Reasons I'm skeptic about Ron Paul [Archive]

irishjayhawk

10-04-2007, 02:24 PM

Please, correct me or educate me on the candidacy of Ron Paul. I want to believe he's the real deal. Of course, compared with what we have now, almost anything is better. Save, though, for Hillary, Mr. 9/11 and Sam Brownback (aka Mr. Talking Embryos).

Anyway, to the point: I want to believe but the more I read the more skeptical I become. Not because I don't think he can get the nomination but because I doubt some of his stances.

The first and foremost is his stance on the Separation of Church and State.

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

VOTING RECORD
Things that concern me

Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
#Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
#Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
# Why the change here?
Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)

That's all for now.

|Zach|

10-04-2007, 02:33 PM

Mr. Kotter

10-04-2007, 02:37 PM

Adept Havelock

10-04-2007, 02:45 PM

Baby Lee

10-04-2007, 03:14 PM

Your either are A skeptic, or are skeptical.

The Rick

10-04-2007, 04:17 PM

Ron Paul experts (like TJ and/or BEP :) ) can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Paul's position is that you can't hide the fact that our country was founded on Christian religious principles. As much as some people want to change that, you can't. That's just the way it is...it's part of the core of our country's formation and foundation.

Take a look at our most sacred documents: the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They absolutely contain references to God.

On the other hand, our founders also saw and realized the problem that occurs when a country is run like England was back in the 1600s where there is not a separate of church and state.

The founders envisioned a government that was based upon Christian principles, but did not discriminate against anyone who didn't share the same religious beliefs.

The point that I think Ron Paul is making is that today, we've become so PC that it's almost reverse discrimination. Back then, you likely were persecuted for not being a Christian. Today, you're more likely to be persecuted for being a Christian.

I think Ron Paul wants to uphold the Christian values, principles, and opinions that our founders believed in, and halt the trend of ripping out every shred of reference to Christianity within our government structure.

Just like our founders, he wants to recognize and maintain our Christian heritage, while welcoming, respecting, and not persecuting those who may feel or believe differently.

Taco John

10-04-2007, 04:21 PM

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."

He's absolutely right on this. There is no rigid seperation of church and state. A lot of athiests think that once a person gets in office, they shouldn't even go to church because that would compromise the seperation of church and state. This isn't correct, and there is no foundation in the constitution or in the writings of our founders to support such a notion.

Further, Ron Paul is right that the founding fathers envisioned that churches would eclipse the state in social importance. The founding fathers never intended for this country to be a socialist society where the government controls the social fabric of America. They intended that private institutions, such as churches and other private organizations that get their power through the participation of the people would take precedent.

He's not saying that these institutions should rule the government. He's saying that the individuals who participate in religion shouldn't have to check their religion in at the door when they go to work for the government. And further, that the federal government should have such little control over people's lives that any influence that a church might have in government wouldn't make a difference anyway.

Taco John

10-04-2007, 04:22 PM

I don't understand your voting record question...

BucEyedPea

10-04-2007, 04:25 PM

Thanks. I didn't know he opposed net-neutrality.
He doesn't. He's against internet regulation and has voted accordingly.

The problem is that list does not really explain what that vote or issue was about. The net-neutrality issue was about undermining the property rights of network owners and how such an issue hampers innovation. It dealt with variable pricing for different types of traffic that move throughout and ISP's infrastructure. Who owns the internet? (http://www.mises.org/story/2139)

I could explain many of the others as well, but to be brief Paul opposes most of them because the Constitution does not specifically authorize funding for such things. My guess is that IJH's understanding is a leftist anti-property rights one.

There was also a good debate on the separation of church and state regarding the quote by Paul too. Those words aren't in the Constitution either. But Paul has NO voting record showing he's infringed on any non-believer or has raised religion to the status as a RR would. Far from it. Is a mountain out of a molehill that only those who have an axe to grind have fits on.

Adept Havelock

10-04-2007, 04:31 PM

He doesn't. He's against internet regulation and has voted accordingly.

The problem is that list does not really explain what that vote or issue was about. The net-neutrality issue was about undermining the property rights of network owners and how such an issue hampers innovation. It dealt with variable pricing for different types of traffic that move throughout and ISP's infrastructure. Who owns the internet? (http://www.mises.org/story/2139)

Thanks, but I am aware of what net-neutrality means.

In this case, I believe it to be far too critical a resource to allow either the government or the network owners to control it. On that subject I'm all for the status quo, as "anti-property rights" as it might be. ;)

BucEyedPea

10-04-2007, 04:32 PM

What's a critical resource? The internet itself or someone's own network?

Adept Havelock

10-04-2007, 04:33 PM

What's a critical resource? The internet itself or someone's own network?

In this case, the internet, which I believe is made up of multiple private and public networks.

I have no interest in seeing the internet become "tiered" like the cable companies.

From there, IMO, it's only a small step to regulating content. I'm doubting AT&T would be eager to provide access to websites critical of AT&T for example.

BucEyedPea

10-04-2007, 04:38 PM

KCWolfman

10-04-2007, 04:39 PM

Why is anyone worried about Ron Paul. He is the right wing version of Jerry Brown - Does anyone truly believe he can be elected?

Adept Havelock

10-04-2007, 04:41 PM

Why is anyone worried about Ron Paul. He is the right wing version of Jerry Brown - Does anyone truly believe he can be elected?

Yes, BEP and TJ.

Mr. Kotter

10-04-2007, 04:42 PM

Why is anyone worried about Ron Paul. He is the right wing version of Jerry Brown - Does anyone truly believe he can be elected?

Only true believers.

Good to see you, Russ. :)

BucEyedPea

10-04-2007, 04:42 PM

I said I have hope.

Adept Havelock

10-04-2007, 04:44 PM

Why?

Don't you know that the censorhip fears some have could become a reality if that is allowed. Eventually, the FCC will be allowed to regulate and intervene more than it does now.

It also will remove the accountability that private contracts would resolve.

I'd agree that my censorship fears could become a reality if tiered internet became a reality. It would be the private companies doing the censorship. Again, I can't see AT&T allowing access to sites critical of it, or Wal-Mart ISP to sites critical of Wal-Mart, etc.

As for the Government imposing censorship, I'll fight that as well. That would be an even easier fight IMO. The majority of the people of this country are usually pretty good at standing up against that sort of thing.

KCWolfman

10-04-2007, 04:44 PM

Yes, BEP and TJ.
TJ also believes Rush Limbaugh is a political powerhouse.

Do you guys still buy into his junk he posts?

BucEyedPea

10-04-2007, 04:48 PM

Net Neutrality is nothing but nationalization of the net's lines and infrastructure.

Adept Havelock

10-04-2007, 04:49 PM

TJ also believes Rush Limbaugh is a political powerhouse.

Do you guys still buy into his junk he posts?

ROFL

He posted about the grave "Amero" crisis the other day. Some link to Hal Turner's (Holocaust Denier) website where old Hal claimed he had one of the Amero coins leaked from the Denver mint. Actually, he bought it from a novelty coin company in Texas.

I can't speak for others, but as for myself, not at all.

BucEyedPea

10-04-2007, 04:49 PM

Is wolfman gonna debate posters instead of issues?

Adept Havelock

10-04-2007, 04:51 PM

Is wolfman gonna debate posters instead of issues?

JMO, but I'd say he raises a valid point when it comes to the credibility of that poster.

Especially after the 9/11 conspiracy stuff, the "Amero" bit, and his unsupported allegation the US government is the "biggest polluter in the world".

I know you and he are Paulite BFF's, but c'mon. :shrug:

KCWolfman

10-04-2007, 04:53 PM

Is wolfman gonna debate posters instead of issues?
I thought I did. Maybe you should read down further. I will reiterate:
\
Ron Paul is nothing, will be nothing, and is no threat as a nationwide political leader. That said, I wish he or someone like him were - complete with vouchers for parochial schools, dismantling the IRS, and standing up against the leftist elites who decry "hate crime" every time one of their whimsical expensive plans are shown for what they are.

Gee, wonder why I stopped posting with responses like yours?

BucEyedPea

10-04-2007, 04:55 PM

Adept what does BFF stand for.

Adept Havelock

10-04-2007, 04:57 PM

Adept what does BFF stand for.

"Best Friend Forever", I believe.

Amazing what you can learn from Cellular Phone Commercials. I didn't know that until the other day when I didn't hit the mute button fast enough when the ads came on.

Taco John

10-04-2007, 05:06 PM

Why is anyone worried about Ron Paul. He is the right wing version of Jerry Brown - Does anyone truly believe he can be elected?

Yes, absolutely.

Taco John

10-04-2007, 05:08 PM

TJ also believes Rush Limbaugh is a political powerhouse.

You must have missed the news yesterday. He dominated it.

Yes, I absolutely believe that the conservative talk show host with the largest audience in the nation, nay the world, is a political powerhouse.

Taco John

10-04-2007, 05:10 PM

JMO, but I'd say he raises a valid point when it comes to the credibility of that poster.

Especially after the 9/11 conspiracy stuff, the "Amero" bit, and his unsupported allegation the US government is the "biggest polluter in the world".

I know you and he are Paulite BFF's, but c'mon. :shrug:

You keep bringing up the Amero bit like I was advocating it was real. I posted it because I found it and thought it would be interesting to discuss. I voiced my skepticism clearly in the thread, but noted that I was still concerned about the stuff posted on official US government web sites.

Adept Havelock

10-04-2007, 05:28 PM

You keep bringing up the Amero bit like I was advocating it was real. I posted it because I found it and thought it would be interesting to discuss. I voiced my skepticism clearly in the thread, but noted that I was still concerned about the stuff posted on official US government web sites.

Duly noted, nine posts into the thread you did state:

As far as the coins go, I don't think it would be too difficult for someone to fake them.

Your criticism when I showed Mr. Turners true colors (i.e. "discrediting him doesn't get you very far...") led me to believe you posted it because on first glance it supported your other .gov posts about the "North American Union", none of which mention the "Amero" which was the thread topic. I just figured if you were interested in the discussion being about the NAU, you would have led with that. :shrug:

That said, fine. I don't believe the Amero nonsense either, so call it a wash.

As for the 9/11 conspiracy stuff, well, you'll believe whatever you want. It's a free country when it comes to selecting the color of your tinfoil hat, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

As for "The US Government is the biggest polluter in the world"...still waiting for anything that subtantiates that.

Taco John

10-04-2007, 05:35 PM

You showed his true colors? You thought they were hidden or something? I posted it as a "take it for what it's worth," and you turned it into some sort of glorious "gotcha."

You are a very uninteresting person. You sit on the fence, and offer nothing to any discussion but endless cynicism. No solutions. No positions. No interesting takes. Just cynicism.

It's easy to be a cynic. All you have to do is not believe anything. So what's the point in having a discussion with someone who doesn't believe in anything?

Adept Havelock

10-04-2007, 05:44 PM

You showed his true colors? You thought they were hidden or something? I posted it as a "take it for what it's worth," and you turned it into some sort of glorious "gotcha."

Only after you got snippy when I pointed out he was a Holocaust Denier. ;)

You are a very uninteresting person. You sit on the fence, and offer nothing to any discussion but endless cynicism. No solutions. No positions. No interesting takes. Just cynicism.

It's easy to be a cynic. All you have to do is not believe anything. So what's the point in having a discussion with someone who doesn't believe in anything?

Uninteresting? That's your opinion. While it's far from the best way to judge, I'll go with the only tool I have to assess it. My rep page tells me a damn broad swath (speaking politically and socially) of the Planet likes me and my posts, or at least finds them interesting enough to comment on. As I can count the neg ones on one hand and not use all the fingers... :shrug:

I'll also take the whining attack about how "uninteresting" I am to be an admission you can't back up your last point about the "US Government being the biggest polluter in the world".

I suppose I shouldn't expect anything else from someone deluded enough to believe their own government had a hand in the biggest terrorist attack in history.

BucEyedPea

10-04-2007, 05:46 PM

As for the Government imposing censorship, I'll fight that as well. That would be an even easier fight IMO. The majority of the people of this country are usually pretty good at standing up against that sort of thing.

Oh really? Tell me why does the FCC have the right to control and regulate content with penalties for violations? They CAN do that precisely because they are owned by the public and not really owned by anyone. That's always been the payoff and no one has been able to fight that. That's what such laws lead to and you won't be able to fight it that easily because regulation is the usual pay-off for any nationalization or govt control instead of it being based on private property.

Adept Havelock

10-04-2007, 05:48 PM

Oh really? Tell me why does the FCC have the right to control and regulate content with penalties for violations? They CAN do that precisely because they are owned by the public and not really owned by anyone. That's always been the payoff and no one has been able to fight that. That's what such laws lead to and you won't be able to fight it that easily because the usual pay-off for such nationalization.

We're not going to agree on this point, just like we don't on the idea that a Representative Republic is but one of the forms Democracy can take. (Direct democracy, which you and I both oppose, being another). :shrug:

I'm not comfortable with Government or Private Industry having control. Thus, the status quo suits me just fine. That's why I've donated money and done a little work to maintain that status quo.

Taco John

10-04-2007, 06:51 PM

I'll also take the whining attack about how "uninteresting" I am to be an admission you can't back up your last point about the "US Government being the biggest polluter in the world".

Whether it's the world or not is actually immaterial to what the point was. I provided info that showed the US government to be the number one polluter in the United States. The majority of that pollution comes from military. We have the largest military in the world. Whether that translates to being the largest polluter in the world is immaterial, as pollution is a local problem, and my point was that pollution should be dealt with as locally as possible.

banyon

10-04-2007, 07:01 PM

Whether it's the world or not is actually immaterial to what the point was. I provided info that showed the US government to be the number one polluter in the United States. The majority of that pollution comes from military. We have the largest military in the world. Whether that translates to being the largest polluter in the world is immaterial, as pollution is a local problem, and my point was that pollution should be dealt with as locally as possible.

How bizarre. You state that pollution is a local problem and in the same post you state that the U.S. Military is the world's biggest polluter. How exactly is a small town to curb the gigantic waste of the U.S. Military with local action?

BTW don't know if you saw this thread, (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=170976&highlight=plastic) but it shows how even littering, which is normally handled on a local level has turned into an international problem.

http://www.bestlifeonline.com/cms/uploads/1/sea-turtle-deformed.jpg

I mean, how you can maintain this "local" stance in the face of a plethora of environmental issues that obviously cannot be addressed on a local level seems just patently absurd to me.

Adept Havelock

10-04-2007, 07:03 PM

Whether it's the world or not is actually immaterial to what the point was. I provided info that showed the US government to be the number one polluter in the United States. The majority of that pollution comes from military. We have the largest military in the world. Whether that translates to being the largest polluter in the world is immaterial, as pollution is a local problem, and my point was that pollution should be dealt with as locally as possible.

This was the entirety of the post I'm talking about:

Oh for sure... Absolutely, and without a doubt. The US government is the number one polluter in the world.

If it's "immaterial" why did you make the claim in the first place? Especially with the qualifer "Absolutely...without a doubt."? :hmmm:

Seems that's the only point you are making in that post.

The fact it's not true is "immaterial"?

Inconvenient perhaps, but immaterial?

We have the largest military in the world.
LMAO

Let me guess, the fact that the People's Republic of China has a larger military than the US is also "immaterial".

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

I guess I'm just being an uninteresting cynic again. :p

KCWolfman

10-04-2007, 08:38 PM

Yes, absolutely.
I am sure a bunch of you wackos also believed that Ross Perot and John Anderson were viable candidates as well.

Taco John

10-04-2007, 08:42 PM

I mean, how you can maintain this "local" stance in the face of a plethora of environmental issues that obviously cannot be addressed on a local level seems just patently absurd to me.

What environmental problems are you speaking of that cannot be dealt with on a local level? The turtle is a shocking picture and all, but I don't know what you expect the president to do about that.

banyon

10-04-2007, 08:44 PM

I am sure a bunch of you wackos also believed that Ross Perot and John Anderson were viable candidates as well.

Dude, Perot was the most viable 3P candidate in 80 years.

banyon

10-04-2007, 08:50 PM

What environmental problems are you speaking of that cannot be dealt with on a local level?

Climate change — Global warming • Fossil fuels • Sea level rise • Effects of the automobile on societies
Conservation — Holocene extinction event • Invasive species • Species extinction • Habitat destruction • Habitat fragmentation • Pollinator decline • Coral bleaching
Dams - Environmental impacts of dams
Energy - Energy conservation
Genetic engineering — Genetic Pollution — Genetic Erosion
Intensive farming — Overgrazing • Irrigation • Monoculture
Land degradation — Land pollution • Desertification
Soil — Soil conservation • Soil erosion • Soil contamination • Soil salination
Nanotechnology — Nanotoxicology • Nanopollution
Nuclear issues — Nuclear fallout • Nuclear meltdown • Nuclear power
Overpopulation
Ozone depletion
Pollution — Air pollution • Light pollution • Noise pollution • Thermal pollution
Water pollution — Drinking water • Eutrophication • Water crisis • Oil spills
Resource depletion — Exploitation of natural resources
Fishing — Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing • Environmental effects of fishing • Overfishing • Bottom trawling
Logging — Illegal logging • Deforestation
Mining — Acid mine drainage
Toxic waste — Dioxin • Chlorofluorocarbons • Heavy metals • Herbicides • Pesticides • Toxics use reduction
Urban sprawl
Waste — Waste types • Waste management • The waste hierarchy • Waste legislation • Waste collection • Waste treatment technologies

The turtle is a shocking picture and all, but I don't know what you expect the president to do about that.

Maybe just what I posted in the thread:

Market based-incentives work great in Ireland. They charge you like a dime if you want a bag. Most people are just "F U" and take their stuff and carry it. Or they learn and reuse the bags.

KCWolfman

10-04-2007, 08:51 PM

Dude, Perot was the most viable 3P candidate in 80 years.
8 % of the popular vote and not a single electoral is less viable than stephen hawkins stranded on a desert island.

Taco John

10-04-2007, 08:54 PM

I am sure a bunch of you wackos also believed that Ross Perot and John Anderson were viable candidates as well.

I don't know who John Anderson is, but Ross Perot was definitely a viable candidate. I believe that Ron Paul will split the Republican party in half, and electability will eventually become the deciding factor. People will vote for Ron Paul for two reasons: first, they'll vote their own personal interests: lower taxes, decreased spending, and the opportunity for young people to get out of the social security system is going to resonate with conservative voters. Second, it will come down to electability: With the Republican party split between a pro-war and an anti-war candidate, faced off against Hillary Clinton, people will vote for the guy who can beat her: the anti-war guy who isn't going to maintain Bush's policies.

KCWolfman

10-04-2007, 08:56 PM

I don't know who John Anderson is, but Ross Perot was definitely a viable candidate. I believe that Ron Paul will split the Republican party in half, and electability will eventually become the deciding factor. People will vote for Ron Paul for two reasons: first, they'll vote their own personal interests: lower taxes, decreased spending, and the opportunity for young people to get out of the social security system is going to resonate with conservative voters. Second, it will come down to electability: With the Republican party split between a pro-war and an anti-war candidate, faced off against Hillary Clinton, people will vote for the guy who can beat her: the anti-war guy who isn't going to maintain Bush's policies.
I am willing to bet you right now $500.00 that Paul not only doesn't win the election, but that he doesn't get the Repub nod.

Put your money where your mouth is.

KCWolfman

10-04-2007, 08:57 PM

John Anderson ran against Reagan. He was the first real third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt's second failed attempt at office.

Paul is no more a threat than a pissant to a fully armed F-16.

banyon

10-04-2007, 08:58 PM

8 % of the popular vote and not a single electoral is less viable than stephen hawkins stranded on a desert island.

Where the hell are you getting 8% from?

KCWolfman

10-04-2007, 09:05 PM

Where the hell are you getting 8% from?
In 96 he received 8% of the vote, in 92 he received 18%.

Also note that many websites state he is the most successful third party candidate, ever. Absolutely false. Teddy Roosevelt garnered 30.% in 1912.

Taco John

10-04-2007, 09:06 PM

Climate change — Global warming • Fossil fuels • Sea level rise • Effects of the automobile on societies

Global warming is not an environmental issue. It's a theory. Fossil fuels are not environmental issues. They're resources... Sea level rise has no connection with pollution that I've ever seen a link to. Automobiles are polluters, however, but they are local polluters, and can be dealt with at the local level.

Conservation — Holocene extinction event • Invasive species • Species extinction • Habitat destruction • Habitat fragmentation • Pollinator decline • Coral bleaching

Holocene extinction event is a local problem having to do with loss of habitat in local areas. It's been going on for about 12,000 years now. Not really the president's problem. Invasive species, also not the president's problem. Habitat destruction is a local issue. Habitat fragmentation is a local issue. Pollinator decline appears to be a natural issue having to do with natural cycles... but even if it isn't, it's not the president's problem. Coral bleaching happens because of local pollution.

Dams - Environmental impacts of dams

...or do you mean environmental benefits of dams? Ever lived in an area that depends on damns for power? Come breath our Pacific Northwest air and then complain about Dams.

Energy - Energy conservation

If the president wants to endorse energy conservation, he's got the bully pulpit.

Genetic engineering — Genetic Pollution — Genetic Erosion

These aren't even pollution problems... Now you're just reaching for things.

Intensive farming — Overgrazing • Irrigation • Monoculture

All local problems...

Land degradation — Land pollution • Desertification
Soil — Soil conservation • Soil erosion • Soil contamination • Soil salination
Nanotechnology — Nanotoxicology • Nanopollution
Nuclear issues — Nuclear fallout • Nuclear meltdown • Nuclear power
Overpopulation
Ozone depletion
Pollution — Air pollution • Light pollution • Noise pollution • Thermal pollution
Water pollution — Drinking water • Eutrophication • Water crisis • Oil spills
Resource depletion — Exploitation of natural resources
Fishing — Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing • Environmental effects of fishing • Overfishing • Bottom trawling
Logging — Illegal logging • Deforestation
Mining — Acid mine drainage
Toxic waste — Dioxin • Chlorofluorocarbons • Heavy metals • Herbicides • Pesticides • Toxics use reduction
Urban sprawl
Waste — Waste types • Waste management • The waste hierarchy • Waste legislation • Waste collection • Waste treatment technologies

All local problems... for local governments to deal with. If that doesn't solve the problem, they can take it up to the federal legislature if they need to. At which point a bill might cross the president's desk. That's when the president needs to be involved in the pollution issue. Not micromanaging regulatory agencies.

BucEyedPea

10-04-2007, 09:06 PM

8 % of the popular vote and not a single electoral is less viable than stephen hawkins stranded on a desert island.
Of course he didn't get a single electoral vote, nor any popular ones since he backed out. Per him due to threats from the GOP.

Oh and Paul is not running as a 3P candidate.

No way, as a conservative Republican, will I support ANY of the top tier win or lose. I'm voting my conscience in the primary. I usually do. Nevertheless, none of the top tier will beat the Dems with the message they're running on. The Dems are outraising the Pubs as it is now.

Taco John

10-04-2007, 09:08 PM

I am willing to bet you right now $500.00 that Paul not only doesn't win the election, but that he doesn't get the Repub nod.

Put your money where your mouth is.

I already have:

http://www.intrade.com/

KCWolfman

10-04-2007, 09:09 PM

Of course he didn't get a single electoral vote, nor any popular ones since he backed out. Per him due to threats from the GOP.

Oh and Paul is not running as a 3P candidate.

No way, as a conservative Republican, will I support ANY of the top tier win or lose. I'm voting my conscience in the primary.
I never stated Paul was running as a third party candidate. I stated he will be as ineffective as third party candidates have been for almost 100 years.

As far as the threats, Perot never substianted any of them. He did the same crap when he lost control of EDI and blamed the loss on threats on his family when he spiraled out of control.

KCWolfman

10-04-2007, 09:10 PM

I already have:

http://www.intrade.com/
So is that a yes?

500.00?

Mr. Kotter

10-04-2007, 09:17 PM

In 96 he received 8% of the vote, in 92 he received 18%.

Also note that many websites state he is the most successful third party candidate, ever. Absolutely false. Teddy Roosevelt garnered 30.% in 1912.

In fairness, Russ...an incumbent President (for practical purposes--a two term President,) who left the Presidency to his hand-picked successor only to be disappointed....so he defies the "two term" tradition to run for, in effect, an unprecedented third term.....is hardly a fair comparison.

:hmmm:

Taco John

10-04-2007, 09:18 PM

So is that a yes?

500.00?

No, I'm not betting you a dime.

I would encourage you to take your $500 to intrade and bet against Paul there.

Mr. Kotter

10-04-2007, 09:19 PM

No, I'm not betting you a dime.

I would encourage you to take your $500 to intrade and bet against Paul there.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

banyon

10-04-2007, 09:19 PM

In 96 he received 8% of the vote, in 92 he received 18%.

Also note that many websites state he is the most successful third party candidate, ever. Absolutely false. Teddy Roosevelt garnered 30.% in 1912.

Well of course I was referring to the 92' candidacy? Why would I be referring to his less likely run in 96'?

And Here's a nugget from that campaign:

THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: On the Trail; POLL GIVES PEROT A CLEAR LEAD
Published: June 11, 1992
In a three-way general election matchup, Ross Perot has moved to a clear lead over both President Bush and Gov. Bill Clinton in the latest Gallup Poll.

In the telephone poll of 815 registered voters nationwide, conducted June 4 to 8, Mr. Perot was supported by 39 percent, Mr. Bush by 31 percent, and Mr. Clinton by 25 percent. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.

In a previous Gallup matchup in late May, Mr. Bush and Mr. Perot were tied at 35 percent each, while Mr. Clinton was supported by 25 percent.

No previous independent or third party candidate has ever placed second, much less first, in nearly six decades of Gallup's nationwide polling for President

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7DB133EF932A25755C0A964958260

I mean 39% in June seems pretty viable to me. If it weren't for his withdrawal and his awful choice of a running mate, he might really have had a shot.

irishjayhawk

10-04-2007, 09:21 PM

I am all about seperation...but setting that aside.

What is with your constant hard on for religion. You don't practice it, fine. It isn't your bag, cool. It really hasn't been mine either.

Why not live and let live...you are ALWAYS on the offensive. You can live your daily life and stay away from it with little problems.

Well, normally, I would live and let live. But that's part of the problem. Live and let live has been a motto whose time has passed - and has for a while. At least, on most things. Live and let live is largely ignored by religious people anyway. It's time the opposition stops living by the quaint philosophy.

Let's look at live and let live from the religious point of view.

We have creationists arguing that there be a theory taught in science classes.
We have believers arguing that books should be banned from school libraries and libraries in general due to "promoting devil's works" (witchcraft, adultry, etc).
We have an uproar about prayer not being allowed in public schools.
We have people protesting the use of contraceptions. (Hell, there's a bishop saying condoms are spiked with HIV)
We have people protesting a woman's right to abortion. (One could argue this is ethics, but I contend it is religious at heart)
We have fundamentalist Muslims blowing things up.
We have fundamentalist Christians thinking the world is 6000 years old (and flat, if you're on the View).

I could go on but I digress. The live and let live philosophy has never been a part of any religion, really. Both Muslims and Christians choose not to live and let live. Hell, if they had, I don't think they'd have spread as quickly nor hold the hold they have now.

My main beef is that religion has survived well past it's welcome. I am not, however, advocating destroying it by any means necessary. Merely, I suggest attacking it through discourse. Legal and otherwise.

In sum, my hatred for religion is predicated on these things (but not limited to):
It is impeding science, knowledge and progress.
It's legislating morality.
It enables fundamentalists.
It's afterlife promise means that this life is expendable.

Taco John

10-04-2007, 09:22 PM

ROFL ROFL ROFL

I will, however, bet you $500 that Thompson doesn't get the nomination, joke boy.

KCWolfman

10-04-2007, 09:24 PM

Well of course I was referring to the 92' candidacy? Why would I be referring to his less likely run in 96'?

And Here's a nugget from that campaign:

THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: On the Trail; POLL GIVES PEROT A CLEAR LEAD
Published: June 11, 1992
In a three-way general election matchup, Ross Perot has moved to a clear lead over both President Bush and Gov. Bill Clinton in the latest Gallup Poll.

In the telephone poll of 815 registered voters nationwide, conducted June 4 to 8, Mr. Perot was supported by 39 percent, Mr. Bush by 31 percent, and Mr. Clinton by 25 percent. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.

In a previous Gallup matchup in late May, Mr. Bush and Mr. Perot were tied at 35 percent each, while Mr. Clinton was supported by 25 percent.

No previous independent or third party candidate has ever placed second, much less first, in nearly six decades of Gallup's nationwide polling for President

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7DB133EF932A25755C0A964958260

I mean 39% in June seems pretty viable to me. If it weren't for his withdrawal and his awful choice of a running mate, he might really have had a shot.
Ahhh a gallup poll 5 months before election.

Next you will be telling me Dewey Defeats Truman.

KCWolfman

10-04-2007, 09:25 PM

No, I'm not betting you a dime.

No surprise.

Obviously you aren't as concerned as you make yourself out to be.

Taco John

10-04-2007, 09:27 PM

No surprise.

Obviously you aren't as concerned as you make yourself out to be.

Are you going to give me the same odds I can get by investing my money online? Why would I want to bet you when I could get 6 to 1 at Sportsbook?

Taco John

10-04-2007, 09:28 PM

Ahhh a gallup poll 5 months before election.

Next you will be telling me Dewey Defeats Truman.

Can't hardly argue with that logic Banyon.

irishjayhawk

10-04-2007, 09:29 PM

I don't understand your voting record question...

Those were things that concerned me. I was pressed for time to actually write about them.

He doesn't. He's against internet regulation and has voted accordingly.

The problem is that list does not really explain what that vote or issue was about. The net-neutrality issue was about undermining the property rights of network owners and how such an issue hampers innovation. It dealt with variable pricing for different types of traffic that move throughout and ISP's infrastructure. Who owns the internet? (http://www.mises.org/story/2139)

I could explain many of the others as well, but to be brief Paul opposes most of them because the Constitution does not specifically authorize funding for such things. My guess is that IJH's understanding is a leftist anti-property rights one.

There was also a good debate on the separation of church and state regarding the quote by Paul too. Those words aren't in the Constitution either. But Paul has NO voting record showing he's infringed on any non-believer or has raised religion to the status as a RR would. Far from it. Is a mountain out of a molehill that only those who have an axe to grind have fits on.

Ah, always the slight for me. And it's interesting since I said I want to believe in Paul. And I have no idea how you got me pegged as anti-property rights...(or even what that actually means).

That is not how I interpret net neutrality. I had a definition in line with Adept's. I was under the impression that if net neutrality passed, it was to say the internet remained neutral: neither restricted by ISPs (corporations) nor the government (FCC, etc). Is interpretation wrong?

Just because a person hasn't voted on something doesn't mean they won't. Anyway, he has voted and supports things that I would classify under separation of church and state.

Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

Again, a nice slight at me.

Taco John

10-04-2007, 09:31 PM

That is not how I interpret net neutrality. I had a definition in line with Adept's. I was under the impression that if net neutrality passed, it was to say the internet remained neutral: neither restricted by ISPs (corporations) nor the government (FCC, etc). Is interpretation wrong?

The problem with net neutrality is that it takes away the incentive for anyone to maintain a network. But the people will demand the internet anyway, and eventually the government will have to step in for the private market, because they've regulated the profits out of it.

If you like paying taxes so that the government can manage things, then Ron Paul isn't your guy.

Mr. Kotter

10-04-2007, 09:31 PM

Well, normally, I would live and let live. But that's part of the problem. Live and let live has been a motto whose time has passed - and has for a while. At least, on most things. Live and let live is largely ignored by religious people anyway. It's time the opposition stops living by the quaint philosophy.

Let's look at live and let live from the religious point of view.

We have creationists arguing that there be a theory taught in science classes.
We have believers arguing that books should be banned from school libraries and libraries in general due to "promoting devil's works" (witchcraft, adultry, etc).
We have an uproar about prayer not being allowed in public schools.
We have people protesting the use of contraceptions. (Hell, there's a bishop saying condoms are spiked with HIV)
We have people protesting a woman's right to abortion. (One could argue this is ethics, but I contend it is religious at heart)
We have fundamentalist Muslims blowing things up.
We have fundamentalist Christians thinking the world is 6000 years old (and flat, if you're on the View).

I could go on but I digress. The live and let live philosophy has never been a part of any religion, really. Both Muslims and Christians choose not to live and let live. Hell, if they had, I don't think they'd have spread as quickly nor hold the hold they have now.

My main beef is that religion has survived well past it's welcome. I am not, however, advocating destroying it by any means necessary. Merely, I suggest attacking it through discourse. Legal and otherwise.

In sum, my hatred for religion is predicated on these things (but not limited to):
It is impeding science, knowledge and progress.
It's legislating morality.
It enables fundamentalists.
It's afterlife promise means that this life is expendable.

Admit it.

You got "educated" by some rump ranger Catholic Priest.

And, now, you've decided to take it out on all of Christianity.

Nice. :rolleyes:

irishjayhawk

10-04-2007, 09:37 PM

Admit it.

You got "educated" by some rump ranger Catholic Priest.

And, now, you've decided to take it out on all of Christianity.

Nice. :rolleyes:

Is that the victim card? I am not just against Christianity.

Oh and thanks for adding. "Rump ranger Catholic Priests" is another prime example.

Mr. Kotter

10-04-2007, 09:39 PM

Is that the victim card? I am not just against Christianity.

Oh and thanks for adding. "Rump ranger Catholic Priests" is another prime example.

Well, you seem to be a "let's throw the baby out, with the bath water" kinda guy. I thought even someone named "Irishjayhawk" would appreciate that....

:)

KCWolfman

10-04-2007, 09:42 PM

Are you going to give me the same odds I can get by investing my money online? Why would I want to bet you when I could get 6 to 1 at Sportsbook?
Why are you worried about odds? Hardly the words of someone who is genuinely concerned.

banyon

10-04-2007, 09:45 PM

Global warming is not an environmental issue. It's a theory. Fossil fuels are not environmental issues. They're resources... Sea level rise has no connection with pollution that I've ever seen a link to. Automobiles are polluters, however, but they are local polluters, and can be dealt with at the local level.

Holocene extinction event is a local problem having to do with loss of habitat in local areas. It's been going on for about 12,000 years now. Not really the president's problem. Invasive species, also not the president's problem. Habitat destruction is a local issue. Habitat fragmentation is a local issue. Pollinator decline appears to be a natural issue having to do with natural cycles... but even if it isn't, it's not the president's problem. Coral bleaching happens because of local pollution.

...or do you mean environmental benefits of dams? Ever lived in an area that depends on damns for power? Come breath our Pacific Northwest air and then complain about Dams.

If the president wants to endorse energy conservation, he's got the bully pulpit.

These aren't even pollution problems... Now you're just reaching for things.

All local problems...

All local problems... for local governments to deal with. If that doesn't solve the problem, they can take it up to the federal legislature if they need to. At which point a bill might cross the president's desk. That's when the president needs to be involved in the pollution issue. Not micromanaging regulatory agencies.

I guess this is pretty much the blanket denial that shows the problem.
Any of these events listed above (including Genetic Modified foods, which is pretty serious if you check it out) can be promoted by one community to the detriment of another. This is really the main reason i am not a libertarian, because I now that communities cannot solve these problems in any meaningful way. Denying this fact belies a sort of naiviete about the way the modern internation economy works. I've posted several examples of situations where one community would be powerless to affect the pollution that threatened it. you haven't bothered to address any of them besides your bizzare answer that I list in this post (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4267296&postcount=92).

Mr. Kotter

10-04-2007, 09:49 PM

... I am not just against Christianity.

Fair enough. My bad.

You are not just a Anti-Christian zealot; you are a religious bigot, generally.

Nice to know. I'll file that away, though it's been abundantly clear. Just, FTR. :hmmm:

Taco John

10-04-2007, 09:49 PM

Why are you worried about odds? Hardly the words of someone who is genuinely concerned.

Why do you keep using the word "concerned." It seems dysfunctional how you're using.

Odds = profit. Betting you 1 to 1 when I can get 6 to 1 odds at Sportbook cheats me of $2500 on a $500 cash in. I'd be more than happy to take you up if you're willing to cover the same odds I can get elsewhere. What are you afraid of?

KCWolfman

10-04-2007, 09:51 PM

Why do you keep using the word "concerned." It seems dysfunctional how you're using.

Odds = profit. Betting you 1 to 1 when I can get 6 to 1 odds at Sportbook cheats me of $2500 on a $500 cash in. I'd be more than happy to take you up if you're willing to cover the same odds I can get elsewhere. What are you afraid of?
So you have put 500.00 on the website for Paul, is that what you are saying.

I offered a gentleman wager against a silly statement that I don't believe you can support. Obviously, I am right.

Taco John

10-04-2007, 09:55 PM

IThis is really the main reason i am not a libertarian, because I now that communities cannot solve these problems in any meaningful way.

So why stop at the state legislature then? Why not take it to the next level? Why does it always have to come from the top with progressives? You guys create kings, and then complain that they get corrupted. Your answer is always to create more government, which itself gets corrupted. At some point in time the system collapses, and nobody is served.

Denying this fact belies a sort of naiviete about the way the modern internation economy works. I've posted several examples of situations where one community would be powerless to affect the pollution that threatened it. you haven't bothered to address any of them besides your bizzare answer that I list in this post (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4267296&postcount=92).

You're playing penchief then. I've given solutions: start locally and THEN work your way up the ladder. Don't expect the president to micromanage your issue into oblivion, because that's not going to work.

irishjayhawk

10-04-2007, 09:58 PM

Fair enough. My bad.

You are not just a Anti-Christian zealot; you are a religious bigot, generally.

Nice to know. I'll file that away, though it's been abundantly clear. Just, FTR. :hmmm:

And then there's the definition of a bigot, or rather, where to draw the line.

For example, and I'm not necessarily equating the two;

A man thinks 2+2=5. In his country, this is the predominant view point.
A man from another country visits and tells them that this is false and there is no evidence for it. 2+2=4, he contends.

Is the man visiting a bigot if he then tries to dispel/attack/etc the commonly held belief?

Taco John

10-04-2007, 09:58 PM

So you have put 500.00 on the website for Paul, is that what you are saying.

I offered a gentleman wager against a silly statement that I don't believe you can support. Obviously, I am right.

No, I didn't put $500, I put $100. That's about as much as I care to wager. But if you're going to give me odds like I can get online, I'd be happy to scrape a few more dollars together just to see if you'd be brave enough in your convictions.

Personally, I think this "oh yeah, well I'll bet you then" mentality that you've brought to the discussion is pretty high-schoolish in the first place. I don't go around betting people I disagree with. I will pretty much take people at their word. If you don't believe Ron Paul will go anywhere, I can believe you without needing to put money on it.

If you don't believe that I think Ron Paul can win, then stick around. You'll eventually get the picture.

banyon

10-04-2007, 10:02 PM

So why stop at the state legislature then? Why not take it to the next level? Why does it always have to come from the top with progressives? You guys create kings, and then complain that they get corrupted. Your answer is always to create more government, which itself gets corrupted. At some point in time the system collapses, and nobody is served.

You're playing penchief then. I've given solutions: start locally and THEN work your way up the ladder. Don't expect the president to micromanage your issue into oblivion, because that's not going to work.

This is pretty much a non-answer. So if you can't answer I understand. This is a difficult issue for libertarians, if not the most difficult. I have a lot of sympathies with libertarians, but i do think these problems call for larger solutions.

Progressives don't want kings, they dont's trust any agglomeration of power, whether that is government or private industry. one of my main critiques of Libertarians has been their denial that private industry could manifest one of these agglomerations of power as was evident from 1900-1940 in the U.S. We basically want checks and balances all over the place to prevent corruption in the public or private arena.

As I said in the post I linked, pretty much these issues are pretty simple to separate into which are local and which can't be local. As such, there's really no need to "work our way up the chain" since we've pretty much already done so.

Mr. Kotter

10-04-2007, 10:05 PM

And then there's the definition of a bigot, or rather, where to draw the line.

For example, and I'm not necessarily equating the two;

A man thinks 2+2=5. In his country, this is the predominant view point.
A man from another country visits and tells them that this is false and there is no evidence for it. 2+2=4, he contends.

Is the man visiting a bigot if he then tries to dispel/attack/etc the commonly held belief?

What you don't understand and accept is it is YOU who is proposing that 2+2=5.

Most Americans, according to consistently time-honored polling....KNOW that 2+2=4---and they know this intuitively.

It is you, and a chorus of delusional detractors, who are insisting that 2 +2 =5. Sorry if it hurts your feelings that the vast majority of the rest of us know better.

irishjayhawk

10-04-2007, 10:17 PM

What you don't understand and accept is it is YOU who is proposing that 2+2=5.

Most Americans, according to consistently time-honored polling....KNOW that 2+2=4---and they know this intuitively.

It is you, and a chorus of delusional detractors, who are insisting that 2 +2 =5. Sorry if it hurts your feelings that the vast majority of the rest of us know better.

ROFL

Ah, so the most held belief is automatically the most rational. :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter

10-04-2007, 10:19 PM

ROFL

Ah, so the most held belief is automatically the most rational. :rolleyes:

That's not what I said at all.

For you, however, to presume it is YOU that knows 2+2=4, while the others believe 2+2=5....is the same misguided arrogant condescension that right thinking people have to put up with every single day.

irishjayhawk

10-04-2007, 10:24 PM

That's not what I said at all.

For you, however, to presume it is YOU that knows 2+2=4, while the others believe 2+2=5....is the same misguided arrogant condescension that right thinking people have to put up with every single day.

Actually, it isn't misguided or arrogant.

There is no evidence for 2+2=5 just as there is no evidence for any god.

KCWolfman

10-04-2007, 10:30 PM

Actually, it isn't misguided or arrogant.

There is no evidence for 2+2=5 just as there is no evidence for any god.
Actually, there is a ton of evidence.

Unless you happen to believe that just the right cells at just the right time divided into just the right section of animals, plants, and bacterium to survive off of one another and precariously live off of one another for millions of years without disturbing the entire balance.

Kinda like throwing 10,000,000,000,000,000 pennies in the air and all of them landing on their sides.

Believe that all that has occurred is random and just lucky for us at this moment is the true 2+2 = 5 equation.

Mr. Kotter

10-04-2007, 10:32 PM

Actually, it isn't misguided or arrogant.

There is no evidence for 2+2=5 just as there is no evidence for any god.

No, in this analogy....2+2=5, is belief that there is no God...when, according to the vast majority of people 2+2=4.

Damn, you must have sucked at math, I suspect. :hmmm:

:)

banyon

10-04-2007, 10:38 PM

Actually, there is a ton of evidence.

Unless you happen to believe that just the right cells at just the right time divided into just the right section of animals, plants, and bacterium to survive off of one another and precariously live off of one another for millions of years without disturbing the entire balance.

Kinda like throwing 10,000,000,000,000,000 pennies in the air and all of them landing on their sides.

Believe that all that has occurred is random and just lucky for us at this moment is the true 2+2 = 5 equation.

I guess i disagree totally with you and Kotter on the methods, but not the outcome.

I think since we know that there are bliions upon billions of stars out there, the supposition that odds are against life on one planet actually become probable when you have billions of planets.

That being said, I am a believer, but believe that it is a matter of faith, not rationality. After all, if it were an axiomatic mathematical truth to believe in God, what would be the big deal? It would be obvious to anyone who could competently read.

Rather, one must do more than simply believe that there is a God. Even the demons in Hell believe in a God. That won't save them either. The important thing is to realize that Christ's way is the way, and that the way shapes your life.

irishjayhawk

10-04-2007, 11:11 PM

No, in this analogy....2+2=5, is belief that there is no God...when, according to the vast majority of people 2+2=4.

Damn, you must have sucked at math, I suspect. :hmmm:

:)

Thanks for just saying what I said you said but that you denied saying. :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter

10-04-2007, 11:13 PM

Thanks for just saying what I said you said but that you denied saying. :rolleyes:

In that case, you suck at Logic too. :)

irishjayhawk

10-04-2007, 11:15 PM

irishjayhawk

10-04-2007, 11:17 PM

In that case, you suck at Logic too. :)

This is what I read:

What you don't understand and accept is it is YOU who is proposing that 2+2=5.

Most Americans, according to consistently time-honored polling....KNOW that 2+2=4---and they know this intuitively.

It is you, and a chorus of delusional detractors, who are insisting that 2 +2 =5. Sorry if it hurts your feelings that the vast majority of the rest of us know better.

That's not what I said at all.

For you, however, to presume it is YOU that knows 2+2=4, while the others believe 2+2=5....is the same misguided arrogant condescension that right thinking people have to put up with every single day.

No, in this analogy....2+2=5, is belief that there is no God...when, according to the vast majority of people 2+2=4.

Damn, you must have sucked at math, I suspect. :hmmm:

:)

Maybe I'm misreading, but it sure seems like you're saying that since most people believe in a god, it is equivalent to my analogy's side of 2+2=4.

Is that not what you're saying?

Taco John

10-05-2007, 12:04 AM

[COLOR=blue]This is pretty much a non-answer. So if you can't answer I understand. This is a difficult issue for libertarians, if not the most difficult. I have a lot of sympathies with libertarians, but i do think these problems call for larger solutions.

Well lay it on me then. I'd love to hear what your larger solutions are. I'm sure it has something to do with government, and more government.

Progressives don't want kings, they dont's trust any agglomeration of power, whether that is government or private industry.

Let's put this theory to the test then. What is your opinion about the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve? I'd also love to hear your opinion on the agglomeration of power that the department of education has on the American school system.

one of my main critiques of Libertarians has been their denial that private industry could manifest one of these agglomerations of power as was evident from 1900-1940 in the U.S.

I don't know what agglomeration of power you are specifically concerned with, but I can tell you this much without even bothering to crack a book: they were most likely improperly aided by the federal government in a way that screwed the people. Give me a specific example. I'd be more than happy to dig into something.

As far as I'm concerned: Big federal government + non-local resource management = Increased opportunity for neglect x chance of corruption

Lost in all of the 9/11 haze and the war on people who want us to stop sponsoring their dictators and get out of their holy land, is the fact that our enormous federal government just suffered two of the most egregious failures in the history of big US Government. Rather than trying to track down where our billions of tax dollars were failed and rather than having the government being held accountable to the people, we accepted the explination that as a nation we were asleep at the wheel, and nobody could have saw this coming in the first place. With Katrina, the federal government threw up its hands and ran a campaign to blame the mayor and the governor... And not without good reason: it *should* be a local issue. Meanwhile, the local government is pointing at the federal government's for failing in their responsibility to maintain the levies that they are assessing taxes for. That's a specific instance where, not only did the federal government not live up to their responsibility to maintain the infrastructure, but they also failed in their relief effort when their neglect resulted in tradgedy. In both instances, if the responsibility was left at the hands of local government, both problems would likely have been more than adequately addressed. That's because local people seem to care more about local problems than federal people do.

We basically want checks and balances all over the place to prevent corruption in the public or private arena.

Libertarians want checks and balances too -- That's why we're for a free market that the government doesn't interfere with. A free market checks and balances itself, fueld by the decision making of the people who are all acting in their own best interest. What you have to understand about the libertarian philosophy, or Classical Liberalism to be historical, is that we accept that it is man's nature to act in his own best interest, and in fact, we empower that. We believe that the more regulations that get in the way of achieving this end, the more corrupt and dysfunctional society becomes. Is it perfect? No. Libertarian philosophy requires widespread morality (the old fashioned American ethic) in order to work properly. But where morality fails, and a person's life, liberty, or propety are infringed, we have a tort system to sort out the damages and provide adequate deterrence. In a society that honored libertarianism, business would be petrified of the prospects of infringing on life, liberty, and/or property, because the market reprocussions combined with the penal accountability would be too much to bear.

Taco John

10-05-2007, 12:07 AM

This is what I read:

Maybe I'm misreading, but it sure seems like you're saying that since most people believe in a god, it is equivalent to my analogy's side of 2+2=4.

Is that not what you're saying?

He's saying that God exists because enough people believe he exists. I, on the other hand, will tell you that God exists <b>because</b> 2+2=4.

Taco John

10-05-2007, 12:44 AM

Since this thread is about Ron Paul:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dblWqKh7De0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

Taco John

10-05-2007, 02:47 AM

Banyon: Here is a great example of how the micro management agencies work to hurt people, and help themselves:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/04/mine.collapse.investigation/index.html

The Mine Safety and Health Administration - this kind of federal agency probably sounds great to a progressive. But progressivism and libertarianism are plagued by the same issue: morality. The difference being that libertarianism requires individuals to be moral, as where progressivism requires government to be moral.

I'll tell you what - your way isn't working for a damn.

Adept Havelock

10-05-2007, 09:34 AM

Believe that all that has occurred is random and just lucky for us at this moment is the true 2+2 = 5 equation.

In all fairness, I don't think it's any more of a 2+2=5 belief than it is to believe that some mysterious entity is directly responsible for creating, maintaining, and with the "power" to manipulate the entire universe.

I've researched that notion for years. I've still seen diddly/squat to convince me anything "Supernatural" actually exists, be it "God", "Ghosts", or the 7 years of bad luck I'm supposed to suffer for breaking a mirror.

I, on the other hand, will tell you that God exists <b>because</b> 2+2=4.

If God exists because of mathmatics, Math > God.

You failed Logic 101, didn't you?

BucEyedPea

10-05-2007, 09:41 AM

or the 7 years of bad luck I'm supposed to suffer for breaking a mirror.

'Eh yet I know you're able to make a bunch of new ones with different reflection properties including having real people jump out of them.

Who are you kidding Adept Havelock? :p

Me thinks you love fantasy as a substitute. ;) :D

Taco John

10-05-2007, 09:43 AM

I've researched that notion for years. I've still seen diddly/squat to convince me anything "Supernatural" actually exists, be it "God", "Ghosts", or the 7 years of bad luck I'm supposed to suffer for breaking a mirror.

Have you ever done any digging into EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomenon)? I've never believed in ghosts, but EVP gives me pause.

Adept Havelock

10-05-2007, 09:45 AM

'Eh yet I know you're able to make a bunch of new ones with different reflection properties including having real people jump out of them.

Who are you kidding Adept Havelock? :p

Me thinks you love fantasy as a substitute. ;) :D

Heh. The kicker is I normally don't care for fantasy, but that writer did grab me with his prose. :)

Have you ever done any digging into EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomenon)? I've never believed in ghosts, but EVP gives me pause.

I have. I'm inclined to think it's (uncertain of the correct term) "projection" along the lines that led Van Daniken to believe some ancient tribal myth of the Dogon taught them Sirus was a double star (though one is invisible). He was looking for ancient astronauts, so he found "proof". Paranormal and supernatural believers are looking for proof in random static and sound waves, so they find "proof". None of which has stood up to solid scientific inquiry, AFAIK.

BucEyedPea

10-05-2007, 09:47 AM

Therefore, you have potential Adept. ;)

Adept Havelock

10-05-2007, 09:50 AM

Therefore, you have potential Adept. ;)

Oh no! If it's only potential, I may have to change my 'nym to "Apt Havelock". :p

Taco John

10-05-2007, 10:07 AM

Heh. The kicker is I normally don't care for fantasy, but that writer did grab me with his prose. :)

I have. I'm inclined to think it's (uncertain of the correct term) "projection" along the lines that led Van Daniken to believe some ancient tribal myth of the Dogon taught them Sirus was a double star (though one is invisible). He was looking for ancient astronauts, so he found "proof". Paranormal and supernatural believers are looking for proof in random static and sound waves, so they find "proof". None of which has stood up to solid scientific inquiry, AFAIK.

I don't know anything about Von Daniken, but your cynical dismissal of EVP is par for the course. There's plenty of meat in that phenomenon. Not only that, it's been repeatable over and over and over again by people who went in to disprove the phenomenon and came away believers. Whatever is causing the voices to be recorded is anyone's guess, but what can't be denied is that they *are* being recorded.

patteeu

10-05-2007, 01:00 PM

I don't know who John Anderson is...

noob :p

Taco John

10-05-2007, 01:07 PM

noob :p

No doubt. I remember reading about Reagan in the Weekly Reader when I was a kid thinking that the man was God. From first through eigth grade. It's wierd to reflect on Reagan from that perspective.

patteeu

10-05-2007, 01:08 PM

That is not how I interpret net neutrality. I had a definition in line with Adept's. I was under the impression that if net neutrality passed, it was to say the internet remained neutral: neither restricted by ISPs (corporations) nor the government (FCC, etc). Is interpretation wrong?

I think it is. I think BEP's interpretation of net neutrality is right on target. It's a question of whether you want the private companies who literally own the property that makes the internet possible to control it or whether you want the government to tell them how they can use their property.

patteeu

10-05-2007, 01:18 PM

No doubt. I remember reading about Reagan in the Weekly Reader when I was a kid thinking that the man was God. From first through eigth grade. It's wierd to reflect on Reagan from that perspective.

I'm about a decade or so older than you so Reagan's 1980 election was the first one for which I developed pretty solid memories. The Carter/Ford election was just something the adults cared about and it didn't have much impact on me.

FWIW, I think you're right about Limbaugh being a force in politics and I think it's unfair to pin the fake Amero, holocaust denier on you as if you were aware of his background and as if you were trying to pass off the story as verified truth. In a way, it's like the smear that Limbaugh is currently experiencing. On the "inside job" deal OTOH, you're guilty as charged, but to your credit you haven't tried to run from it.

Adept Havelock

10-05-2007, 01:33 PM

FWIW, I think you're right about Limbaugh being a force in politics and I think it's unfair to pin the fake Amero, holocaust denier on you as if you were aware of his background and as if you were trying to pass off the story as verified truth. In a way, it's like the smear that Limbaugh is currently experiencing. On the "inside job" deal OTOH, you're guilty as charged, but to your credit you haven't tried to run from it.

You are correct, I was unfair with my response about the fake Amero. I noticed his qualifer, and explained why I reponsponded as he did in another post. I think you can understand my skepticism though, considering the 9/11 issue, and a couple of other wild unsubstantiated claims he's made recently.

I'll also take a moment to apologize for that. Sorry TJ- I acted inappropriately in responding to your post from Mr. Turner.

I don't know anything about Von Daniken, but your cynical dismissal of EVP is par for the course. There's plenty of meat in that phenomenon. Not only that, it's been repeatable over and over and over again by people who went in to disprove the phenomenon and came away believers. Whatever is causing the voices to be recorded is anyone's guess, but what can't be denied is that they *are* being recorded.

I don't agree with you, so it's "cynical dismissal". You don't even consider the fact I've actually looked into this and come to a different conclusion. Weak. Just weak. :shake:

You may consider psudeoscientific babble to be "real meat". I don't. I've looked into this, and other psuedoscientific nonsense. Primarily to try to understand what makes otherwise intelligent people buy into things like EVP, Astrology, and "The Ghost Whisperer"...

The word I was looking for earlier is "Apophenia". IMO, that's what most of these folks are dealing with. It's just the 21st century version of the old mediums talking about the spirits knocking on the door of this world at a seance.

Furthermore, I doubt you can provide anything more than anecdotal evidence about all those supposed skeptics that came away as believers. Until I see something substantial, I consider them to be as big a myth as the huge numbers of Lifelong Republicans turning their back on the administration (lifelong Repubs with a long history of donating to the opposition, upon further investigation). I'm sure there are one or two folks that have, just like there are some Repubs that have turned their back on the party. I believe you, like the Dems, are vastly overstating their numbers. ;)

Here's an excerpt of some the reasons I think EVP = BS:

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/evp.html

Some interesting reading on the subject, if you are interested in a skeptics point of view.

Possible Explanations

Well, if the voices aren’t spirits, what are they?

1. Cross-modulation. This is a common phenomenon; I first became aware of it in the 1960s when my “record player” clearly picked up a local radio station, which one could hear between cuts.
* But Raudive dismissed this possibility, saying that it cannot be radio since one never hears music or other obvious elements of radio transmission.

2. Apophenia. This refers to a common perceptual phenomenon whereby we spontaneously perceive connections and find meaningfulness in unrelated things. In other words, it involves seeing or hearing patterns where in reality, none exist. A visual example is the Rorschach Inkblot test.

We may be the best pattern detectors that exist, but not all the patterns we find have any objective meaning. However, once we think we have detected a pattern, it is hard to ignore it, and generally, we take it to be meaningful. A common example of apophenia occurs when people are in the shower, and mistakenly think that they hear their door bell or telephone ringing. The white noise produced by the shower contains a broad spectrum of sounds, including those that make up ringing bells. The ear picks out certain sounds from the spectrum, and we “detect” a pattern corresponding roughly to a bell.

(Apophenia is virtually synonymous with what has been called Pareidolia, an illusion involving misperception of an external stimulus; an obscure stimulus is viewed as something clear and distinct. Examples include instances such as when thousands of people in New Mexico saw the face of Jesus on a Tortilla chip in 1978. This perception, or misperception, does not involve conscious effort or any particular mental set, and the illusion does not vanish even when one pays closer attention to the stimulus because it is so ambiguous that it has no objective meaning at all.
(See http://thefolklorist.com/ for many examples)

While you might accept apophenia as an explanation for voices barely discernable from static, as in the earlier examples above, can it account for the “clear voices’ in the later examples (e.g. – recall the word “Pat” from the tape)? First of all, of course, the extraneous voices, if really there, could be the result of intended or unintended background interruptions by real people – the recordings were not made under any sort of controlled conditions. Secondly, as is discussed below, it is fascinating just how easy it is for our brains to come to interpret certain noise patterns as words, once we know what the words are supposed to be.

What is going on?

Perception is a very complex process, and when our brains try to find patterns, they are guided in part by what we expect to hear. If you are trying to hear your friend while conversing in a noisy room, your brain automatically takes snippets of sound and compares them against possible corresponding words, and guided by context, we can often “hear” more clearly than the sound patterns reaching our ears could account for. Indeed, it is relatively easy to demonstrate in a psychology laboratory that people can readily come to hear “clearly” even very muffled voices, so long as they have a printed version in front of them that tells them what words are being spoken. The brain puts together the visual cue and the auditory input, and we actually “hear” what we are informed is being said, even though without that information, we could discern nothing. Going one step further, and we can demonstrate that people can clearly “hear” voices and words not just in the context of muddled voices, but in a pattern of white noise, a pattern in which there are no voices or words at all.

Given that we can routinely demonstrate this effect, it is only parsimonious to suggest that what people hear with EVP is also the product of their own brains, and their expectations, rather than the voices of the dearly departed.

We can describe the process, leading from mental set to expectation to perception to amazement to belief in the following general way (see graphic): We are told that tape recordings made with no one around contain mysterious voices. This sets up a mental set that motivates us to try to discern voices. That is, we must presume that there may be something there, or we would not waste our time in listening. If others have told us what the voices seem to say, this expectancy influences our auditory perception, so that our brains match up bits of random noise to the words that we expect to hear. Of course, if we play the same piece of tape over and over, as is explicitly recommended by some of the web sites cited earlier, and if we do everything we can to focus our attention on the "noise" (perhaps by listening through headphones, again as recommended by the web sites), then we not only increase the likelihood of discerning voices if they really are there, but we maximize the opportunity for the perceptual apparatus in our brain to "construct" voices that do not exist, to detect patterns that match up with our expectations. Then, once we “hear” the voices, then it is easy, given the mental set that is usually involved, to attribute them to deceased individuals. This interpretation is likely to produce an impressive emotional reaction, and since we have now heard what we set out to hear (our expectancy is fulfilled) our belief in the reality of the voices of the dead grows, and this may be rewarding in various ways. Such an outcome is likely to heighten the expectation that we will hear more voices the next time we listen to such tapes.

irishjayhawk

10-05-2007, 01:41 PM

I think it is. I think BEP's interpretation of net neutrality is right on target. It's a question of whether you want the private companies who literally own the property that makes the internet possible to control it or whether you want the government to tell them how they can use their property.

So, why would anybody - consumer, that is - be against it?

patteeu

10-05-2007, 01:55 PM

So, why would anybody - consumer, that is - be against it?

Because they believe in property rights and freedom and/or because they are skeptical of excessive government interference in an already competitive industry.

Taco John

10-05-2007, 01:56 PM

So, why would anybody - consumer, that is - be against it?

Because it stifles innovation and only serves to maintain the status quo. And that's just when you consider the intents of net neutrality. Ultimately what it does is take the internet away from business, and puts it in the hands of government.

patteeu

10-05-2007, 01:56 PM

You are correct, I was unfair with my response about the fake Amero. I noticed his qualifer, and explained why I reponsponded as he did.

I'll also take a moment to apologize for that. Sorry TJ- I acted inappropriately on that point.

Noted and applauded. :thumb:

Adept Havelock

10-05-2007, 01:57 PM

So, why would anybody - consumer, that is - be against it?

Because they trust industry more than government.

I don't trust either, so I attempt to keep the status quo regarding "net neutrality".

patteeu

10-05-2007, 01:57 PM

I can boil my reasons for being skeptical about Ron Paul into one word:

NEO-ISOLATIONISM

Taco John

10-05-2007, 01:58 PM

You are correct, I was unfair with my response about the fake Amero. I noticed his qualifer, and explained why I reponsponded as he did in another post. I think you can understand my skepticism though, considering the 9/11 issue, and a couple of other wild unsubstantiated claims he's made recently.

I'll also take a moment to apologize for that. Sorry TJ- I acted inappropriately in responding to your post from Mr. Turner.

Well that was big of you. I appreciate that.

Adept Havelock

10-05-2007, 02:02 PM

Well that was big of you. I appreciate that.

You are quite welcome. I was out of line, and will gladly admit to it.

Before we start singing Kum By Yah, that doesn't let you off the hook regarding these two claims. ;)

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=171549&page=2&pp=20

Taco John

10-05-2007, 02:03 PM

I can boil my reasons for being skeptical about Ron Paul into one word:

NEO-ISOLATIONISM

"He is an isolationist... and isolationist... I repeat, an isolationist. A gadfly. An isolationist... The internet... Isolatinist... Internet...

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xv2jSYZtKW4&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="353"></embed>

BucEyedPea

10-05-2007, 03:18 PM

I can boil my reasons for being skeptical about Ron Paul into one word:

NEO-ISOLATIONISM
Says the channeler of Podhoretz.

BucEyedPea

10-05-2007, 03:22 PM

Because they trust industry more than government.

I don't trust either, so I attempt to keep the status quo regarding "net neutrality".
No we trust the market, the harshest discipliner of all.
It's really nothing but a bunch of quasi competitors trying to use govt to have favorable conditions set for them, much like Netscape in the bundling issue with MS.

BTW I got your explanation, but I think we've long past that balance point by about ohhhhhh.... I'd say 50 years. Since the most legislation and regulation has been on the market....much more so than on social issues over time.

Adept Havelock

10-05-2007, 03:33 PM

No we trust the market, the harshest discipliner of all.
It's really nothing but a bunch of quasi competitors trying to use govt to have favorable conditions set for them, much like Netscape in the bundling issue with MS.

BTW I got your explanation, but I think we've long past that balance point by about ohhhhhh.... I'd say 50 years. Since the most legislation and regulation has been on the market....much more so than on social issues over time.

My apologies for using the incorrect term.

As for net neutrality, AFAICS it's merely an attempt to maintain the status quo. As I like the internet status quo, I'll continue to donate and work towards maintaining that. As unfair as that may be to some poor starving telecom companies.

That status quo has led to some brilliant innovation since the early days of ARPAnet, and I see no reason that will change. :shrug:

listopencil

10-06-2007, 12:37 AM

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."
- Ron Paul 2003

The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.
- James Madison 1819

SNR

10-06-2007, 01:00 AM

I can boil my reasons for being skeptical about Ron Paul into one word:

NEO-ISOLATIONISMQuestion: Even though Ron Paul does not support isolationism, let's assume for a moment that he does. Wouldn't he then be an isolationist, since he would tend to support the things that isolationists in the past have supported.

When you add "neo" to a word, you get the resurrgence of something but mixed in with a modern flavor. Neo-baroque, neo-cubist are forms of art. Neo-isolationism has no place. Isolationism is isolationism. You can't have neo-isolationism.

I know we got into an argument about this word a long time ago, but for your sake, just quit using that word. You'll get your point across just fine if you call him a plain ol' isolationist and you won't look like a clown recovering from someone peeing in your eye. It looks like you just added the prefix "neo" to "isolationism" and called it a new word. It doesn't work that way, Merriam Webster.

Taco John

10-06-2007, 01:50 AM

Because they trust industry more than government.

This is actually incorrect. We trust markets more than either of them, but only when they're free markets.

Taco John

10-06-2007, 01:52 AM

No we trust the market, the harshest discipliner of all.

Ah, of course, I should have finished reading the thread... and should have known that you wouldn't let that one get by.

irishjayhawk

10-06-2007, 08:47 AM

This is actually incorrect. We trust markets more than either of them, but only when they're free markets.

Okay, so let me try to understand this.

Passing net neutrality laws would put the internet in the hands of the government. Even though they can say it cannot be regulated (as it is now) by any corporation AND government entity. And people are against that?

irishjayhawk

10-10-2007, 07:41 PM

This is the reason I didn't like the Roe v Wade view by Paul.

The following summary is provided by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan government entity that serves Congress and is run by the Library of Congress. The summary is taken from the official website THOMAS.
1/5/2007--Introduced.
We the People Act - Prohibits the Supreme Court and each federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) state or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.
Allows the Supreme Court and the federal courts to determine the constitutionality of federal statutes, administrative rules, or procedures in considering cases arising under the Constitution. Prohibits the Supreme Court and the federal courts from issuing any ruling that appropriates or expends money, imposes taxes, or otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states.
Authorizes any party or intervener in matters before any federal court, including the Supreme Court, to challenge the jurisdiction of the court under this Act.
Provides that the violation of this Act by any justice or judge is an impeachable offense and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal.
Negates as binding precedent on the state courts any federal court decision that relates to an issue removed from federal jurisdiction by this Act.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-300

Sorry, but without the courts we might still have a segregated school system.

Taco John

10-10-2007, 08:50 PM

Okay, so let me try to understand this.

Passing net neutrality laws would put the internet in the hands of the government. Even though they can say it cannot be regulated (as it is now) by any corporation AND government entity. And people are against that?

I don't know about anybody else, but I am. I am always against federally centralized control. Are you telling me that you want Bush in charge of the Internet?

irishjayhawk

10-10-2007, 09:30 PM

I don't know about anybody else, but I am. I am always against federally centralized control. Are you telling me that you want Bush in charge of the Internet?

That's not what I said. Reread it. Net Neutrality as I understood it is that the government passes legislature that makes sure the net stays neutral. That is, no corporations OR the government maintains or has any say/control over it.

Taco John

10-10-2007, 09:57 PM

That's not what I said. Reread it. Net Neutrality as I understood it is that the government passes legislature that makes sure the net stays neutral. That is, no corporations OR the government maintains or has any say/control over it.

Ah... Trust them... They know what they're doing. Who knows what they're doing better than the government. If we want the Internet to truly be free we need to REGULATE it.

Uhhhhh... What's the problem with the Internet now?

irishjayhawk

10-10-2007, 10:05 PM

Ah... Trust them... They know what they're doing. Who knows what they're doing better than the government. If we want the Internet to truly be free we need to REGULATE it.

Uhhhhh... What's the problem with the Internet now?

There is nothing with it right now. However, I doubt that will last. We'll have an internet similar to this:

http://i7.tinypic.com/5z6vt4n.jpg

I really don't care who does what if we can avoid that.

Taco John

10-10-2007, 10:22 PM

So what's the problem there? You're worried about these sites slitting their own throats and providing opportunities for competing sites to rise up and take their place?

Or you just want everything handed to you for free, and don't want to see anyone make money from their efforts.

Or maybe, you just like the Internet the way it is, and want to do everything you can to stifle innovation. Regulation is a good way to do that. Eventually the innovators will leave for greener pastures.

I love how they call them "progressives" when what a progressive really does is stifle progress.

Taco John

10-10-2007, 10:24 PM

Also, your model there is nothing more than a baseless fear mongering campaign to scare people into giving the Internet to the government. The end goal is to tax it for the service of "regulating" it for us.

It's the Internet. People are always going to be willing to offer service for free. If others want to create a model where you have to pay to get their services in a package deal, why should the government stop them? Especially if people are willing to pay...

irishjayhawk

10-11-2007, 12:16 AM

irishjayhawk

10-11-2007, 12:18 AM

'Hamas' Jenkins

10-11-2007, 12:20 AM

Ron Paul is a protest candidate. No more, no less.

patteeu

10-11-2007, 12:45 AM

I don't know about anybody else, but I am. I am always against federally centralized control. Are you telling me that you want Bush in charge of the Internet?

I'm with you on this.

irishjayhawk

10-11-2007, 12:47 AM

I'm with you on this.

I agree. It's just he's misreading, I think, what net neutrality does. Or is.

patteeu

10-11-2007, 12:51 AM

Yeah, I don't think I'm misreading you. It's not the SITES. Google/Yahoo/etc they're all against it. It's them against the ISPs.

What that looks like is a group of content providers seeking big government protection from the people who actually own the hardware. If Yahoo is popular enough and ISP's start restricting access to them, the ISP that provides access will make a killing.

patteeu

10-11-2007, 12:52 AM

I agree. It's just he's misreading, I think, what net neutrality does. Or is.

I don't think he's misreading it at all. He may be simplifying it, but that's what it boils down to.

Taco John

10-11-2007, 04:12 AM

Ron Paul is a protest candidate. No more, no less.

I completely agree.

What you have to consider is that Dr. Paul's campaign is a political dream come true for a lot of people out here. As proof of that, in the first ten days of the fourth quarter, he's already raised just over half of what Huckabee did all of last 3rd quarter. Yesterday he had a $100,000 dollar day online.

Ron Paul's campaign is not going away. At some point in time the MSM (and people and general) are going to have to recognize the facts here (http://themoderatevoice.com/media/blogging/15534/around-the-sphere-blog-roundup-october-11-2007/). We have a fiscal conservative who is garnering huge amounts of people-powered cash, talking about getting out of the war, while returning to our Constitutional roots. His voting record is as stellar in its adherence to Constitutional principle as you could ever imagine a voting record could be. Oh yeah, and he doesn't accept money from special interests. Oh, and one more thing: the Ron Paul package comes tremendously steeped in Reagan tridition (http://cranialgas.wordpress.com/2007/10/07/ron-paul-and-ron-reagan-unelectable/). Reagan's genial conservativism proved to be a powerfully winning formula for drawing people on both sides of the aisle (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5151912/). Ron Paul has already proven that the formula works like a charm in two seperate elections in Texas, one where (as an underdog) he beat a well funded Democrat encumbant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gammage), and another where he beat a well funded Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Laughlin).

Ron Paul's Revolution isn't just a slogan. Believe it or not, there is radical change being peacefully born in our political system. The establishment is only going to be able to hide and marginalize Paul's campaign for so long. He's going to start spending money soon. He hasn't spent hardly a dime yet and he's gained ground in nearly every poll you can point to over the last six months (especially in primary states). These poll numbers have risen thanks to his debate performances, his non-stop touring across the states -- from Washington DC, to Washington State -- and his most powerful, (yet thus far ignored superweapon): the most free, and abundant political advertising that a candidate has ever enjoyed having in the history of political advertising (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iVJIMsu9fyQ).

People are going to find him... And when they do, they're going to find that this man is an open book (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/). He's not afraid to talk at length about his principles to anyone who will listen (http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/), unabashedly and consistently speaking truth to power. With each debate, his willingness to stand up against popular and popularly backwards thought is going to gain him a lot of fans on both the left and the right. And as these reasonable folks explore their feelings of agreement on different issues (everybody in America strongly agrees with Ron Paul on at least one core issue that's important to them), those who speak out about their political confusion and raise discussion about it will find themselves being brow-beat and driven out of the party by loyalists who demand near fealty to their flawed mainstream candidates (you can witness this already happening every day on RedState, FreeRepublic, or Daily Kos).

If Ron Paul doesn't get the Republican nomination, you have to remember that Ross Perot got 18% of the vote as a third party candidate; a third party in which he had just invented on the spot -- the reform party. Dr. Paul already has an existing political party to funnel his supporters into. Ron Paul is the only candidate who's spot in the post primary debates is cemented. Everyone else still has to get by the primaries. All he has to do make a decent showing in the primaries and then say yes to the supporters who have donated and helped him carry the cause this far by accepting the Libertarian party nomination in May (http://www.lpconvention.org/). And that's when the fireworks will really begin, because Ron Paul out-flanks both sides of the establishment candidates on issues that are crucial to their bases. Hillary and Rudy vs. Ron Paul in a debate is going to be a dream come true. It's going to be beautiful watching them double talk on the core issues of their base, while Ron Paul talks about things like State's Rights, local controls, less government, fewer taxes, more personal liberty, a fundamentally sound economy, and peace through free and abundant commerce.

And when election day comes, and people are in that voting booth with the curtain closed, and nothing but themselves, their United States ballot, and their own personal best interests in mind, they're going to find themselves faced with an unfamiliar reality: that they have a decision to make, and they're not making a choice between Hillary and Rudy (the lesser of two evils), but that they're making a decision between Hillary and Ron Paul, and Rudy and Ron Paul.

And they're going to remember how their party has treated them. They're going to remember how the system has treated them. They're going to remember.

And I'll tell you what, brother.

They're going to protest.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FG2PUZoukfA&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="353"></embed>

patteeu

10-11-2007, 07:43 AM

...loyalists who demand near fealty to their flawed mainstream candidates ....

If it weren't for the "mainstream", this would sound like you and BEP when you talk about what you'd do if RP doesn't get his party's nomination.

patteeu

10-11-2007, 07:50 AM

...Ron Paul is the only candidate who's spot in the post primary debates is cemented. Everyone else still has to get by the primaries. All he has to do make a decent showing in the primaries and then say yes to the supporters who have donated and helped him carry the cause this far by accepting the Libertarian party nomination in May (http://www.lpconvention.org/)...

What debates are these in which the Liberatarian party has a "cemented" spot?

Adept Havelock

10-11-2007, 09:23 AM

Or maybe, you just like the Internet the way it is, and want to do everything you can to stifle innovation. Regulation is a good way to do that. Eventually the innovators will leave for greener pastures.

Yeah, after all the current net model has led to so little innovation over the last couple of decades.

The net is just like it was back in the ARPANET days. The open model killed innovations like the World Wide Web.

Heck the WWW hasn't had an innovation since... ROFL

You are generally correct about regulation leading to stifling innovation.

In this specific instance, I'd say the innovation shown since ARPANET evolved into the Internet emperically proves the current model is far from "stifling innovation". Even if it is unfair to those poor little urchins in the telecom industry.

Perhaps you connect to the net through a Dumb Terminal and are unaware of the number of changes on the net in the last decade and a half. :shrug:

Taco John

10-11-2007, 09:35 AM

What debates are these in which the Liberatarian party has a "cemented" spot?

Interesting that you'd misconstrue my words with my quote right there in front of you. I didn't say the Libertarian Party had a cemented spot. I said "Ron Paul is the only candidate who's spot in the post primary debates is cemented." The Libertarian party is just a vehicle for Ron Paul should his bid for the Republican nomination not work out. He says that he has no intention of running a third party, but anyone who has listened to him knows that he also said he wasn't going to run for president. He did so because his constituency (and campaign) put him up to it, convincing him that the conditions were ripe for his message.

He's the only anti-war conservative. If you don't think that there is a spot in the national debate for an anti-war conservative, you're the crazy one. (especially if it's Giuliani vs. Hillary - the nation will drink up Paul like a cool drink of water if that's the case).

BucEyedPea

10-11-2007, 09:39 AM

patteeu

10-11-2007, 09:40 AM

Interesting that you'd misconstrue my words with my quote right there in front of you. I didn't say the Libertarian Party had a cemented spot. I said "Ron Paul is the only candidate who's spot in the post primary debates is cemented." The Libertarian party is just a vehicle for Ron Paul should his bid for the Republican nomination not work out. He says that he has no intention of running a third party, but anyone who has listened to him knows that he also said he wasn't going to run for president. He did so because his constituency (and campaign) put him up to it, convincing him that the conditions were ripe for his message.

He's the only anti-war conservative. If you don't think that there is a spot in the national debate for an anti-war conservative, you're the crazy one. (especially if it's Giuliani vs. Hillary - the nation will drink up Paul like a cool drink of water if that's the case).

I'm sorry for misinterpreting your post. Now I'm even more confused about why you think he has a spot cemented in the post-primary debates. Maybe if he's polling like Ross Perot was polling in 92, he might be allowed in, but that's not what I'd call a cemented spot. Your choice of words was strange and I'm curious about what basis you had for saying it. And no, I don't think being the only anti-war conservative will punch his debate ticket by itself.

Taco John

10-11-2007, 09:40 AM

Yeah, after all the current net model has led to so little innovation over the last couple of decades.

The net is just like it was back in the ARPANET days. The open model killed innovations like the World Wide Web.

Heck the WWW hasn't had an innovation since... ROFL

You are generally correct about regulation leading to stifling innovation.

In this specific instance, I'd say the innovation shown since ARPANET evolved into the Internet emperically proves the current model is far from "stifling innovation". Even if it is unfair to those poor little urchins in the telecom industry.

Perhaps you connect to the net through a Dumb Terminal and are unaware of the number of changes on the net in the last decade and a half. :shrug:

I can't make heads or tails of this post. All I can surmise is that you either didn't catch my meaning, or are just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. I'm aware that there is a lot of innovation going on right now in the Internet. That's kind of my point.

Adept Havelock

10-11-2007, 09:44 AM

Adept what is the net? You have to define that to make your case. We're talking ISPs or so I thought. Were these ISPs under these types of regs before? If so then why are they now being sought. Something seems out of sequence here.

I'm not sure why a definition is so important to you. When discussing "Democracy", the Oxford English Dictionary wasn't sufficent. You preferred to use some fuzzy "living document" style definition. :p

AFAIK, the "net" or "Internet" is a combination of public and private networks.

I'm just saying that the innovations I've seen in the net over the last few decades IMO pretty much empirically prove that TJ's comments about the current net model (a neutral internet) stifling innovation don't hold water.

If it did, the net would still look like it did in the ARPANet days.

Generally speaking, regulation does stifle innovation. I've agreed with that point. I'm just pointing out some inconvenient emperical evidence that shows that doesn't seem to be the case with the net.

I can't make heads or tails of this post. All I can surmise is that you either didn't catch my meaning, or are just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. I'm aware that there is a lot of innovation going on right now in the Internet. That's kind of my point.

Wow, claiming ignorance over such a simple point? :spock:

You've claimed that net neutrality (a continuation of the current "open" model of the internet) would stifle innovation.

I've shown that current model has led to quite a bit of innovation, which tends to shoot some holes in your claim.

Heck, you even agree there is a lot of innovation.

Sorry that's too difficult a concept for you to wrap your noggin' around.

go bowe

10-11-2007, 09:53 AM

Adept what does BFF stand for.Big fat ****er...

BucEyedPea

10-11-2007, 09:54 AM

Adept Havelock

10-11-2007, 09:54 AM

Big fat ****er...

ROFL

In this case.. Best Friend Forever.

Still, a nice job of pouring gasoline on the fire. :clap:

Adept Havelock

10-11-2007, 09:55 AM

Adept, your post didn't answer the rest of my questions. This legislation sets a NEW precedent in regs on the internet. It's increased regulations. You have innovation because the net has been freer WITHOUT these new regs. Your argument is illogical because it drops out time and sequence. In fact, you argument is a case to not have these new regs.

The net is not just private and public networks....it's just held together with protocals.

From what I've seen, it's only formalizing the status quo.

As that staus quo has led to some brilliant innovations and growth, I'm fine with that.

I'm not sure what "new regulations" you are talking about.

Besides, I'm not sure I see the point. Neither of us is going to change our minds on this. You're devoted to the property rights of the telecom industry, and I quite frankly don't give a rip about them in this instance as I'm OK with the way things are.

BucEyedPea

10-11-2007, 10:01 AM

Adept Havelock

10-11-2007, 10:07 AM

Talking net-neutrality. This not formalizing the status quo. Net neutrality is about content providers seeking more FCC/govt oversight granting a new level of authority for the govt than it has currently.

BTW one reason why ISP have the amount of traffic they have is due to govt policy too. So it works on both sides.

Status Quo: ISP's do not vary charges depending on content accessed.

Net Neutrality: Legislation prohibiting ISP's from varying charges depending on content accessed.

I can see why you and TJ don't like it, but I can't see how that isn't formalizing/legalizing the status quo. :shrug:

Taco John

10-11-2007, 10:14 AM

I'm just saying that the innovations I've seen in the net over the last few decades IMO pretty much empirically prove that TJ's comments about the current net model (a neutral internet) stifling innovation don't hold water.

You're misconstruing my words.

Taco John

10-11-2007, 10:21 AM

I can see why you and TJ don't like it, but I can't see how that isn't formalizing/legalizing the status quo. :shrug:

Explain to me why the government needs to fomalize/legalize the status quo?

Adept Havelock

10-11-2007, 10:24 AM

You're misconstruing my words.

Then perhaps you could explain how?

Or maybe, you just like the Internet the way it is, and want to do everything you can to stifle innovation. Regulation is a good way to do that. Eventually the innovators will leave for greener pastures.

It seems to me you are equating wanting to keep the internet the way it is with "wanting to do everything you can to stifle innovation". If you aren't suggesting keeping the internet the way it is (i.e. a neutral internet) would stifle innovation, what are you suggesting? I'm can't see any other way to read that statement. Explain to me why the government needs to fomalize/legalize the status quo?

Umm, sizable chunks of the government (specifically the Justice Department) opposes net neutrality. It's the content providers and the end users that need this legislation to maintain the status quo.

Why? Because we like it this way. The evolution of the net proves it works quite well. :shrug:

I'd agree regulation tends to lead to suppressing innovation.

I'll also submit there are exceptions to every rule. The last 15 years or so of the net seems to argue that it's current model works quite well, and as it does I'm in favor of protecting that open model.

BucEyedPea

10-11-2007, 10:34 AM

Status Quo: ISP's do not vary charges depending on content accessed.

Net Neutrality: Legislation prohibiting ISP's from varying charges depending on content accessed.

I can see why you and TJ don't like it, but I can't see how that isn't formalizing/legalizing the status quo. :shrug:
I'ts not a matter of whether I "like" it or not. It's a matter of what brings the most optimum results for all and what is more efficeint in order to determine what works based on past success. A sense of property that is communal just doesn't deliver this as far as I can see. I've yet to see any evidence, including here, that it does.

I think the confusion on "status-quo" depends on what status quo you want to maintain:
1) price status quo ( wage and price controls are communistic)
2) regulatory status quo.

You want the govt to regulate how a private owner prices it's services so you can enjoy a price status-quo. You need new regs to do this which is not the status-quo. In order for ISPs to upgrade and/or innovate their infrastructure they seek to charge those who generate more traffic and use. Seems fair to me. Holding the price down via regs prevents this.

If you don't want them to have too much control, I'd suggest breaking some of the ISPs monopoly status granted them by the govt. ( as I said it works on both sides) Then you'd have more competition and the content providers could then act accordingly.

If you read the link I put up on page one it explains the entire scene pretty objectively as it cites how the ISPs also benefit from past govt policy as well which is part of the problem too. So it says where both sides get a benefit from govt.

Adept Havelock

10-11-2007, 10:37 AM

I'ts not a matter of whether I "like" it or not. It's a matter of what brings the most optimum results for all and what is more efficeint in order to determine what works based on past success. A sense of property that is communal just doesn't deliver this as far as I can see. I've yet to see any evidence, including here, that it does.

I think the confusion on "status-quo" depends on what status quo you want to maintain:
1) price status quo ( wage and price controls are communistic)
2) regulatory status quo.

You want the govt to regulate how a private owner prices it's services so you can enjoy a price status-quo. You need new regs to do this which is not the status-quo. In order for ISPs to upgrade and/or innovate their infrastructure they seek to charge those who generate more traffic and use. Seems fair to me. Holding the price down via regs prevents this.

If you don't want them to have too much control, I'd suggest breaking some of the ISPs monopoly status granted them by the govt. ( as I said it works on both sides) Then you'd have more competition and the content providers could then act accordingly.

If you read the link I put up on page one it explains the entire scene pretty objectively as it cites how the ISPs also benefit from past govt policy as well which is part of the problem too. So it says where both sides get a benefit from govt.

Right. As I've said, for you, it's all about the property rights of the Telecom industry. Considering your politics, I can understand that.

Quite frankly, in this instance I don't give a rip about the Telecom property rights. I find the status quo a good thing, so I'll continue to work and donate to maintain it. Even if it is seen as "unfair" by some. :shrug:

Taco John

10-11-2007, 11:12 AM

It seems to me you are equating wanting to keep the internet the way it is with "wanting to do everything you can to stifle innovation".

When you institutionalize the status quo, you stifle innovation. That doesn't mean all innovation stops completely. It just means that it gets stifled.

You are putting the Intenet on the road to obsoletion by forcing the status quo against natural market evolution. You make it impossible for the Internet to grow past the status quo, and it will lose to competing technologies. Business will find greener pastures and the Internet will be worse off for it.

You're basically making it impossible for the Internet to compete with cable by removing the profit incentive.

BucEyedPea

10-11-2007, 11:13 AM

Right. As I've said, for you, it's all about the property rights of the Telecom industry. Considering your politics, I can understand that.
You wouldn't even post this if you "understand" it.
The way to maintain property rights while not gauranteeing ISPs carte-blanche to charge however they want is to deny them the monopoly status they have in the first place which is the result of state intervention. Therefore it's not a real free-market. It's cartel capitalism.

The way most people get access to the net is only through a one or two sources: local cable or phone companies who were granted geographic monopolies through the govt. I believe Paul's position, as is mine, is that this status quo should not be allowed either.

Quite frankly, in this instance I don't give a rip about the Telecom property rights. I find the status quo a good thing, so I'll continue to work and donate to maintain it. Even if it is seen as "unfair" by some. :shrug:
I know you don't give a rip about it, obviously. I'm not, at this point trying to make you feel otherwise. I am pointing out just two things: 1) If you like the status quo, I hope this extends to Telecom enjoying monopoly status as well. 2) You can't make the claim that your "status-quo," the one you support, has led to more innovation because that was NOT the "status quo." Certainly was not the one we were arguing. Just trying to clarify this as the point being in contention that has led to innovation.

Taco John

10-11-2007, 11:13 AM

'Net neutrality' would stifle innovation

Jun. 26, 2006 12:00 AM

Everyone is struggling with how to portray the fight over Internet access - known as the "network neutrality" debate - in a way that makes some sense.

Here's our shot.

To a degree, the complex debate over "net neutrality" - the argument over whether Internet providers should be permitted to charge fees in exchange for preferential access to online consumers - can be sorted out by the players.

If you are an artist like actress Alyssa Milano or an anti-corporate activist like those at MoveOn.org, you're likely agin' it. Which means you support the populist-sounding concept of "net neutrality." Same holds if you are a First Amendment advocate allied with the American Civil Liberities Union, a consumer- protection group like Consumers Union, or if you are a librarian.

Not to complicate this portrait too much, but you may also be against letting Internet providers sell preferential access for a fee if you are a devout Christian. Some religious groups support "net neutrality" too.

On the other hand, if you happen to be one of the nation's biggest telecommunications firms - say, Verizon, AT&T or Bell South - you would be very keen on charging for preferential access, since you would be the prime beneficiary of such fees.

The big telecoms, as well as some cable firms, are the most ardent opponents of the current effort in Congress to establish a "net neutrality" law forbidding front-of-the-line access for a fee. They argue that federal laws dictating how the Internet should evolve are the surest way to stifle the fast-changing medium's innovation.

Those, basically, are the players in this debate, which is raging now in the Senate. The "net neutrality" advocates see themselves as the defenders of the historically populist Internet, which assigns no special preferences. But so, too, do the telecoms and their supporters, who view government regulatory intervention in the Internet as a violation of the Internet's Prime Directive.

Ah, but there is one other "side" in this debate. That would be you: the people who increasingly rely on the Internet for business, news, education, entertainment and a host of other services.

Mr. and Ms. Consumer are starting to demand a lot from their Internet. They want on-demand movies. Voice-over-Internet telephone service. Streaming live video. And, very soon no doubt, a lot of data-rich services that we haven't even heard of yet.

Those sorts of services will require Internet providers - like, yes, the telecoms and the cable firms - to invest enormously in expanding the pathways for that coming flood of data.

If we want movies (and we do) and if we want streaming video (and we do), then someone must pay for the huge infrastructure improvements necessary to deliver those innovative services into our offices and homes. Government-enforced "net neutrality" would stifle that innovation. It would temper the consumer-driven imperative to make the Internet work faster and better.

"Net neutrality" has a nice, egalitarian ring to it. It sounds like it's good for "the people." Unfortunately, by getting the U.S. federal government involved in a phenomenon - the Internet - that has to date largely avoided regulation, "net neutrality" supporters are inviting the bane of this incredible communication system: the law of unintended consequences.

We don't know with much precision where the Internet is heading. But we can safely conclude that when government acts to "protect" a fast-changing, complex utility like the Internet, the biggest danger is not what it will then become, but what it will not become.

There is nothing neutral about network neutrality. As best we can, let's keep the government out of the Internet regulatory business.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0626mon1-26.html

Adept Havelock

10-11-2007, 11:18 AM

We don't know with much precision where the Internet is heading. But we can safely conclude that when government acts to "protect" a fast-changing, complex utility like the Internet, the biggest danger is not what it will then become, but what it will not become.

You'll have to come up with an argument better than "the net might not become what we want it to" if you want to convince me.

Besides, companies like Everest are already providing the incentive to improve infrastructure. They run fiber to the house, unlike many other companies. Even if the status quo is imposed, TWC and Comcast will have to improve to compete with Everest whose infrastructure can already provide those new services, or Everest and other providers with fiber all the way to the house will eventually take over their markets.

BucEyedPea

10-11-2007, 11:28 AM

You'll have to come up with an argument better than "it might not become what we want it to" if you want to convince me.
That's the beauty of the free-market, is that you never know what you will have, because some maverick, or some genius comes up with a creative solution that solves a problem or benefits us. Only individuals have this capability. This is EXACTLY how mankind has progressed. Not through committees, who get nothing real done.

The results are better than the state's planning which is just planned "chaos." For every action there is an equal reaction and one state intervention leads to another intervention which leads to another.

The given in a non-cartel capitalistic free-market is that you don't succeed unless you please the market which is the consumer...aka the people. It does a better job of meeting these needs depite the fallacies of our indoctrinated media/academia and politicos.

irishjayhawk

10-11-2007, 11:34 AM

From what I've seen, it's only formalizing the status quo.

As that staus quo has led to some brilliant innovations and growth, I'm fine with that.

I'm not sure what "new regulations" you are talking about.

Besides, I'm not sure I see the point. Neither of us is going to change our minds on this. You're devoted to the property rights of the telecom industry, and I quite frankly don't give a rip about them in this instance as I'm OK with the way things are.

This is the impression I've gathered as well.

And I don't see how formalizing the status quo changes the status quo. I don't see how legislation that says the government nor businesses can regulate the Internet changes the status quo, or what we have now. Nor, how it can stifle innovation, despite the "maybe" article.

irishjayhawk

10-11-2007, 11:36 AM

Talking net-neutrality. This not formalizing the status quo. Net neutrality is about content providers seeking more FCC/govt oversight granting a new level of authority for the govt than it has currently.

BTW one reason why ISP have the amount of traffic they have is due to govt policy too. So it works on both sides.

Can you point out a link to the bold statement. I've never heard of that being the case. I've only heard of it keeping the net as it is now:

No filters/price increase due to content.
Content is unregulated.

patteeu

10-11-2007, 11:46 AM

You'll have to come up with an argument better than "the net might not become what we want it to" if you want to convince me.

Besides, companies like Everest are already providing the incentive to improve infrastructure. They run fiber to the house, unlike many other companies. Even if the status quo is imposed, TWC and Comcast will have to improve to compete with Everest whose infrastructure can already provide those new services, or Everest and other providers with fiber all the way to the house will eventually take over their markets.

But your argument is based on a "might" too. That the internet might continue to innovate in the best possible way if we freeze the current "model" in place.

Would we be better off if wireless phone companies were required to offer a one size fits all service package or are we better off under the current model where they can offer premium services like data, text messaging, GPS functionality and the like for additional fees? Who knows? But I think it's safe to say that some of the more advanced features wouldn't have been rolled out nearly as quickly if they were going to only be popular with a small segment of the market.

Why not let the internet continue to evolve with as little government interference as possible which is how the current model evolved from Darpanet in the first place? Innovation, by definition, is hard to predict.

patteeu

10-11-2007, 11:49 AM

This is the impression I've gathered as well.

And I don't see how formalizing the status quo changes the status quo. I don't see how legislation that says the government nor businesses can regulate the Internet changes the status quo, or what we have now. Nor, how it can stifle innovation, despite the "maybe" article.

Maybe it would be easier to see how it impacts innovation if you used the phrase "locking the status quo in place" instead of "formalizing" it.

irishjayhawk

10-11-2007, 12:04 PM

Maybe it would be easier to see how it impacts innovation if you used the phrase "locking the status quo in place" instead of "formalizing" it.

How could the status quo stifle innovation, in this case?

BucEyedPea

10-11-2007, 12:16 PM

Why not let the internet continue to evolve with as little government interference as possible which is how the current model evolved from Darpanet in the first place?

Not to mention that it has grown and developed much more once freed from the wholesale clutches of govt. (It's also a fallacy that it was developed only by the govt too if one did their research.)

patteeu

10-11-2007, 12:20 PM

How could the status quo stifle innovation, in this case?

I gave a crude analogy in an earlier post using the wireless phone industry as the example. If the wireless companies were force by law to maintain a status quo of offering a one-size-fits-all service plan to all of their customers we wouldn't have innovations like family plans, low minute plans, high minute plans, etc. And we wouldn't see the rollout of things like data plans, text messaging, GPS functionality, etc. nearly as quickly.

BucEyedPea

10-11-2007, 12:31 PM

patteeu

10-11-2007, 12:33 PM

Taco John

10-11-2007, 01:29 PM

You guys are crazy... You're going to choke the Internet in the name of preserving the status quo and you don't even understand the consequences. You can't understand the consequences, because you can't see into the future.

You're going to squash fresh development on the Internet, and companies will respond by making their own high speed networks anyway. You'll have the crappy, government regulated, dead Internet. And you'll have the profitable, enterprise Internet.

Companies are always going to act in their own best interest. If it's no longer in their best interest to develop the Internet, then they'll stop and take their development dollars where they can satisfy their needs.

Net neutrality isn't going to preserve the status quo. It's going to degrade it over time, slowly but surely.

Adept Havelock

10-11-2007, 01:52 PM

I think you should add,even though it's implied, that in order make those upgrades and innovations availabe is to charge for them in some way in order to fund them. You don't get something for nothing, although that ethic underlies those who like excess market regulation.

I would agree with this if the net neutrality legislation had a prohibition against ISP's raising their prices. AFAICS, it doesn't. It appears they are free to raise their rates as high as they want, it just can't be based on the content an end user accesses.

It doesn't appear to restrict variable pricing for end user U/L and D/L speeds either. (I.E. Paying more for a faster connection).

Net Neutrality legislation (AFAIK) states that ISP's won't be allowed to charge people who access Yahoo (for example) more than those who just want to access Chiefsplanet. I'm OK with that (obviously).

As for limiting upgrades, I think the "Everest" example speaks for itself. If competitors already have an infrastructure capable of providing those greater services (VOD, etc.) the others will have to follow suit or be left behind. As that infrastructure can provide greater speed, they are free to charge more based on that.

As for "something for nothing"... I can't speak for others but for myself that's a bunch of crap. I pay my net bill every month, and will continue to. I certainly don't think I'm entitled to "Free" internet. I just see allowing "tiered" internet based on "content" to be in opposition to the "open" model that has served us so well.

Again, JMO.

You guys are crazy... You're going to choke the Internet in the name of preserving the status quo and you don't even understand the consequences. You can't understand the consequences, because you can't see into the future.

ROFL

"You're too dumb to understand what you're doing" is such an effective persuasion technique. Just ask meme.

For your candidates sake I hope you don't rely on that when you are stumping for him.

BucEyedPea

10-11-2007, 02:06 PM

I would agree with this if the net neutrality legislation had a prohibition against ISP's raising their prices. AFAICS, it doesn't. It appears they are free to raise their rates as high as they want, it just has to be "across the board".
You wouldn't need price controls though if there was more competition, including the threat of competition which would be check on anyone going as high as they want because at some point people won't buy.

Prices came down when the airlines deregulated. Instead of a few people flying in half empty planes at higher rates more people were able to fly eventhough the planes were full. This is one of the fallacies for the regulated model.

You always have a choice of not using the services too. It's not like it's a necessity or that you'll die if you don't have it. Technological innovation startout expensive with the few buying at the more expensive rates then has a track record of dropping in price as more people use and buy it. Govt regulated areas, have the opposite trend. Look at healthcare markets for a good example of a created monopoly and a crisis in costs.

As for "something for nothing"... I can't speak for others but for myself that's a bunch of crap. I pay my net bill every month, and will continue to. I certainly don't think I'm entitled to "Free" internet.
I wasn't signalling you out in particular on this....but more so folks like Irish and his camp. Even if it did, the statement had nothing to do with paying your monthly bill. It had to do with paying for increases in service or upgrades if desired.

Adept Havelock

10-11-2007, 02:08 PM

It had to do with paying for increases in service or upgrades if desired.

Which it appears the ISP's are free to raise their fees on, as the legislation doesn't prohibit tiered pricing based on end user speeds or other services. Only on a "content accessed" model for pricing as I mentioned in the yahoo/chiefsplanet example.

irishjayhawk

10-11-2007, 02:21 PM

You wouldn't need price controls though if there was more competition, including the threat of competition which would be check on anyone going as high as they want because at some point people won't buy.

Prices came down when the airlines deregulated. Instead of a few people flying in half empty planes at higher rates more people were able to fly eventhough the planes were full. This is one of the fallacies for the regulated model.

You always have a choice of not using the services too. It's not like it's a necessity or that you'll die if you don't have it. Technological innovation startout expensive with the few buying at the more expensive rates then has a track record of dropping in price as more people use and buy it. Govt regulated areas, have the opposite trend. Look at healthcare markets for a good example of a created monopoly and a crisis in costs.

I wasn't signalling you out in particular on this....but more so folks like Irish and his camp. Even if it did, the statement had nothing to do with paying your monthly bill. It had to do with paying for increases in service or upgrades if desired.

Is there a post you don't take a swipe at someone in? I'm just curious.

I am actually agreeing wholeheartedly with Adept. He just happens to be, pardon for the pun, adept at communicating it effeciently.

I am not telling corportations they can't raise prices. I'm telling them they can't raise prices specifically based on what content is being accessed.

That would be a form of regulation. The government saying they cannot do this is not necessarily the government regulating the internet. I think that's where the mix up is occurring.

ISPs are fine to raise prices for speed. They are even fine to cap bandwidth (even though I feel that's more stifling to innovation than any net neutrality laws, and it's happening now).

Your constant mantra of labelling people in one camp or another is hurtful to the argument. I am not, in the least, arguing that the corporations cannot raise prices for what they provide. I am merely saying they, too, shouldn't be able to "censor" the internet by creating a pricing structure based on what sites one can access.