Google and Amazon just because they feel like it.
"Internet Freedom" means every single thing you do on the Internet is going to cost more because Verizon and Comcast need to keep posting massive increases in profits.
"Internet Freedom" means freedom for the carriers to hold you hostage. ...and if you think that the 'free-market' will solve this, remember: bandwidth is scarce and already monopolized by the big carriers. You won't see landline competition either: the big carriers also have all the local governments locked up so there won't be any competition there. And you know that the Pauls won't be taking on the local governments so that there can be competition in the landline market.
Re:Verizon, AT&T -- all backing Rand Paul (Score:5, Insightful)
Rand Paul != Ron Paul.
More importantly, Rand Paul !== Ron Paul.
Re: (Score:3)
"Ron and Rand Paul are set today to shift the central focus of their family's long libertarian crusade to a new cause: Internet Freedom."
Internet Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Internet collectivists are clever," the manifesto says, accusing their foes of series of Orwellian linguistic twists. "They are masters at hijacking the language of freedom and liberty to disingenuously pushfor more centralized control. 'Openness' means government control of privately owned infrastructure.'Net neutrality' means government acting as arbiter and enforcer of what it deems tobe 'neutral'."
The irony is that If he gets his way on this issue HE will be among the most likely to be stifled.
As Bugs Bunny used to say, "What a maroon!"
Welcome to GovCorp (Score:5, Interesting)
From reading the article, it sounds like the Pauls are more afraid of the government than corporations, which is a mistake IMHO. Eisenhower talked of the Military-Industrial complex. It's all slowly merging into one giant GovCorp, where the politicians and top corporate executives entrench themselves further and further, scratching each other's backs.
There's the concept of "Creative Destruction." The working classes are well acquainted with it. The problem is that where it's needed most, at the top of the political system and in financial sectors, it's almost completely prevented from occurring.
The Economist had an interesting article entitled "The question of extractive elites." [economist.com]
From that article: "In an extractive economy, such as the Belgian Congo and its successor state, Zaire, a narrow elite seizes power and uses its control of resources to prevent social change... Much of current economic policy seems to be driven by the need to prop up banks, whether it is record-low interest rates across the developed world or the recent provision of virtually unlimited liquidity by the once-staid European Central Bank. The long-term effects of these policies, which may be hard to reverse, are difficult to assess."
who's internet freedom? (Score:5, Interesting)
the individual's?
or freedom like this?:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/07/04/1538201/verizon-claims-net-neutrality-violates-their-free-speech-rights [slashdot.org]
the problem the pauls and libertarian fundamentalists like them have is they are incredibly naive about what small government really means: a power vacuum that is filled by corporations. at least with our deeply flawed government, there is actually a pretense that it is supposed to stand for our individual freedoms, and some means of recourse
weaken our government, and you are left with monopolies and oligarchies who are happy to trample on our freedoms in the name of their "freedom", and no recourse whatsoever
oh yeah, you can take your business to a competitor, because without regulation the three dominant players aren't colluding and squashing all real competition
oh yeah, you can sue them in court. like you have 6 months and $100,000 and you lose anyway because they can just wear you down with their legion of lawyer goons
give it up, randroids
Re:who's internet freedom? (Score:5, Informative)
rainbows!
unicorns!
for a market to be truly free, as in just, a market must be highly regulated so large and small players operate on the same level ground
without such government intervention in the market, the largest players collude and squash the little ones, and there is no real market at all, just a few large rent seeking parasites and no consumer choice whatsoever
but don't listen to me, i only have the entirety of economic history to back me up
by all means, don't let reality interfere with what are basically religious myths you depend upon to think the way you do
Re:who's internet freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
i absolutely understand and agree with your point!
and this is the corporate corruption of our government. and this must be stopped
what is the alternative? reduce and weaken the government?
thereby rewarding the source of the problem?
i never understood this "the patient is sick, so kill him and give the virus an award" thinking about the corporate corruption of our government
you see as the source of the problem as the government
the source of the problem is the corporations
we need to fight back and reclaim OUR government
not weaken it, and reward the crimes committed when our government is compromised
Re: (Score:3)
The only power stopping monopoly in every walk of life is the power of the people together to stop it before the monopolist gets perpetuating power. In the US we form a government to protect our rights, including equal access to markets and everything that flows from it.
When a city makes money off a franchise fee, it depends on how it spends the fee to see whether consumers win. Spending its fraction of the budget on the fraction that is the police, courts and rulemaking all benefit the consumer by protecti
Ron Paul != libertarian (Score:3)
He's a states-rightser who's masquerading as a libertarian, and he gets away with it because the things he says are anti-federal government.
Re:Ron Paul != libertarian (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Paul (either of them) is a libertarian. Libertarians are really corporate anarchists, some motivated by petty local exploitations of groups vulnerable to local elites. There are no "real libertarians" as you'd probably define them, because libertarianism is a fallacy that ignores the corporate/warlord thrusts into the vacuum libertarianism creates. Every time, around the world, without exception.
Your "real libertarian" might exist in Sim City, but not in the real world. It's a fantasy. A dangerous one when it's pumped at us to deprive us of the power to create government to protect our rights. It's downright un-American.
Ron Paul is not a freedom fighter (Score:4, Insightful)
Its obvious from reading the comments on this story that a lot of you all think this means Ron Paul is in favor of a free and open internet, and has come out in favor of net neutrality. You all obviously don't know Ron Paul. For him, and his son, "internet freedom" means businesses on the internet are free to do as they please, capitalism rules, and net neutrality will die a quick death.
He doesn't know what internet freedom is (Score:5, Insightful)
Real internet freedom needs freedom not only from government interference, but also from corporate interference. And the latter requires strong competition based alternative forms of internet access. Since it is not economical to build up that much duplicate physical connectivity to customers, internet access services will need to be split between a shared physical infrastructure and independent core connectivity and associated access services (DHCP, RADIUS, DNS, and whatever else the chosen technology may need). This common shared infrastructure needs to be regulated by government and operated as a regulated monopoly with a mandate to provide service to all on a level and open playing field.
IMHO, Ron Paul would never agree to any part of the infrastructure to be regulated in any way. Competing companies would not overbuild on each other more than 2 or 3 because of the capital inefficiency. As a result, there would not be sufficient competition for a viable free and open internet.
Ron Paul would certainly reject a single vertical internet provider monopoly which would effectively entrench government interference. At least that much is good about his positions.
Only a hybrid solution can ever really work. See how electricity is delivered in Texas. One company (Oncor Energy Delivery) operates the infrastructure and delivers the electricity to the customers of many competing energy providers which customers choose from. Ron Paul is from Texas, so he should know about this.
Not the best spokesman (Score:3)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The US elected W as their president. So I would say that Texas is good at churning out politicians that have a chance at the federal level.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
The US elected W as their president. So I would say that Texas is good at churning out politicians that have a chance at the federal level.
Since when is W from Texas? I remember he moved there once for political purposes...
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Supreme Court elected W as our president.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Funny)
The Supreme Court elected W as our president.
I would love to take comfort in that idea, but really, that situation didn't happen because of the SC, it happened because half of us are idiots.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:4)
What the moon is made of is not a Constitutional question, so it's beside the point. I guess you can't make your case without using ridiculous examples, huh?
Deciding what is and is not Constitutional is, by definition, interpreting the Constitution, since the Constitution is short and vague and doesn't directly answer most questions before the Court. The Court has to read between the lines and balance against precedent to decide what may or may not be Constitutional. It's not like the Constitution says, "an individual mandate for health insurance is fine for Congress to require." Nor does it say, "women have the right to an abortion." It shouldn't say those things--it was written as a basic guideline that is simply too vague to have a clear answer to every question.
If it was obvious what is Constitutional and what isn't simply from reading the text, we wouldn't need SCOTUS at all. At a minimum, such questions wouldn't be so contentious since it would be "obvious" what the Constitution means.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Supreme Court elected W as our president.
In 2004?
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
An axis with liberal and conservative ends is not 2D but 1D.
Besides, in politics, the means one is eager to use in order to further one's values or ends, is just as important as where those values fall on this liberal/conservative axis. That requires another dimension of measurement.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Funny)
Except for the guy currently running for president, Massachusetts politicians would not be a bad bet (since it's Democrats that run the state, you wouldn't want to pay too much attention to our Republicans anyway). Details here [slate.com], but in general we score well on most metrics -- low divorce rate, lots of education, healthy population (especially children). Economically, high income, low unemployment, high productivity. What's not clear is whether the high incomes cause the other good stuff, or if the other good stuff attracts/causes the high incomes.
Interesting thing about Texas (and I did live there for about eight years) is whether they have forgotten the lessons that they learned back in the 80s. Back then, I believe it went: "Please God, Just Give Me One More Oil Boom. I Promise Not to Blow It Next Time."
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me, Obama is still running the "I'm not GWB" campaign. He sure isn't running proud of his accomplishments for the last 3.5 years. Problem is, he isn't the great HOPE and CHANGE people were expecting. Just more of the same, only worse. Problem is, Romney isn't much better. But then again, I'm a (L) so ... the same old song and dance doesn't affect me much. More selling us to the highest bidder, and security for liberty exchange we always get using the same scare tactics.
You are so, so wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
You're wrong in a very fundamental way. Obama most certainly is proud of his accomplishments, as are most Democrats who voted for him. Among other things, he's dramatically changed the health care landscape for the better, he's helped to radically shift society's perception of homosexuality, and militarily he's kicked ass, accomplishing the destruction of the most hated person on earth since Adolph Hitler. Am I in love with everything the guy's done? No, but on the whole, I am extremely proud to proclaim that I supported him in 2008, and I am happily doing so again this year.
You seem to be buying Republican attempts to make him out as ineffectual. I know it's pretty difficult with right wing politicians, Fox News and a whole bunch of talking heads on the radio constantly spewing out lies and misrepresentations about his record and corporations who want the unfettered ability to run roughshod over our freedoms spending hundreds of millions, possibly even billions of dollars on 24x7x365 slick well-planned marketing campaigns designed to get the poor and middle class to vote against their own self-interest. It's clearly a case of the old adage of telling a lie enough until even the person telling it believes it's true.
But make no mistake, I am not supporting him because of any kind of "I'm not GWB" campaign. The fact is that he inherited a hell of a mess caused by eight years of bad policy, and he's done an amazing job turning things around. Most Democrats knew this well enough in 2009 that they really haven't needed to constantly remind everyone except when Republicans keep trotting out things like the massive job losses that the U.S. sustained in Obama's first year when we were still operating under Bush's economy. If Republicans would stop pitching these losses as Obama's fault before he even had a chance to enact any policies, we would stop reminding everyone why those numbers were so bad.
But yeah, it's most certainly not more of the same. Ask anyone who is getting mortgage relief now. Ask any gay member of the military. Ask anyone who had their insurance policy canceled during the Bush years because they had an incurable condition. Ask the brave members of SEAL Team Six. Ask any young immigrant who is here through no decision of their own but, until a couple of weeks ago, faced the threat of deportation to a country they've never known. Anyone who thinks that the past four years have been more of the same is either lying, stupid, or grossly not paying attention.
We still have HOPE and we've seen CHANGE. Backtracking on that now would be one of the dumbest things the American electorate could ever do.
Re:You are so, so wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I.e., Obama has added more entitlements without addressing the question of cost control in any meaningful way. In different words, the young are getting shafted even more than they already are by the current system.
The change in attitudes is due to large numbers of people engaging in grass-roots advocacy for years and years. Obama ("my views are evolving") opportunistically took advantage of this change when it seemed politically prudent.
In different words, taxpayers are subsidizing people who bought homes that were too big and expensive for them.
Targeted killings, unlawful detentions, kill lists: Obama was supposed to end all this and he has failed to do so.
You are right, things are not the same: under Obama, crony capitalism, race baiting, pork, and politically motivated killings have reached new lows. With his policies, Obama is targeting a carefully selected portfolio of voters in order to get reelected, regardless of the long term consequences.
Re:You are so, so wrong (Score:5, Informative)
That is for the first 10 years with the taxes kicking in years before the bulk of the benefits kick in.
It also involved taking a lot of money away from medicare.
But don't let that influence your thinking -- liberals are know for half truths with numbers to try to make their point (well all politicians do that but that last line was so condescending I felt the need to sink to your level.)
And seriously, even with your numbers, this is acting like adding a trillion dollars in new government spending is frugal.
Re:You are so, so wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think you understand the problem: on all but one of those issues the Republicans say Obama didn't go far enough (apparently only Republicans are allowed to deny FOIA requests).
Obama has his faults, but McCain has since shown repeatedly that he would be worse on all of those issues than Obama and I sincerely doubt Romney would do any better. Frankly, Romney appears to be another figure head who will take the blame for the policies implemented in his name by the same team that brought you the 2008 economic collapse. It seems to me that Romney wants to be president for the prestige, and that's a dangerous quality in a presidential candidate. It's the root cause of why Bush was such an awful president.
Re:You are so, so wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're dead-on about Romney. He's super rich. He has no idea what problems average Americans struggle with. He's tried his hand at the financial market, he's been a governor, so what now? A bored rich guy's gotta find a hobby. Why not be President? Ever notice how uncomfortable he looks when he has to hang around "normal" people? He has no clue how to relate to them. He doesn't understand why he has to do all this silly song-and-dance just to get a job he wants.
I've never gotten the impression he wants to be President because he truly cares about this country and its people. For all McCain's faults, I never doubted his motives--he clearly cares about this country, even if his actual policy ideas are no good. Romney just comes off as bored and aloof. Being President is just something for him to do, not something he's truly energized about or something he brings real policy ideas to.
He seems intent on spending his whole campaign attacking Obama rather than putting forth his own ideas. He has no vision.
Re:You are so, so wrong (Score:5, Funny)
accomplishing the destruction of the most hated person on earth since Adolph Hitler.
Obama killed Stalin?! Wow, that should really help countering the arguments from the right-wing that he's a communist!
So much wrong in there (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't correct it all right now...
I personally disagree with homosexuality, but even I can see the change has been occurring since long before Obama reached office.
There was a clear inflection point in polls though when Obama publicly stated his support for gay marriage.
Obama has had 3.5 years to do something and the unemployment rate has not only EXCEEDED the HIGHEST he said it would go, it has STAYED there for a long long time.
We've been doing doing about a million jobs a month better lately than the economy he took over in 2009. As economists know, spending is what pulls an economy out of a recession. You can clearly see when the stimulus worked in the unemployment numbers, but Congress blocked the jobs bill and has forced austerity, which is a drag on the economy.
How much voter fraud do we have in this country?
Almost none. Well, there was that O'Keefe guy. Got any others?
Re:You are so, so wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You are so, so wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
What does it even mean to "agree/disagree" with a thing that happens? I hear people say that a lot, do they really mean "disapprove"? Agreement is for propositions. It makes sense to say "I disagree that homosexuality occurs in 5-10% of the population" or that "I disagree that homosexuality is a choice" or that "I disagree that homosexuality will not cause the collapse of civil society". Those are at least well formed ideas. Saying "I disagree with homosexuality" is a lot like saying "I disagree with poetry". What does that even mean?
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because in an era of unchecked, unlimited federal power, an equally extreme counterpoint is not only refreshing, but necessary. Sure, it's better to take the middle ground. You only end up at the middle when both sides are equidistant from it. If you start in the middle, you'll only end up skewed to one side, just less so than if everyone was at an extreme. Which is what we've been seeing these days.
There are, of course, many different axes, and just because one is at one extreme on one axis does not imply that person is the same degree of extreme on any of the others.
I'm not a libertarian, but I do recognize that they have a place in this government.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And the feds used their unlimited power of money creation to bail out the same financial institutions that are now holding the government hostage. Time for the ppl to demand that the created money goes to us directly instead of rewarding middlemen.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3 [senate.gov]
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup, Congress sitting on its hands sure helped avoid the Civil War and WWII... oh wait.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You "suspect", so you're too lazy to look yourself, but you want them to provide the analysis, though you support Paul anyway?
Republican zombies are the lamest.
Re: (Score:3)
My new goal is whatever a giant pile of very vocal people want to hear. Vote for me in 2012!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:are you new here? (Score:4, Insightful)
We pay attention to ron paul on slashdot because he is the source of >90% of the political groupthink here.
You can't be serious. This place is a hotbed of anti-free market sentiment, especially when it comes to protectionism. It's also nigh on impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion about something like science funding or healthcare without wading through a morass of snarky comments about the toxic fruit of capitalism. And besides that, the comment you're replying to, which is critical of Paul, is currently at +4. So, yeah.
Re: (Score:3)
the comment you're replying to, which is critical of Paul, is currently at +4. So, yeah.
You're wrong on several things:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We pay attention to ron paul on slashdot because he is the source of >90% of the political groupthink here.
What? Are YOU new here?
Hint: The political groupthink here is WAAAAAAY to the left of Dr. Paul.
Re:are you new here? (Score:5, Informative)
Just because people disagree with you (and with the other people who unthinkingly agree with you) doesn't make them "groupthink". Spouting nonsense like "to the left" is groupthink. Calling him "Dr. Paul" when he's "Representative Paul" outside his cult is groupthink.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:are you new here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when is it "groupthink" to refer to a man using the most prestigious of the titles he's earned?
Which is more prestigious? A title that hundreds of people have, maybe even thousands, in a several county area, or a title that only one person in that area has (and only 435 in the entire country)? A title that comes about because a panel of five to seven people say you've accomplished the prerequisites (for Ph.D doctors, the committee), or one that takes the votes of tens of thousands of people to achieve?
A title that is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand and the job being performed by that individual, or the title that goes with the job?
Re:are you new here? (Score:5, Interesting)
I`d rather be a doctor than a representative, regardless of how few or many can be of either.
Re:are you new here? (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect that Americans have more respect for physicians than they have for Congress.
Re:are you new here? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Hippocratic oath is an oath/EM., not a guideline to be bent for superstitious beliefs.
Yes, but in that case you are asking a doctor to do harm to what some feel is life. "Do no harm" is then applied with precedent (Do no harm to the mother first, then no harm to the baby). That is the both moral and ethical issue surrounding abortion so your point is weak.
Doctors certainly face this type of issue many times in their careers, not just with a pregnant mother, but with choices on who to save first. It is not a black and white oath when looked upon in that context.
If Dr. Paul turned away a mother for a routine abortion it could be viewed as his "superstitious beliefs" trumping his oath, or it could be viewed as his belief that he is doing harm to an unwitting life versus a mother who is otherwise in good health. Hmmmm, then he is following his oath. The SC legalized abortion, it did not compel doctors to perform them.
Re:are you new here? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, but I also disagree with you. There is small but vocal group of libertarians on Slashdot and an overlapping vocal group of Ron Paul supporters but I'm convinced from observation that they are both small minorities. They are, perhaps, larger in comparison to what you would find on other sites with different demographics but Ron Paul supporters are a definitely a minority of Slashdot posters.
The pro-Ron Paul group's voice is magnified because they tend toward boorish krankerism which means they never shut up about their dear leader, but you should be careful to not confuse a small but loud group with a large group.
Your Crazy Dyspeptic Uncle Supports Your Cause!! (Score:3)
Now, do you celebrate, or find a new Cause...?
Re:are you new here? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is not true. Moreover, everyone on Slashdot knows that if you begin your post with "I know I'll get modded down for saying this, but..." you will in fact get modded up.
Re:are you new here? (Score:5, Funny)
I know I'll get modded up for saying this, but I disagree.
ah crap!!! I did it wrong, didn't I.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Funny)
Not having Palin as VP.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Funny)
Instead we get Joe Biden ... that is a complete wash IMHO.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Equal pay for women
Which he demonstrates by having significant gender-based inequities within his own White House staff.
enabling bio/stem-cell research
Which wasn't dis-abled before. Private parties could (and did) have at it with billions of dollars behind them. Taxpayer-based research continued with existing materials. Nobody was prevented from doing research, and indeed plenty was going on before, and after Obama's election.
cash for clunkers
Which, with the administrative overhead, cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars per car sold. An incredibly inefficient redi
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
a lot of military reform (openly gay is a-ok
Using the military as lab rats for social-engineering experiments is bad defense policy.
Gee, looks like someone forgot to tell Harry Truman 'bout that... [trumanlibrary.org]
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
My main beef with Obama is that he claims to be everything he is not.
The biggest whopper is that he claimed to want transparent government. That apparently didn't matter when he unilaterally ratified ACTA without taking it through the senate (as is normal for any treaty) and without anybody but himself even being able to read it (granted there were leaks, we shouldn't depend upon leaks from a supposedly transparent government) He just signed our digital freedoms away without asking anybody.
Whats pathetic is how he happily parades around hollywood with the celebrities, and the fans of celebrities eat it up. Meanwhile they don't even realize that the celebrities themselves lobbied hard for him to take these freedoms away from us.
http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/1862 [ustr.gov]
Among a bunch of other supporters:
http://www.ustr.gov/acta/ [ustr.gov]
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
He just signed our digital freedoms away without asking anybody
No he didn't, Obama can sign what ever treaty he wants (in fact it's common practice for a head of state to do that), however in most non-dictatorships this is simply an "in principle" agreement, it's not a done deal until it is ratified by congress/parliment. You do however have a good point with the transparency thing, I don't see why they can't develop the text of the treaty in public, the IPCC manage to do a similar feat for a much more complex and contraversial subject, and they do for a measly $5-6M/yr.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
Ron Paul only GOP candidate to publicly denounce SOPA [slashdot.org]
“My campaign, and the entire freedom movement, would not be as strong as they are today without a free Internet, and that’s just one of the reasons why the establishment hopes to censor it with SOPA and PIPA. I’m proud to see so many taking a stand today. Contact your representative and senators and tell them to oppose these disastrous bills.”
I don't expect /. to suddenly fill with voluntaryists, libertarians, or (Ron) Paulbots, but it is truly sad to see the level of false and malicious and partisan attacks against him. His version of freedom will not be the same as yours.
By way of example, he opposes state licensing of professionals and the state control of the medical industry. He wants you to have more avenues to take care of yourself and even stating in one of the GOP debates he would legalize alternative medicine. Likely, you want to be free from making medical decisions and have it all predetermined by a panel of experts laying out your approved and legal options.
Different strokes for different folks but your failure to support the most pro freedom candidate to hit the scene is fucking pathetic. No doubt, we will get stuck with another pro-war progressive because that is what Obama and Romney both are. Hundreds of thousands will die in Iran and you'll piss a fit as more stories of the Paul's are posted.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
He wants you to have more avenues to take care of yourself and even stating in one of the GOP debates he would legalize alternative medicine.
It is neither the nefarious plots of Big Pharma nor the machinations of health-care officials that thwart naturopathy, homeopathy, chiropractic, etc, but objective reality. Besides, much of alternative medicine is already legal.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Another FDA shill that can't distinguish between alternative medicine and quackery.
Because there is no distinction. Alternative medicine is quackery. If there was evidence and research to show that it was effective, it would be called MEDICINE.
I suspect someone licensed and practicing as a doctor for 30 years knows a bit more about it than you do.
If he's advocating alternative medicine? No, he doesn't.
Do you know the story of red yeast rice and the big pharma / FDA collusion to ban the cheap and natural stuff to create the most profitable drugs in history?
No, but I do know that none of this "alternative medicine" bullshit you're trying to peddle has absolutely no research backing it up. If it did, then you'd not only be able to show it, but it would be able to get approval. But instead, you draw the tinfoil hat too tight, and claim it's a conspiracy.
There's trillions of dollars at stake, and people that don't care if you live or die.
Yes. These people are called "alternative medicine practitioners.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't expect /. to suddenly fill with voluntaryists, libertarians, or (Ron) Paulbots
Funny, that's exactly what I have come to expect of /. when an article like this gets posted. And a surprising number of them suddenly seem to have mod points.
By way of example, he opposes state licensing of professionals and the state control of the medical industry. He wants you to have more avenues to take care of yourself and even stating in one of the GOP debates he would legalize alternative medicine.
WTF? So, how exactly can a patient be assured that a medical practitioner is competent? Or for that matter, any other agent in society whose lack of competence can be a threat to the public? (Such as car-drivers.)
And by the way, alternative medicine already is legal. Whether it actually is worth a damn is another discussion.
Likely, you want to be free from making medical decisions and have it all predetermined by a panel of experts laying out your approved and legal options.
Like, oh say, health-insurance companies?
Re:So what? (Score:5, Funny)
So, how exactly can a patient be assured that a medical practitioner is competent?
Well, you go by their track record. Obviously new doctors don't have one, so they offer very low prices, so poor people go there, and if they die you know you should avoid it later. The Free Market(tm) works!
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how everyone fawns over Ron Paul for one issue and ignores all the other batcrap crazy stuff that he does.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't tell if I get more disappointed by seeing tired parrot arguments like these or seeing tired parrot arguments like these get modded insightful. Ron Paul could provide free medical care to a black family, declare his hero to be Martin Luther King, and expose the racism in the drug war and uninformed people would still call him racist because of some implications in newsletters he didn't write.
He actually did those three things.
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Informative)
In the same interview, when asked whether he would vote for or against a state constitutional amendment like California's Proposition 8, he said, "Well, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman."
Paul has also said that at the federal level he opposes "efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman." He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states and local communities, and not subjected to "judicial activism."[143] He has said that for these reasons he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, had he been in Congress in 1996
Paul has been a cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in each Congress since the bill's original introduction. It would bar federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.
The second quote is the best. Basically, "I don't think the federal government should preclude the states allowing gay marriage, so I support the federal law that bans gay marriage." WTF?
Re: (Score:3)
One needs to separate "marriage" as a private/religious institution from government reward of the same.
One should, but it never seems to happen. Those who want gay marriage don't seem to want to settle for a legal status that doesn't include the term "marriage". Civil unions aren't good enough. Fixing bad civil union laws isn't good enough, even though they're trying to fix what they consider to be bad marriage laws, so they're trying to get laws changed either way.
The only legitimate interest, IMO, for government giving special privileges to those who marry (tax benefits, primarily) are related to preventing offspring from becoming wards of the state, something which doesn't apply to homosexual couples.
Can you explain why the foibles and pitfalls that can happen to heterosexual marriages that would cause the children involved to become wards o
Ban all marriage; civil unions for everyone! (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who want gay marriage don't seem to want to settle for a legal status that doesn't include the term "marriage". Civil unions aren't good enough. Fixing bad civil union laws isn't good enough, even though they're trying to fix what they consider to be bad marriage laws, so they're trying to get laws changed either way.
If civil unions are good enough for gay couples, shouldn't they be good enough for straight couples too?
Get the government out of marriage entirely. Call it a civil union and forget about the sex of the people involved. Leave "marriage" to the churches, and give that no legal weight whatsoever.
Re: (Score:3)
... are related to preventing offspring from becoming wards of the state, something which doesn't apply to homosexual couples.
Afterall, gay couples never adopt, use surrogates, sperm donors, or have children from previous marriages. That never happens.
Separate childrearing, finances, ceremonies (Score:5, Insightful)
One needs to separate "marriage" as a private/religious institution from government reward of the same. The only legitimate interest, IMO, for government giving special privileges to those who marry (tax benefits, primarily) are related to preventing offspring from becoming wards of the state, something which doesn't apply to homosexual couples.
If you're going to take that line of thought, then "marriage" in that sense should be automatic between any couple who have children together, and excluded from anyone who doesn't yet have children. If marriage is to be about childrearing, then there should be (legally) no such thing as a childless marriage or a child out of wedlock. If you have a kid, you're "married"; if not, you're not. No contesting it.
Of course, there are other things involved in marriage besides the rights and responsibilities of children. Mutual rights in each others' property and lives (e.g. medical decisions in case of incapacitation). I can see a reason why people who aren't romantically or sexually involved at all might want to do something like that. Say you have two very straight guys who have no intention of ever settling down with one woman but plan to play the field their entire lives; but they are very close friends, have been housemates for years, etc, and want to buy a house together, file joint taxes on their mutual incomes and expenses, and have the other guy watch out for them if anything horrible should ever happen to them. Neither has any sexual or romantic interest in the other, and they each plan on having a different girl over every night, in their separate rooms, for the rest of their lives.
Why shouldn't they be able to make such financial and legal arrangements so resembling what we now call marriage? We don't have to call that marriage, call it a kind of incorporation, partnership, or union... a civil one, you might say. And let men and women in love with each other planning to raise a family get that exact same thing, and call it the exact same thing. And if those two guys want to make that arrangement, and are also having sex with each other, what difference does that make? What if more than two people want to live together and pool their lives and finances together -- whether or not any of them are having sex with each other -- what's wrong with letting them? And the slippery slope stops there, because children, dead people, goats, and furniture can't enter into contracts at all, and so there's no worry about anybody "marrying" any of those things if we replace marriage with a generic civil contract.
And then there's the social ceremony. This is legally meaningless, and should be the thing that gets the term "marriage". Let your favorite church, temple, mosque, coven, social club, or renaissance faire guild decide who they want to give what ceremony and recognize what title to, and let the law not give a shit about any of that. "Marriage" should be legally meaningless. Civil unions for everyone!
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
"State's rights" in practice is almost always a way to hide one's immoral motives.
So every founder of this country that favored a weak central federal government was just trying to hide some "immoral motive", and wasn't thinking about how we'd just come out of a war with a central federal government system that had repressed pretty much whatever it wanted even though it was on the other side of an ocean from us?
Or is the concept that the best government is the one closest and most responsive to the citizens that have granted it the right to exist somehow an "immoral motive"?
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll notice they did away with that an adopted the constitution.
I don't know how you call it "doing away with" the concept of a weak federal government when they enacted a constitution based on that concept, and which explicitely said at the end "anything not taken by the feds in this constitution is left to the states and the people."
And, since "marriage" doesn't appear in the US Constitution, it's one of those things that are, by default, left to the states to deal with. Maybe it's some ICC-based issue? Selling wives across a state line would be hindered if different states had different laws about marriage?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Funny)
Neither did Hitler!
Re:Friends (Score:5, Insightful)
Ron Paul is now our friend... for now.
I'm not so sure. I would rather have net neutrality myself, and this is exactly the opposite of that (it even says that on the website). It's another of his "let the free market fix all the problems" approaches. Of course some paullowers - especially some of the ones here on slashdot - will insist that he is the lord, savior, and the only source of true knowledge.
Re:Friends (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no Free Market, The Free Market is handled in back rooms and the winners are the ones that fix the game. If we lived in a free market, things would look like Mad Max and Aretha Franklin would rule us all!
Re:Friends (Score:5, Informative)
ITYM Tina Turner.
Re:Friends (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no "fair market" because there is no "free market". Government doesn't help make things more free or more fair, it only helps the OTHER guys win.
Free means open to all. Fair means same rules apply to everyone. Free and Fair Markets would fix this economy in a heartbeat. Too many people have gamed the system to have either ever again. Instead we have Solyndra (both R and D supported) and Bailouts (both R and D supported) of banks and car companies (Except Ford).
Re:Friends (Score:4, Insightful)
"A free market fixes everything" is nonsense. Imagine no rules/laws/regulations. Perfectly free market. To win, I'll murder my competition, and get away with it (until they murder me). There are no laws. It's free and fair, brutal and ugly.
OK, so we make murder illegal. And kidnapping, extortion, blackmail, etc. It's no longer a free market. But I don't think anyone minds.
But already, government can be corrupted. A sheriff that aggressively investigates crimes against my competitors while ignoring my crimes gives me an advantage. And this is just serious crimes.
The point is not to get government out of the way, it's to make government enforce fairness (you are right about that). And "less government" is not really the way to do this. I don't want a perfectly free market. If you take econ101, you'll see many ways businesses could screw over consumers with asymmetric info, monopolies, fraud, etc. And I want regulations to eliminate toxins in food, unreasonably dangerous products, etc. And I don't want to drink polluted water.
Solyndra is no big deal--they expected a percentage of businesses the government backed to not succeed, and Solyndra was in that percentage. If there's corruption involved, then I'd be mad, but I haven't heard of any yet. I'm glad the US government invested in the Internet.
Re:Friends (Score:5, Informative)
A "free market" doesn't mean an unregulated market. A "free market" means a market in which prices are set by supply and demand. Free markets require laws and a functioning legal system. Those are sufficient and necessary to prevent monopolies, fraud, harm from products and pollution, and asymmetric info: when these things occur, you (or even the government) can sue the people who caused them.
A market stops being free, however, when the government decides to go beyond that and implement economic plans through subsidies, price controls, loan guarantees, bailouts, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Anti- net-neutrality.
Anti- privacy protection.
Anti- any limits or oversight of any sort on what corporation can do online.
Unless you actually want to live in a cyber-punk dystopia I'd say no, he's not our friend.
I've got to say I'm disappointed he's aggressively taking this position. I typically vote liberal, but would love to see a substantial libertarian influence in the government. If by some miracle he got the Republican nomination I had planned to vote for him, warts and all. If he's choosing this as
Re: (Score:3)
Very orthodox Jews, like Chhasidic Jews, are among the most highly authoritarian people on the planet. Women are property. Their cult leaders' claims of tradition and "what god really meant" are ironclad laws. Absolute conformity, whether in appearance or in dogma, is mandatory.
It's true that most American Jews are secular, mostly of the assimilated Reform sect, and prioritize justice and equality, social compassion. But Jews aren't any different from any other large(ish) group: they've got their assholes,