G4 - Attack of the Show appearance - Video Links Included!

[BuddyRey]

If government legislation designed to protect our freedoms is a guarantee of MORE government infringement rather than less, we might as well throw out the 2nd Amendment, as making gun ownership legal and protected will ensure that the government will come and confiscate our guns. People, I'm sorry, but this argument makes no sense to me whatsoever. I'll be the first to admit that it may very well be my own ignorance, but I'll trust a diverse body of elected legislators with the internet over a small cadre of unelected CEO's anyday.

 

[angrydragon]

You just said it, private ownership. Without these companies, we wouldn't have access to the internet.

 

[Trance Dance Master]

He might look like Gandalf but he doesn't fight for the people.
He voted against raising the minimum wage.
He voted against ending tax cuts for oil companys.
He voted with the Bush agenda 75% of the time not counting times he did not vote.
Another Repulican from Texas?
Can you say $6 a gallon gas?

Minimum wage is BAD for the people, so are oil company taxes. WE pay the oil tax when we fill our tanks at the pump. WE pay for minimum wage with higher unemployment. These things are bad for us. The majority of the laws that the government passes are bad for us, especially when it increases THEIR power over us. BIGGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT=SMALLER PERSONAL LIBERTY.

 

[BuddyRey]

He voted against ending tax cuts for oil companys.

Is that true? I remember RP saying on the Daily Show that he wants to end government largesse and corporate welfare.

 

[angrydragon]

Is that true? I remember RP saying on the Daily Show that he wants to end government largesse and corporate welfare.

How is that corporate welfare? I think you're confused on that point. Corporate welfare is a subsidy, tax money being shifted to them. Tax cuts help give them more of their own money to use in their companies, giving us lower prices.

 

[JoshLowry]

If government legislation designed to protect our freedoms is a guarantee of MORE government infringement rather than less, we might as well throw out the 2nd Amendment, as making gun ownership legal and protected will ensure that the government will come and confiscate our guns. People, I'm sorry, but this argument makes no sense to me whatsoever. I'll be the first to admit that it may very well be my own ignorance, but I'll trust a diverse body of elected legislators with the internet over a small cadre of unelected CEO's anyday.

It is definitely an issue on the forefront though and I think we all need to study it a bit more. I'm against government regulation but I also don't want to see the net tampered with in the same sense by megacorps. It's a very fine line indeed. Everyone just keep their damn hands off it!

I think Dr. Paul voted that way because like he said he "doesn't know much about the internet", but he probably would rather err in the constitutions favor.

It hasn't pushed me to vote for Rudy McRomneyson at this time.

The man who agrees with me 80% of the time is not my enemy, he is my friend. :o

 

[JaylieWoW]

If government legislation designed to protect our freedoms is a guarantee of MORE government infringement rather than less, we might as well throw out the 2nd Amendment, as making gun ownership legal and protected will ensure that the government will come and confiscate our guns. People, I'm sorry, but this argument makes no sense to me whatsoever. I'll be the first to admit that it may very well be my own ignorance, but I'll trust a diverse body of elected legislators with the internet over a small cadre of unelected CEO's anyday.

I am begging you to do a little bit of research into family law. Seriously! Specifically look into "the best interest standard (of the child)". When I say legislation "designed to protect" only leads to far greater injustice I definately know what I'm talking about. I've lived it for the past 6 years!

In fact, here is a link to a couple of articles (one by Stephen Baskerville) regarding "the best interest of the child" doublespeak.

Absurdistan

No Stranger to Pain

Although I am personally interested in the family law area, I'm not providing these to get anyone to buy into these injustices, but rather to absolutely show a prime example of how once government gets a hold of something they just make it worse and worse and worse without ever admitting any wrongdoing or fault. On the contrary, family law is a prime example of creating a hardship through government interference and then creating a much larger bureaucracy in order to attempt to solve the very situation it created in the first place.

There is no need for gun control/protection being legislated because it is a right already guaranteed by the constitution, leave it alone!

 

[BuddyRey]

Actually, I agree with you COMPLETELY about family law. I've been keeping up with family law reformist organizations like Fathers 4 Justice for quite a few years, and it continually astounds me how good parents (usually fathers) are simultaneously being railroaded out of their children's lives and robbed blind by an out of control alimony and child support system.

 

[JaylieWoW]

As the well quoted saying goes...


"Follow the money..."

The reason I pointed this particular instance out to you is that ostensibly, the "best interest" standard was adopted for the "protection" of the children of divorce. However, if you follow not only family law but delve a bit deeper into the passing of the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act), you will see how protective measures are soon perverted by the government.

 

[nayjevin]

here's how i responded:

He might look like Gandalf but he doesn't fight for the people.
He voted against raising the minimum wage.
He voted against ending tax cuts for oil companys.
He voted with the Bush agenda 75% of the time not counting times he did not vote.
Another Repulican from Texas?
Can you say $6 a gallon gas?

He voted against FED HAVING THE POWER TO raise the minimum wage
He voted agianst FED HAVING THE POWER TO end tax cuts for oil companies

$6/gallon gas will result if we don't quit occupying middle eastern countries -- and get the feds out of regulating where and when domestic oil companies can drill for OUR oil -- which only a vote for RP will achieve

the Bush agenda is exactly what he opposes -- read up yourself, his thoughts are quite accessible, he'll lay it out for you...
http://www.ronpaullibrary.com -- archive of every speech he has ever given to congress

he is like gandalf in that he's like a wise grandpa more than a politician
this dood is for real people. I have researched for WEEKS reading his articles/speeches and checking up on EVERY issue and every bill he has endorsed or opposed here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes.xpd?person=400311

He is consistent and principled, and honest. Hell, check out his family on myspace. They're normal people. He just doesn't have anything to hide.

There are minor things i disagree with, but he also changed my mind on things I thought I was sure of. Dood makes politics fun -- he's giving the power back to the people.

And this guy:

There are reasons why the citizens need certain protections from business practices.
A businesses sole reason to exist is to make money.
If you think you can trust them to behave in a fair and honest manner you are sadly mistaken.
There are too many examples of greed or stockholders pressure for profit causing misdeeds.

got this:

citizens do have protections from business practices. it's called boycott.
we're only slaves to business if we choose to be. they will be fair and honest if it increases their profit right? then only buy from fair and honest companies.
lobbying by corporate interests, resulting in government regulation/intervention into the market is what makes it possible for monopolies to exist. open up competition, and a corporation is beholden to its customers.
pollution can be solved on a property rights level -- if you pollute the air above my house, government will protect my property rights and come after you. if you provide a good service, and people choose to buy it, there is nothing wrong with that.

free market is exactly like open source
if there is a need it will be solved.
if we can't agree on that, then we are too philosophically opposed.

 

[LibertyCzar]

It was so nice to see Ron Paul interviewed without him being interrupted every five seconds by a biased neocon host with a stilted agenda.

 

[Trance Dance Master]

It was so nice to see Ron Paul interviewed without him being interrupted every five seconds by a biased neocon host with a stilted agenda.

That juxtaposition is obvious to anyone who makes the comparison. The superiority of internet media is due to the free market nature of competition, and is drawing viewers away from the MSM in droves.

 

[MsDoodahs]

That juxtaposition is obvious to anyone who makes the comparison. The superiority of internet media is due to the free market nature of competition, and is drawing viewers away from the MSM in droves.

INDEED!!!!

 

[BuddyRey]

As the well quoted saying goes...


"Follow the money..."

The reason I pointed this particular instance out to you is that ostensibly, the "best interest" standard was adopted for the "protection" of the children of divorce. However, if you follow not only family law but delve a bit deeper into the passing of the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act), you will see how protective measures are soon perverted by the government.

I would argue that guaranteeing free access to the internet for all Americans is hardly the same thing as passing sexist legislation written with the sole intent to hold men guilty until proven innocent, so that they can be fodder for the growing Prison-Industrial Complex. One is a measure to give people more rights, and the other is a measure to give people less.

 

[pdog]

I would argue that guaranteeing free access to the internet for all Americans is hardly the same thing as passing sexist legislation written with the sole intent to hold men guilty until proven innocent, so that they can be fodder for the growing Prison-Industrial Complex. One is a measure to give people more rights, and the other is a measure to give people less.

I don't think Net Neutrality has anything to do with guaranteeing free access to the internet, at least now how I understand the issue.
It has to do with how much control companies should have over the 'pipes' of the internet that they have built. It is my view that those companies that have spent money to build the cable lines and all the costs entailed by maintaining the all the routers, switches, etc, should have every right to control how packets are moved. Not all internet use is equal. Because I love to play FPS games online, I'd be happy to pay an extra premium on my service to guarantee me a higher bandwidth. My parents, who use it to check their email and do online banking, probably don't need to pay for the same kind of access as I demand. Taking away the power to offer optionso on internet service and itnerfering in the free market this way usually hurts the consumer.
While I understand the fears about monopolies forming to abuse such power, I do think companies are more long-term thinkers than that.
A good article to read:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/117327.html

 

[JaylieWoW]

I would argue that guaranteeing free access to the internet for all Americans is hardly the same thing as passing sexist legislation written with the sole intent to hold men guilty until proven innocent, so that they can be fodder for the growing Prison-Industrial Complex. One is a measure to give people more rights, and the other is a measure to give people less.

Then you miss my point.

My point was to demonstrate how Ron Paul's response about giving "tacit approval" to legislate something was applicable.

Due to the government getting involved in marriage, we now have exactly what you described above. In other words, we (as in the citizens) asked the government to allow us to get divorces more "painlessly". As a result, the family court is arguably one of the most powerful courts in the land because of their manipulation and control over an individuals life based on a marriage gone bad.

When we allowed legislation (no-fault divorce) to give the government a "foot in the door", what ended up happening was a complete take over of an entire family's lives both emotionally (deprivation of child/parent time) and economically (control of non-custodial's income).

Does that make more sense? This is the point I was trying to make. I wasn't even going down the whole biased road, it happens to mothers too, though a lot less than fathers. Anyway, see my point now?