19 ms·

Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

288 points by pawn 15y ago

pawn 15y ago
This morning I woke up with an idea to find out what the different presidential hopefuls have said about SOPA. Sadly, this one was the only one I could find...the only one I thought I could guess his stance on.
naz 15y ago
This is unsurprising. Ron Paul is generally against new legislation.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  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 always seems to basically boil down. "let the free market decide" or "let the individual states decide" At least he appears consistent in what he says and I'm not necessarily saying he is even wrong about anything in particular. But let's say he was elected president , I can't see him actually doing anything (some might argue this is what the president should be). Let's say there was a national disaster of some kind, what would he do? Just say "we the federal government would help but we would just mess it up , let the free market create a solution"?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
    - llambda 15y ago
      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/2006/07/08/AR2006070800966_pf.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07...
      - jiggy2011 15y ago
        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.
        RickHull 15y ago
        > in which case why have a federal government at all? To coordinate action between the states. For example, interstate highways and national defense. The Constitution pretty much spells it out.
        jeltz 15y ago
        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.
      - megablast 15y ago
        Sorry, that is not ironic. He is not out to get a job, he is out to do what he believes in.
        jiggy2011 15y ago
        If it's not out for the job then why is he applying for it? Perhaps he is essentially a "protest vote" but there appears to be at least some chance that he could actually get elected?
        megablast 15y ago
        He is not out to be president of the USA, he is out to do what he believes is right, and to do that he has to be POTUS. If that is his standpoint, then he is not ironic.
  - j2labs 15y ago
    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.
    - jonknee 15y ago
      > 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.
      - nextparadigms 15y ago
        Let's put it this way. Without his supporters, the Republican party can't win the general election. So either the Republican party accepts them if they want to ever beat the Democrat party again, or they reject them, and they might end up forming a strong 3rd party later on, and help change the laws so they are more fair towards 3rd parties.
  - waffle_ss 15y ago
    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".
    - Angostura 15y ago
      I'm intrigued. Who should have taken out insurance in the case of Katrina, for example?
      - waffle_ss 15y ago
        Um, anyone who wants something insured? Life insurance, homeowners insurance, automobile insurance, agricultural insurance, etc. I think most policies refer to things like hurricanes as "acts of God".
      - steins 15y ago
        Anyone living in an area where a flood is possible.
      - teamonkey 15y ago
        Does this kind of insurance even exist? My home insurance has always had clauses about 'acts of god' such as these.
    - toyg 15y ago
      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.
      - waffle_ss 15y ago
        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 my ECON101 limits a little here perhaps? :). I think the conclusion I'd rather draw is "the free market doesn't owe you anything."
  - llambda 15y ago
    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 startup world. I shudder to think of a founder who is unwavering in their convictions about their business model, i.e. wholly uncompromising. Today things like lean are popular methods that advocate quick iteration as your data changes, nearly the opposite of holding one and only one consistent position. But being dynamic and changing your product as new data are available is arguably a key strategy to avoiding waste and more importantly, producing something people actually want. I suppose then you could argue it really isn't the same as someone like Paul who is advocating for constitutional consistency. But on the other hand the constitution was written over three hundred years ago, although I think it's paramount to protect the rights as allotted in the Bill of Rights I don't necessarily think that the constitution insomuch as it exists as a legally-binding document, needs to be adhered to without the consideration that iteration may need to be made on the intent of the original authors with respect to the ever-changing world. That is to say that the document was written with a certain intent, so long as we respect that essence we should be able to work within that as a framework that isn't wholly limiting to the literal wording; in fact the constitution has already been amended, if that's what it takes to convince purists then maybe that's what should happen. Ron Paul is saying, quite literally, that he wants to limit the govt to do nothing but what is legally provisioned in the constitution, i.e. most federal programs should be stopped as they are "illegal".
    - CWuestefeld 15y ago
      he wants to limit the govt to do nothing but what is legally provisioned in the constitution That's essentially correct, but a bit of an oversimplification. A more accurate representation would be "he wants to limit the federal govt to do nothing but what is legally provisioned in the constitution". There are a number of things that he'd like to see the government do, but at a state or local level. For example, he's strongly opposed to abortion, but he's also opposed to any federal legislation addressing the issue one way or the other (note that there's no federal law against murder, for example; this is dealt with by the states). So your concerns about the agility of the organization are better handled through Paul's approach. The way the system works today, politicians make a choice, and then stick to it no matter the evidence (see the War on Drugs, NCLB, etc.). No matter what happens, they can't back down on their position because it weakens them politically. Given Paul's approach, the states can serve as mini laboratories, each trying out different approaches to solve problems, with the rest of the country able to watch what happens, and then pick the best results from the other states. I'm very concerned with your statement: the constitution was written over three hundred years ago, although I think it's paramount to protect the rights as allotted in the Bill of Rights I don't necessarily think that the constitution insomuch as it exists as a legally-binding document, needs to be adhered to without the consideration that iteration may need to be made on the intent of the original authors with respect to the ever-changing world. The problem with this is in the interpretation of the "intent of the original authors". This is essentially what's happening today, and it means that whoever is in power gets to do whatever the hell they want, as long as they can come up with some plausible rationalization. When the document can be plastic in this way, it serves as only a very weak protection against runaway government.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - Duff 15y ago
    He says things that politicians don't typically say. The average American politician chants "create jobs" when he orders breakfast. Paul says things that sound insightful and refreshing on the surface, when heard in terms of a soundbite. Most of his fans don't dig much deeper. He would be a horrific president, but he's having a positive impact. By speaking his mind and talking about things that don't make it out of the PR machine of the mainstream political parties, he's giving air to important issues.
    - shill 15y ago
      I agree with most of what you say, but I think your idea of the word 'horrific' is something like running out of milk halfway through filling your bowl of Cheerios. The media collaborating with the military-industrial-complex to drum up a war on phony pretenses that resulted in the slaughter of more than 100,000 Iraqis is horrific. Strip searching citizens before they can get from point A to point B is horrific. The media (both Team Left and Team Right) blatantly conspiring the blackout of a popular politician is horrific. 93 out of 100 senators rubber stamping the indefinite detention and torture of American citizens and declaring the Internet a battlefield is horrific. A president that would do anything in his power to prevent these things from happening would be Heroic, not Horrific.
      - stcredzero 15y ago
        A president that would do anything in his power to prevent these things from happening would be Heroic, not Horrific. If we've reached a time for heroes to be politicians and politicians to be heroes, then we're living in interesting times indeed. What it means, is that the US and possibly the world economic/geopolitical body as a whole is in a systemic crisis. Heroes can either change the course of the world, or they can be a temporary stopgap. Worse, they can be a throwback to old patterns of thought that no longer work. Don't know what I'm talking about? Have a listen: http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/ http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/
      - Duff 15y ago
        I agree with everything other than your first sentence 100%. A Ron Paul Presidency probably wouldn't be a member of the war-of-the-month club that we've been members of since 2001. But I think he would rapidly discover the limits of Presidential power. A Paul presidency in the current environment would almost certainly lead to economic ruin as markets panic and that military-industrial complex (which employs millions of people) gets turned down. IMO, a Ron Paul administration would be like a second Andrew Johnson administration. When 93% of Senators (the house of Congress that is supposed to squash bad ideas) are willing to attack fundamental principles of American government, a new president isn't going to have the influence to "save" us. What Paul CAN do is inspire people. We need people in congress, state houses and county governments who can represent the people, and not just the various special interests that pull the strings.
  - toyg 15y ago
    Among other things, he'd spend his time enacting anti-abortion laws.
    - toyg 15y ago
      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#Abortion-related_legislation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul... ). Presumably, he would do the same once elected.
      - cbs 15y ago
        promoted anti-abortion legislation at Federal level Ron Paul: States Rights, unless its something I'm against. Just like any politician I guess.
        dantheman 15y ago
        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.
        cbs 15y ago
        Fair enough. I didn't see the legislation, as it was presented in the grandparent post just gave me a laugh at the apparent irony.
  - ugh 15y ago
    Part of it is an obsession with being consistent instead of being right.
  - seanalltogether 15y ago
    I believe Ron Pauls support comes as a backlash against politicians who have been trained to give certain responses, like for instance Sarah Palin when she was running for Vice President and had absolutely no knowledge of national politics. People don't necessarily agree with every one of Ron Pauls ideals, but at least you believe he has spent a lifetime nurturing those political ideals for himself, rather then having someone coach him.
dkhenry 15y ago
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.
- makmanalp 15y ago
  I used to be interested in what he had to say until I saw this: http://murphysbride.tumblr.com/post/14876601176/bacon-beer-and-boobs-afternoonsnoozebutton http://murphysbride.tumblr.com/post/14876601176/bacon-beer-a... I don't know how credible this is but it leaves me doubtful.
  - kissickas 15y ago
    Ron Paul has claimed he didn't write those comments (taken from newsletters a few decades ago) and has renounced them, at least. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Inter-congressional_years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Inter-congressional_y...
    - gahahaha 15y ago
      Ron Paul didn't decide he had never written or read his newsletters until 2001 http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-check-ron-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/ http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-che...
  - llambda 15y ago
    Most worrisome is that while these issues have come to light, in my /very/ limited experience, attempting to broach the issue with Paul supporters has been met with at best dismal and at worst outright irrational anger. In fact I've now been told a number of times that such quotations are falsified, that they've been planted by Paul's detractors. The implication seems to be they're suggesting this is the manifestation of some kind of conspiracy against him. I'm quite honestly baffled that supporters of a purist would allow exceptions... Alternatively, twice I've been told by Paul supporters that they are in fact are not supporters, but rather anarchists (this only comes up in the context of such content as the newsletter debacle).
narag 15y ago
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?
- davidw 15y ago
  The Republicans are desperate for 'Anyone but Romney': http://www.economist.com/node/21542180 http://www.economist.com/node/21542180
- yellowbkpk 15y ago
  When people are asked which republican candidate they'd vote for, most of them say "none of the above". Of the people that have decided on someone, Ron Paul seems to get the majority.
- joshuahedlund 15y ago
  To simplify things, Iowa is basically the first state to start voting for candidates. Four years ago Mr. Paul was generally getting like 5% nationally and with a concentrated effort on Iowa ended up with 10% of the vote. This year he's getting like 10-12% nationally and 20+% in Iowa. Paul actually leading several polls in Iowa is something that was not even fathomable four years ago. A vote for Paul can be taken to mean many different thing; I wish that - regardless of what one thinks about his electability or desirability as president - such votes would be interpreted as a measure of support for basic civil liberties that no other candidates (including Obama) seem to care about. But that's probably hoping for too much!
  - cheez 15y ago
    I'm pretty sure that's exactly what a vote for Paul means these days.
- nhebb 15y ago
  It has a pretty good track record of picking the eventual Democratic nominee, but Iowa is not special for the Republican party. It has a poor record of voting for the eventual Republican party nominee in races where there is not an incumbent - 2/5 races since 1972. In fact, it has a better track record of picking the GOP outlier.
rosariom 15y ago
Ron Paul message resonates with people because he is talking about something none of the other candidates are talking about: returning freedoms and sanity to America. It would be hard to rollback all the damage done by the likes of Obama and his predecessors but I think it can be achieved gradually and with some culture changes in America. This is a great country and I hope to see its freedoms preserved and reinstated otherwise we will head down the road to god knows what and never come back. Freedom begets greatness and innovation. The media needs to stop its blackout of Paul and the smear campaign and cover the issues he is highlighting which are of the utmost importance.
- davidw 15y ago
  "sanity" being "what you agree with". That's why we should flag political articles and leave them to other sites.
  - microarchitect 15y ago
    I don't understand why davidw has been downvoted. Ron Paul maybe a principled politician, but his views/past actions on the issues of racism, homosexuality and science and technology policy don't stand up to scrutiny. While some of his policies may be laudable, he also has plenty of stuff that can be categorized as insane. I don't want to start a political flamewar on HN, so all I'm trying to say is that there are valid reasons to believe what davidw believes and he shouldn't at least be downvoted for it.
    - davidw 15y ago
      I didn't make any comments about Ron Paul; I just pointed out the use of "sane" to mean "things I agree with", which is indicative of a debate that's not headed anywhere good.
      - llambda 15y ago
        I absolutely agree: things have gone in that direction and this simply isn't the forum for it, as such I've flagged the submission.
sativathekitty 15y ago
we need a new type of politician. one who isn't obsessed with power http://LouisCKforPresident.com http://LouisCKforPresident.com
brentashley 15y ago
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.
- jaysonelliot 15y ago
  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.
  - dubfan 15y ago
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw 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 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.
    - dantheman 15y ago
      From his book liberty defined: http://libertydefined.org/issue/17 http://libertydefined.org/issue/17 No one person has perfect knowledge as to man's emergence on this earth. Yet almost everyone has a strong religious, scientific, or emotional opinion he or she considers gospel. The creationists frown on the evolutionists, and the evolutionists dismiss the creationists as kooky and unscientific. Lost in this struggle are those who look objectively at the scientific evidence for evolution without feeling any need to reject the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. My personal view is that recognizing the validity of the evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one's view about God and the universe. This is a debate about science and religion...and should not involve politicians at all.
j2labs 15y ago
The economist has a great write-up of Ron Paul: http://www.economist.com/node/21542199/ http://www.economist.com/node/21542199/
- aik 15y ago
  Thanks for posting. A question about this statement from the article: >> But [Ron Paul] coming this far tells you something about the mood of Republican voters. Don't you think it's a bit limiting to single out republican voters? I am fairly convinced that there are a significant amount of voters on all sides that support Ron Paul. I have also come to believe that specifically many republicans are against him, largely due to the anti-Ron Paul right-wing media influence. Thoughts?
  - gahahaha 15y ago
    There is a huge amount of ignorance about what Ron Paul really stands for - when he becomes a serious candidate (not very likely) and is given the scrutiny and attention that other candidates are given, then he will implode like Perry and Herman before him.
- dataminer 15y ago
  How was that a great writeup when it discounts him in the first paragraph, using adjectives like wacky, radical, no-hoper and quirky? I was expecting it to be an objective look at Ron Paul's policies by Economist.
  - gahahaha 15y ago
    """wacky, radical, no-hoper and quirky""" That IS a great summary of Ron Paul, so the Economist is being reasonably objective - as they usually are. Only the libertarian fringe and people who don't know much about anything support Ron Paul.
    - thebigshane 15y ago
      Those adjectives are inherently subjective: the opposite of objective.
jaysonelliot 15y ago
I could come up with a list of things that I don't like about Ron Paul personally, and a few things that worry me politically. But none of that really matters. He's the only candidate that I feel I could actually trust to stick by his campaign rhetoric, and the only one I would trust to actually defend the constitution. Ironic, given that we have a constitutional scholar in the White House and a historian running for the GOP nomination. Ron Paul is wrong on some things I care about, but so is Obama, and certainly so is Newt or Romney. I think I'll vote for the lesser of a dozen evils, and go with Paul.
- maratd 15y ago
  I feel the same way. In fact, I'm sure most of Ron Paul's supports feel the same way. I find his foreign policy views deplorable and offensive. You know what? I will still be voting for him. I'm tired. I'm so tired of the lying. Gingrich, Romney, Obama, Bush, etc. will say anything to get elected. Once elected, they all behave the same way. I'd rather have an honest man I disagree with in the White House, than a man who says one thing, but does another.
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    I think his foreign policy is one of his strongest policies for which he gets a lot of support. What's funny is that Bush got elected in 2000 for having almost exactly the same foreign policy that Ron Paul has now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsvf1HU0KHM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsvf1HU0KHM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo
  - roguecoder 15y ago
    He's either lying now about the newsletters or he was lying then and in 1996 and profited from those lies. I don't understand why people think he's an honest straight-shooter, any more than I understood that meme when it was applied to McCain. He's a politician playing a roll, that's all. He's not even a libertarian: he's perfectly fine with States grossly abridging freedom, just not the federal government. It's the same Southern conservatism that has been prominent since they lost the Civil War. Paul was smart enough to realize that you could sell this to a broader audience if you wrapped it in libertarianism is all.
MattBearman 15y ago
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.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM20w0jHH8A
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  I get not knowing who Ron Paul is, being from the UK, but at the same time I would expect you would at least know his name, being from the Internet. He's not exactly a low-profile figure in these tubes of ours.
jsavimbi 15y ago
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.
jliechti1 15y ago
The censorship of Ron Paul really is pretty incredible. The Daily Show clip was already mentioned in this thread - here's another example I noticed the other day in the Chicago Tribune: I just pulled out three random stories: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-iowa-nbcpolltre7bt0mr-20111230,0,6277647.story http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-io... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politicsnow/la-pn-iowa-rick-santorum-rips-ron-paul-20111229,0,3492896.story http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politicsnow/la-pn-iowa-ri... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-pn-romney-prospects-iowa-win-20111227,0,6546759.story http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-pn-romney-... Notice how every candidate name mentioned in the article (for the first time) is also a hyperlink, except Ron Paul.
- chernevik 15y ago
  CNBC had an interview where they basically let him talk for almost half an hour. He was great for five minutes, okay through to ten, and then the wheels just came off. He couldn't answer obvious follow-up questions (some with obvious Ron Paul answers). He was bamboozled by questions on the gold standard from people who actually speak monetary policy. Toward the end he was hardly coherent. I came away thinking his talking points are great but get him off those and there's very little there. I suspect reporters who have seen the guy up close see this and don't bother with him. I think they're too invested in their self-image as news filters to provide deep, even-handed coverage and let their audience decide. EDITED TO ADD: As noted below, I can't find a link to the interview I had in mind. So I'll walk back what I've said here a step or two: That's my impression of how the guy seems after extended scrutiny. But I can't now point to a document that would support that impression as well as I'd like.
  - padobson 15y ago
    "I came away thinking his talking points are great but get him off those and there's very little there." This does little to differentiate him from any other politician.
  - jamesbritt 15y ago
    I came away thinking his talking points are great but get him off those and there's very little there. That describes nearly every single politician. Bill Clinton comes to mind as an exception, and no doubt there are a few others, but not among the anointed GOP candidates. This lack of depth and intellectual rigor does nothing to dissuade major news outlets from sticking a mic in front of nearly anyone or discussing them as serious contenders. Reporters have decided that Paul is never going to get the nomination so they don't bother. Anyway I'd love to see that Paul interview if anyone has a link. I'm curious about "bamboozled by questions on the gold standard" and "hardly coherent".
TallGuyShort 15y ago
Good on Ron Paul! I've expressed this sentiment on here before, but it still bothers me that so much of what I read in opposition to SOPA is linked to actual piracy. Sure, I think that DRM is ridiculous and counter-productive, but piracy only serves to legitimize the claims of SOPA supporters, and undermine the claims of it's opponents that it would do no good. Please, if you oppose SOPA, stop using rhetoric from sites that appear to condone piracy.
efader 15y ago
Political pandering; I would not trust this.
- tempire 15y ago
  It's not pandering; it's consistent with the philosophy he's been touting for the last billionty years. Every time he gets up to speak, he talks about freedom of the individual, and having the federal government get out of the way. It's almost comical how people continually want to know his positions, when he doesn't have positions, but rather a unifying philosophy that positions grow out of. That's the unique thing about Ron Paul, he's not your standard politician, which is why he confuses the media so much.
wycats 15y ago
It's not surprising that Ron Paul would be against SOPA. That said, libertarians like Paul would have been against funding the projects that led to the Internet, and are today against funding similar government projects that might lead to future innovations. In many cases, innovations are bootstrapped by government funding or research, and then handed off to an appropriate role by the free market. Libertarians are usually against regulating the private market once the handoff has occurred (for good in many cases, and definitely in this case), but they are usually against the initial government bootstrapping. It's easy to imagine attacking the initial ARPA work on privacy, anti-military, or anti-elitism grounds, and I could easily imagine it losing its funding today, decried as a boondoggle that was useless for regular Americans, who of course would never have access to a computer, with taxpayers footing the bill.
- WalterBright 15y ago
  It's often assumed that without the ARPA the internet never would have existed. ARPA, however, is just one of many "internets" that sprung up over the years. There was also FIDOnet, Prodigy, BIX, Compuserve, MCInet, etc. Everyone with more than one computer thought to hook them together. Heck, even some friends of mine invented their own internet back in the 70's. If it wasn't ARPA, it would have been something else.
  - wycats 15y ago
    The examples you listed arrived after ARPA. CompuServe, which arrived pretty early in the greater scheme, was founded in 1969 as a time sharing computer service. It wasn't until quite a bit later that it became a packet-switched computer network, likely in response to the success of ARPAnet's implementation. In contrast, the plans for ARPAnet were finished in 1968, and the system was operational in 1969. The concept was pretty pie in the sky at the time, and it's likely that the success of ARPA led to commercial implementations of packet-switched networks. Additionally, the early private networks did not have the character of the "public Internet" which is a crucial component of the Internet we know and love today. Indeed, the reason we care about SOPA is that the public Internet, and not a patchwork of private internets, won the day.
- 15y ago
webista 15y ago
It should have been more convincing for me if he instead made this statement before the goDaddy boycott, and net giants public opposition against SOPA, not a few days before the election circus. Politics is still politics, and this kind of rhetorical display and timing have long been around for centuries as politicians' device that pander to the media to get the favor from the people. I do not question his principles and previous acts, it's the timing that's fishy.
stcredzero 15y ago
TLDR for your non net-savvy friends and relatives: SOPA = takedown of websites without due process = censorship for those (corporations) who can afford big legal teams Restriction of where you can link to = restricting dissemination of information = censorship for commercial interest over free speech. Simple as that.
dubfan 15y ago
Good work getting a political article up to the front page.

288 points by pawn 15y ago

pawn 15y ago

This morning I woke up with an idea to find out what the different presidential hopefuls have said about SOPA. Sadly, this one was the only one I could find...the only one I thought I could guess his stance on.

naz 15y ago

This is unsurprising. Ron Paul is generally against new legislation.

jiggy2011 15y ago
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 always seems to basically boil down. "let the free market decide" or "let the individual states decide" At least he appears consistent in what he says and I'm not necessarily saying he is even wrong about anything in particular. But let's say he was elected president , I can't see him actually doing anything (some might argue this is what the president should be). Let's say there was a national disaster of some kind, what would he do? Just say "we the federal government would help but we would just mess it up , let the free market create a solution"?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  - llambda 15y ago
    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/2006/07/08/AR2006070800966_pf.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07...
    - jiggy2011 15y ago
      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.
      - RickHull 15y ago
        > in which case why have a federal government at all? To coordinate action between the states. For example, interstate highways and national defense. The Constitution pretty much spells it out.
      - jeltz 15y ago
        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.
    - megablast 15y ago
      Sorry, that is not ironic. He is not out to get a job, he is out to do what he believes in.
      - jiggy2011 15y ago
        If it's not out for the job then why is he applying for it? Perhaps he is essentially a "protest vote" but there appears to be at least some chance that he could actually get elected?
        megablast 15y ago
        He is not out to be president of the USA, he is out to do what he believes is right, and to do that he has to be POTUS. If that is his standpoint, then he is not ironic.
- j2labs 15y ago
  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.
  - jonknee 15y ago
    > 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.
    - nextparadigms 15y ago
      Let's put it this way. Without his supporters, the Republican party can't win the general election. So either the Republican party accepts them if they want to ever beat the Democrat party again, or they reject them, and they might end up forming a strong 3rd party later on, and help change the laws so they are more fair towards 3rd parties.
- waffle_ss 15y ago
  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".
  - Angostura 15y ago
    I'm intrigued. Who should have taken out insurance in the case of Katrina, for example?
    - waffle_ss 15y ago
      Um, anyone who wants something insured? Life insurance, homeowners insurance, automobile insurance, agricultural insurance, etc. I think most policies refer to things like hurricanes as "acts of God".
    - steins 15y ago
      Anyone living in an area where a flood is possible.
    - teamonkey 15y ago
      Does this kind of insurance even exist? My home insurance has always had clauses about 'acts of god' such as these.
  - toyg 15y ago
    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.
    - waffle_ss 15y ago
      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 my ECON101 limits a little here perhaps? :). I think the conclusion I'd rather draw is "the free market doesn't owe you anything."
- llambda 15y ago
  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 startup world. I shudder to think of a founder who is unwavering in their convictions about their business model, i.e. wholly uncompromising. Today things like lean are popular methods that advocate quick iteration as your data changes, nearly the opposite of holding one and only one consistent position. But being dynamic and changing your product as new data are available is arguably a key strategy to avoiding waste and more importantly, producing something people actually want. I suppose then you could argue it really isn't the same as someone like Paul who is advocating for constitutional consistency. But on the other hand the constitution was written over three hundred years ago, although I think it's paramount to protect the rights as allotted in the Bill of Rights I don't necessarily think that the constitution insomuch as it exists as a legally-binding document, needs to be adhered to without the consideration that iteration may need to be made on the intent of the original authors with respect to the ever-changing world. That is to say that the document was written with a certain intent, so long as we respect that essence we should be able to work within that as a framework that isn't wholly limiting to the literal wording; in fact the constitution has already been amended, if that's what it takes to convince purists then maybe that's what should happen. Ron Paul is saying, quite literally, that he wants to limit the govt to do nothing but what is legally provisioned in the constitution, i.e. most federal programs should be stopped as they are "illegal".
  - CWuestefeld 15y ago
    he wants to limit the govt to do nothing but what is legally provisioned in the constitution That's essentially correct, but a bit of an oversimplification. A more accurate representation would be "he wants to limit the federal govt to do nothing but what is legally provisioned in the constitution". There are a number of things that he'd like to see the government do, but at a state or local level. For example, he's strongly opposed to abortion, but he's also opposed to any federal legislation addressing the issue one way or the other (note that there's no federal law against murder, for example; this is dealt with by the states). So your concerns about the agility of the organization are better handled through Paul's approach. The way the system works today, politicians make a choice, and then stick to it no matter the evidence (see the War on Drugs, NCLB, etc.). No matter what happens, they can't back down on their position because it weakens them politically. Given Paul's approach, the states can serve as mini laboratories, each trying out different approaches to solve problems, with the rest of the country able to watch what happens, and then pick the best results from the other states. I'm very concerned with your statement: the constitution was written over three hundred years ago, although I think it's paramount to protect the rights as allotted in the Bill of Rights I don't necessarily think that the constitution insomuch as it exists as a legally-binding document, needs to be adhered to without the consideration that iteration may need to be made on the intent of the original authors with respect to the ever-changing world. The problem with this is in the interpretation of the "intent of the original authors". This is essentially what's happening today, and it means that whoever is in power gets to do whatever the hell they want, as long as they can come up with some plausible rationalization. When the document can be plastic in this way, it serves as only a very weak protection against runaway government.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- Duff 15y ago
  He says things that politicians don't typically say. The average American politician chants "create jobs" when he orders breakfast. Paul says things that sound insightful and refreshing on the surface, when heard in terms of a soundbite. Most of his fans don't dig much deeper. He would be a horrific president, but he's having a positive impact. By speaking his mind and talking about things that don't make it out of the PR machine of the mainstream political parties, he's giving air to important issues.
  - shill 15y ago
    I agree with most of what you say, but I think your idea of the word 'horrific' is something like running out of milk halfway through filling your bowl of Cheerios. The media collaborating with the military-industrial-complex to drum up a war on phony pretenses that resulted in the slaughter of more than 100,000 Iraqis is horrific. Strip searching citizens before they can get from point A to point B is horrific. The media (both Team Left and Team Right) blatantly conspiring the blackout of a popular politician is horrific. 93 out of 100 senators rubber stamping the indefinite detention and torture of American citizens and declaring the Internet a battlefield is horrific. A president that would do anything in his power to prevent these things from happening would be Heroic, not Horrific.
    - stcredzero 15y ago
      A president that would do anything in his power to prevent these things from happening would be Heroic, not Horrific. If we've reached a time for heroes to be politicians and politicians to be heroes, then we're living in interesting times indeed. What it means, is that the US and possibly the world economic/geopolitical body as a whole is in a systemic crisis. Heroes can either change the course of the world, or they can be a temporary stopgap. Worse, they can be a throwback to old patterns of thought that no longer work. Don't know what I'm talking about? Have a listen: http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/ http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/
    - Duff 15y ago
      I agree with everything other than your first sentence 100%. A Ron Paul Presidency probably wouldn't be a member of the war-of-the-month club that we've been members of since 2001. But I think he would rapidly discover the limits of Presidential power. A Paul presidency in the current environment would almost certainly lead to economic ruin as markets panic and that military-industrial complex (which employs millions of people) gets turned down. IMO, a Ron Paul administration would be like a second Andrew Johnson administration. When 93% of Senators (the house of Congress that is supposed to squash bad ideas) are willing to attack fundamental principles of American government, a new president isn't going to have the influence to "save" us. What Paul CAN do is inspire people. We need people in congress, state houses and county governments who can represent the people, and not just the various special interests that pull the strings.
- toyg 15y ago
  Among other things, he'd spend his time enacting anti-abortion laws.
  - toyg 15y ago
    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#Abortion-related_legislation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul... ). Presumably, he would do the same once elected.
    - cbs 15y ago
      promoted anti-abortion legislation at Federal level Ron Paul: States Rights, unless its something I'm against. Just like any politician I guess.
      - dantheman 15y ago
        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.
        cbs 15y ago
        Fair enough. I didn't see the legislation, as it was presented in the grandparent post just gave me a laugh at the apparent irony.
- ugh 15y ago
  Part of it is an obsession with being consistent instead of being right.
- seanalltogether 15y ago
  I believe Ron Pauls support comes as a backlash against politicians who have been trained to give certain responses, like for instance Sarah Palin when she was running for Vice President and had absolutely no knowledge of national politics. People don't necessarily agree with every one of Ron Pauls ideals, but at least you believe he has spent a lifetime nurturing those political ideals for himself, rather then having someone coach him.

dkhenry 15y ago

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.

makmanalp 15y ago
I used to be interested in what he had to say until I saw this: http://murphysbride.tumblr.com/post/14876601176/bacon-beer-and-boobs-afternoonsnoozebutton http://murphysbride.tumblr.com/post/14876601176/bacon-beer-a... I don't know how credible this is but it leaves me doubtful.
- kissickas 15y ago
  Ron Paul has claimed he didn't write those comments (taken from newsletters a few decades ago) and has renounced them, at least. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Inter-congressional_years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Inter-congressional_y...
  - gahahaha 15y ago
    Ron Paul didn't decide he had never written or read his newsletters until 2001 http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-check-ron-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/ http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-che...
- llambda 15y ago
  Most worrisome is that while these issues have come to light, in my /very/ limited experience, attempting to broach the issue with Paul supporters has been met with at best dismal and at worst outright irrational anger. In fact I've now been told a number of times that such quotations are falsified, that they've been planted by Paul's detractors. The implication seems to be they're suggesting this is the manifestation of some kind of conspiracy against him. I'm quite honestly baffled that supporters of a purist would allow exceptions... Alternatively, twice I've been told by Paul supporters that they are in fact are not supporters, but rather anarchists (this only comes up in the context of such content as the newsletter debacle).

narag 15y ago

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?

davidw 15y ago
The Republicans are desperate for 'Anyone but Romney': http://www.economist.com/node/21542180 http://www.economist.com/node/21542180
yellowbkpk 15y ago
When people are asked which republican candidate they'd vote for, most of them say "none of the above". Of the people that have decided on someone, Ron Paul seems to get the majority.
joshuahedlund 15y ago
To simplify things, Iowa is basically the first state to start voting for candidates. Four years ago Mr. Paul was generally getting like 5% nationally and with a concentrated effort on Iowa ended up with 10% of the vote. This year he's getting like 10-12% nationally and 20+% in Iowa. Paul actually leading several polls in Iowa is something that was not even fathomable four years ago. A vote for Paul can be taken to mean many different thing; I wish that - regardless of what one thinks about his electability or desirability as president - such votes would be interpreted as a measure of support for basic civil liberties that no other candidates (including Obama) seem to care about. But that's probably hoping for too much!
- cheez 15y ago
  I'm pretty sure that's exactly what a vote for Paul means these days.
nhebb 15y ago
It has a pretty good track record of picking the eventual Democratic nominee, but Iowa is not special for the Republican party. It has a poor record of voting for the eventual Republican party nominee in races where there is not an incumbent - 2/5 races since 1972. In fact, it has a better track record of picking the GOP outlier.

rosariom 15y ago

Ron Paul message resonates with people because he is talking about something none of the other candidates are talking about: returning freedoms and sanity to America. It would be hard to rollback all the damage done by the likes of Obama and his predecessors but I think it can be achieved gradually and with some culture changes in America. This is a great country and I hope to see its freedoms preserved and reinstated otherwise we will head down the road to god knows what and never come back. Freedom begets greatness and innovation. The media needs to stop its blackout of Paul and the smear campaign and cover the issues he is highlighting which are of the utmost importance.

davidw 15y ago
"sanity" being "what you agree with". That's why we should flag political articles and leave them to other sites.
- microarchitect 15y ago
  I don't understand why davidw has been downvoted. Ron Paul maybe a principled politician, but his views/past actions on the issues of racism, homosexuality and science and technology policy don't stand up to scrutiny. While some of his policies may be laudable, he also has plenty of stuff that can be categorized as insane. I don't want to start a political flamewar on HN, so all I'm trying to say is that there are valid reasons to believe what davidw believes and he shouldn't at least be downvoted for it.
  - davidw 15y ago
    I didn't make any comments about Ron Paul; I just pointed out the use of "sane" to mean "things I agree with", which is indicative of a debate that's not headed anywhere good.
    - llambda 15y ago
      I absolutely agree: things have gone in that direction and this simply isn't the forum for it, as such I've flagged the submission.

sativathekitty 15y ago

we need a new type of politician. one who isn't obsessed with power http://LouisCKforPresident.com http://LouisCKforPresident.com

brentashley 15y ago

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.

jaysonelliot 15y ago
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.
- dubfan 15y ago
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw 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 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.
  - dantheman 15y ago
    From his book liberty defined: http://libertydefined.org/issue/17 http://libertydefined.org/issue/17 No one person has perfect knowledge as to man's emergence on this earth. Yet almost everyone has a strong religious, scientific, or emotional opinion he or she considers gospel. The creationists frown on the evolutionists, and the evolutionists dismiss the creationists as kooky and unscientific. Lost in this struggle are those who look objectively at the scientific evidence for evolution without feeling any need to reject the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. My personal view is that recognizing the validity of the evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one's view about God and the universe. This is a debate about science and religion...and should not involve politicians at all.

j2labs 15y ago

The economist has a great write-up of Ron Paul: http://www.economist.com/node/21542199/ http://www.economist.com/node/21542199/

aik 15y ago
Thanks for posting. A question about this statement from the article: >> But [Ron Paul] coming this far tells you something about the mood of Republican voters. Don't you think it's a bit limiting to single out republican voters? I am fairly convinced that there are a significant amount of voters on all sides that support Ron Paul. I have also come to believe that specifically many republicans are against him, largely due to the anti-Ron Paul right-wing media influence. Thoughts?
- gahahaha 15y ago
  There is a huge amount of ignorance about what Ron Paul really stands for - when he becomes a serious candidate (not very likely) and is given the scrutiny and attention that other candidates are given, then he will implode like Perry and Herman before him.
dataminer 15y ago
How was that a great writeup when it discounts him in the first paragraph, using adjectives like wacky, radical, no-hoper and quirky? I was expecting it to be an objective look at Ron Paul's policies by Economist.
- gahahaha 15y ago
  """wacky, radical, no-hoper and quirky""" That IS a great summary of Ron Paul, so the Economist is being reasonably objective - as they usually are. Only the libertarian fringe and people who don't know much about anything support Ron Paul.
  - thebigshane 15y ago
    Those adjectives are inherently subjective: the opposite of objective.

jaysonelliot 15y ago

I could come up with a list of things that I don't like about Ron Paul personally, and a few things that worry me politically. But none of that really matters. He's the only candidate that I feel I could actually trust to stick by his campaign rhetoric, and the only one I would trust to actually defend the constitution. Ironic, given that we have a constitutional scholar in the White House and a historian running for the GOP nomination. Ron Paul is wrong on some things I care about, but so is Obama, and certainly so is Newt or Romney. I think I'll vote for the lesser of a dozen evils, and go with Paul.

maratd 15y ago
I feel the same way. In fact, I'm sure most of Ron Paul's supports feel the same way. I find his foreign policy views deplorable and offensive. You know what? I will still be voting for him. I'm tired. I'm so tired of the lying. Gingrich, Romney, Obama, Bush, etc. will say anything to get elected. Once elected, they all behave the same way. I'd rather have an honest man I disagree with in the White House, than a man who says one thing, but does another.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  I think his foreign policy is one of his strongest policies for which he gets a lot of support. What's funny is that Bush got elected in 2000 for having almost exactly the same foreign policy that Ron Paul has now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsvf1HU0KHM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsvf1HU0KHM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo
- roguecoder 15y ago
  He's either lying now about the newsletters or he was lying then and in 1996 and profited from those lies. I don't understand why people think he's an honest straight-shooter, any more than I understood that meme when it was applied to McCain. He's a politician playing a roll, that's all. He's not even a libertarian: he's perfectly fine with States grossly abridging freedom, just not the federal government. It's the same Southern conservatism that has been prominent since they lost the Civil War. Paul was smart enough to realize that you could sell this to a broader audience if you wrapped it in libertarianism is all.

MattBearman 15y ago

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.

nextparadigms 15y ago
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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM20w0jHH8A
redthrowaway 15y ago
I get not knowing who Ron Paul is, being from the UK, but at the same time I would expect you would at least know his name, being from the Internet. He's not exactly a low-profile figure in these tubes of ours.

jsavimbi 15y ago

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.

jliechti1 15y ago

The censorship of Ron Paul really is pretty incredible. The Daily Show clip was already mentioned in this thread - here's another example I noticed the other day in the Chicago Tribune: I just pulled out three random stories: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-iowa-nbcpolltre7bt0mr-20111230,0,6277647.story http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-io... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politicsnow/la-pn-iowa-rick-santorum-rips-ron-paul-20111229,0,3492896.story http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politicsnow/la-pn-iowa-ri... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-pn-romney-prospects-iowa-win-20111227,0,6546759.story http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-pn-romney-... Notice how every candidate name mentioned in the article (for the first time) is also a hyperlink, except Ron Paul.

chernevik 15y ago
CNBC had an interview where they basically let him talk for almost half an hour. He was great for five minutes, okay through to ten, and then the wheels just came off. He couldn't answer obvious follow-up questions (some with obvious Ron Paul answers). He was bamboozled by questions on the gold standard from people who actually speak monetary policy. Toward the end he was hardly coherent. I came away thinking his talking points are great but get him off those and there's very little there. I suspect reporters who have seen the guy up close see this and don't bother with him. I think they're too invested in their self-image as news filters to provide deep, even-handed coverage and let their audience decide. EDITED TO ADD: As noted below, I can't find a link to the interview I had in mind. So I'll walk back what I've said here a step or two: That's my impression of how the guy seems after extended scrutiny. But I can't now point to a document that would support that impression as well as I'd like.
- padobson 15y ago
  "I came away thinking his talking points are great but get him off those and there's very little there." This does little to differentiate him from any other politician.
- jamesbritt 15y ago
  I came away thinking his talking points are great but get him off those and there's very little there. That describes nearly every single politician. Bill Clinton comes to mind as an exception, and no doubt there are a few others, but not among the anointed GOP candidates. This lack of depth and intellectual rigor does nothing to dissuade major news outlets from sticking a mic in front of nearly anyone or discussing them as serious contenders. Reporters have decided that Paul is never going to get the nomination so they don't bother. Anyway I'd love to see that Paul interview if anyone has a link. I'm curious about "bamboozled by questions on the gold standard" and "hardly coherent".

TallGuyShort 15y ago

Good on Ron Paul! I've expressed this sentiment on here before, but it still bothers me that so much of what I read in opposition to SOPA is linked to actual piracy. Sure, I think that DRM is ridiculous and counter-productive, but piracy only serves to legitimize the claims of SOPA supporters, and undermine the claims of it's opponents that it would do no good. Please, if you oppose SOPA, stop using rhetoric from sites that appear to condone piracy.

efader 15y ago

Political pandering; I would not trust this.

tempire 15y ago
It's not pandering; it's consistent with the philosophy he's been touting for the last billionty years. Every time he gets up to speak, he talks about freedom of the individual, and having the federal government get out of the way. It's almost comical how people continually want to know his positions, when he doesn't have positions, but rather a unifying philosophy that positions grow out of. That's the unique thing about Ron Paul, he's not your standard politician, which is why he confuses the media so much.

wycats 15y ago

It's not surprising that Ron Paul would be against SOPA. That said, libertarians like Paul would have been against funding the projects that led to the Internet, and are today against funding similar government projects that might lead to future innovations. In many cases, innovations are bootstrapped by government funding or research, and then handed off to an appropriate role by the free market. Libertarians are usually against regulating the private market once the handoff has occurred (for good in many cases, and definitely in this case), but they are usually against the initial government bootstrapping. It's easy to imagine attacking the initial ARPA work on privacy, anti-military, or anti-elitism grounds, and I could easily imagine it losing its funding today, decried as a boondoggle that was useless for regular Americans, who of course would never have access to a computer, with taxpayers footing the bill.

WalterBright 15y ago
It's often assumed that without the ARPA the internet never would have existed. ARPA, however, is just one of many "internets" that sprung up over the years. There was also FIDOnet, Prodigy, BIX, Compuserve, MCInet, etc. Everyone with more than one computer thought to hook them together. Heck, even some friends of mine invented their own internet back in the 70's. If it wasn't ARPA, it would have been something else.
- wycats 15y ago
  The examples you listed arrived after ARPA. CompuServe, which arrived pretty early in the greater scheme, was founded in 1969 as a time sharing computer service. It wasn't until quite a bit later that it became a packet-switched computer network, likely in response to the success of ARPAnet's implementation. In contrast, the plans for ARPAnet were finished in 1968, and the system was operational in 1969. The concept was pretty pie in the sky at the time, and it's likely that the success of ARPA led to commercial implementations of packet-switched networks. Additionally, the early private networks did not have the character of the "public Internet" which is a crucial component of the Internet we know and love today. Indeed, the reason we care about SOPA is that the public Internet, and not a patchwork of private internets, won the day.
15y ago

webista 15y ago

It should have been more convincing for me if he instead made this statement before the goDaddy boycott, and net giants public opposition against SOPA, not a few days before the election circus. Politics is still politics, and this kind of rhetorical display and timing have long been around for centuries as politicians' device that pander to the media to get the favor from the people. I do not question his principles and previous acts, it's the timing that's fishy.

stcredzero 15y ago

TLDR for your non net-savvy friends and relatives: SOPA = takedown of websites without due process = censorship for those (corporations) who can afford big legal teams Restriction of where you can link to = restricting dissemination of information = censorship for commercial interest over free speech. Simple as that.

dubfan 15y ago

Good work getting a political article up to the front page.