[macintologist]

Ron Paul 2008 — Hope for America

I don't think any campaign has ever done this before. We can see a candidates fundraising efforts in real time!

I donated 25 bucks to his campaign and it was well worth it.

Here's a site that makes graphs out of the raw data coming from the campaign site.

RonPaulGraphs.com - Q4 Donation Statistics & Stuff

[Moderator]

Yup. I donated yesterday...got on the front page..niiice.

[subego]

Anybody have a precis of Challenge to Liberty?

The abortion one, I think there's a gold one too.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by subego 

Anybody have a precis of Challenge to Liberty?

The abortion one, I think there's a gold one too.

I have no idea what you're talking about but I do know that Newt Gingrich secretly admires Ron Paul very much, more than he's willing to say on camera.

YouTube - Newt Gingrich on Dr Ron Paul (R)

[subego]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

I have no idea what you're talking about

From wiki under "Books Authored":

Paul, Ron (1990). Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue. Lake Jackson, TX: Foundation for Rational Economics and Education.

Originally Posted by macintologist 

but I do know that Newt Gingrich secretly admires Ron Paul very much, more than he's willing to say on camera.

Double eww.

[macintologist]

I'm pro choice and I understand his position on abortion. The states should decide and I agree because Roe v Wade was decided on very shaky constitutional grounds. One has to simply study constitutional law to understand this.

I honestly think Ron Paul is the best candidate for the academic types and I like them.

[subego]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

I'm pro choice and I understand his position on abortion.

This isn't about the state's rights part, I agree with that.

Paul is not pro-choice, he would want individual states to ban abortion.

I have the one sentence explanation of his rationale that pro-life is a Libertarian stance (protecting the unborn child's liberty), and I know there's a whole book-length treatment, I was hoping for something in between.

This (and the gay marriage thing) is all that is between me and a vote for Ron Paul. I usually can't say there are so few things between me and a candidate, so I want to give him a fair shot.

Edit: to clarify, I get the one sentence argument, I just need elaboration on how that opinion (which many people don't share) is enough for him to call for state control. This should be anathema to him by default, let alone on something with which reasonable people can disagree.

[goMac]

Doesn't support Net Neutrality and supports letting the internet providers do what they want. No vote from me.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by subego 

This (and the gay marriage thing) is all that is between me and a vote for Ron Paul. I usually can't say there are so few things between me and a candidate, so I want to give him a fair shot.

There are a few things that I disagree with him about as well, but if elected he's only one part of the government. The House and the Senate can check him on anything extreme (I don't know that Paul would present many extreme bills anyway). I'm supporting him because of the kind of person he's turning out to be. He seems to have a real vested interest in the country, and it's people, rather than his reputation and his pocketbook.
I try to avoid voting for candidates because of the issues they support or don't. People change their opinions all the time, I'd prefer someone who is reliable, honest, and fair.

[Uncle Skeleton]

It's still up to the executive to enforce the laws. If he drags his feet about that (because he doesn't much believe in laws), Congress can't do much short of impeaching him. So it's a question of character: would his views on small government take a complete back seat to his duty to enforce the laws Congress passes? Or will it be more like the Gonzalez circus, but with every executive branch agency "forgetting" to enforce any of the regulations that limit business or state governments?

[SirCastor]

That's my point really. I think that in spite of Ron Paul not necessarily liking a law, he has character enough to be responsible for it. He believes in the system as it was designed.

[goMac]

Honestly, I feel like Ron Paul is very dangerous. To me, he is the exact same thing as Bush, just on the other side of the aisle. His policies have been tried in this country before with disastrous results, but he pays no heed to our history. His supporters have a record of censoring the free speech rights of others (a right that Paul himself likes to preach about.) And he, like Bush, has no policies that attempt to resolve the domestic issues we have today. Rather, Paul could make many of these issues worse by massively deregulating the economy, which has been tried before in this country a few times, each time not working. Finally, his Iraq was plan worries me. I feel like a pullout needs to be studied, carefully planned, and then executed over a semi-extended period of time. Don't get me wrong, I fully support a pullout. But the entire reason we got into this mess in the first place was rash foreign policy decisions that were executed with inadequate planning. We shouldn't pull out all our troops in a short period of time unless we want a repeat of Cambodia. By pulling out in stages over an extended period of time we can reduce the number of civilian deaths that could occur.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Doesn't support Net Neutrality and supports letting the internet providers do what they want. No vote from me.

Yes because government intervention of the internet is such a great idea.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Yes because government intervention of the internet is such a great idea.

The internet should be public property. It's the only way to allow equal access, enforce fair prices, and subsidize network upgrades.

Ron Paul's policy is very pro big business. It will keep competition out of the market with large monopolies controlling the network itself.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by goMac 

The internet should be public property. It's the only way to allow equal access, enforce fair prices, and subsidize network upgrades.

Ron Paul's policy is very pro big business. It will keep competition out of the market with large monopolies controlling the network itself.

Monopolies are the result of big government. Getting the government out of the picture will legalize competition.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Monopolies are the result of big government. Getting the government out of the picture will legalize competition.

Really? Aside from monopolies as the result of government being a load of crap, who has the resources to compete with ATT? How about the money?

[goMac]

(Continuing from not on my iPhone)

Here's another idea for you. If ATT wanted, they could take down our entire banking system. All they would have to do is filter out all our banking traffic. Then they could hold our country hostage and force us to pay higher rates for using their lines. Under Ron Paul this would be perfectly legal.

And again, who would have the resources to compete with ATT? Actually running new fiber to compete with ATT would cost billions, and take many many years.

The best solution is for the federal government to take control of ATT's network, and simply pay ATT the fair market value of their network in return. Let's be honest, the federal government is the only institution with enough money and resources to do so. The federal government could then turn around and rent out use of the network to more local ISP's such as Comcast, for fair prices. This would allow the government to control everything between the gigapops, while letting existing local ISPs continue to bring internet out to the end user. ATT could remain in control of any international links.

After this the government could begin financing the development of fiber networks to the home. Heck, Verizon is already doing this. Just make a deal with Verizon, and let them continue wiring.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by goMac 

(Continuing from not on my iPhone)

Here's another idea for you. If ATT wanted, they could take down our entire banking system. All they would have to do is filter out all our banking traffic. Then they could hold our country hostage and force us to pay higher rates for using their lines. Under Ron Paul this would be perfectly legal.

These kinds of scenarios assume there aren't already laws in place which prevent this kind of thing from happening. I would be surprised if there isn't a law which prohibits intentional blocking of banking institutions transactions outside of federal activity.

Should AT&T actually want to engage in such a thing, to do so would be significantly overwhelming. Just because it's legal doesn't protect them as a company. Civil suits would abound, they would be in over their heads.

Capitalism suggests less government regulation, not more. Ron Paul's effort is to avoid putting the government where it should be. I prefer Net Neutrality to any company doing whatever they want, but the government should not be involved.

[Uncle Skeleton]

How does "the governmnent should not be involved" not conflict with "there are already laws preventing this," "civil suits would abound," and "net neutrality?" Who exactly mediates any of those things if not the government (being involved)? Well armed and regulated militias?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

These kinds of scenarios assume there aren't already laws in place which prevent this kind of thing from happening. I would be surprised if there isn't a law which prohibits intentional blocking of banking institutions transactions outside of federal activity.

Even if there were, there are many other vital institutions that ATT could block. Banking is just one example.

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

Should AT&T actually want to engage in such a thing, to do so would be significantly overwhelming. Just because it's legal doesn't protect them as a company. Civil suits would abound, they would be in over their heads.

Civil suits? What law would you even sue them under? You have to make the laws forbidding such behavior before you can sue them for doing things.

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

Capitalism suggests less government regulation, not more. Ron Paul's effort is to avoid putting the government where it should be. I prefer Net Neutrality to any company doing whatever they want, but the government should not be involved.

Historically, open markets have been tried in this country, and they've completely failed. Heck, ATT is one example, considering we've dealt with them before. And you prefer Net Neutrality? What do you think internet companies are going to do? "Gee, we're sorry, you're right. We'll not QOS our connections.." Hint: They have already said they want to, and are going to if the government does not stop them.

[nonhuman]

Um, currently there are no laws mandating net neutrality. Those things are legal now. Amazingly enough, they aren't happening...

[goMac]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Um, currently there are no laws mandating net neutrality. Those things are legal now. Amazingly enough, they aren't happening...

I think the reason we haven't seen ATT try and pull such crap is because they've been under the microscope after their antitrust suit. Of course under Paul, that microscope would be pulled away...

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I think the reason we haven't seen ATT try and pull such crap is because they've been under the microscope after their antitrust suit. Of course under Paul, that microscope would be pulled away...

What makes you think Paul would cease antitrust proceedings? Has he made any statements to that affect? I'm not aware of any, but if you are please link to them.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

What makes you think Paul would cease antitrust proceedings? Has he made any statements to that affect? I'm not aware of any, but if you are please link to them.

Given that he generally does not support antitrust proceedings, it wouldn't be too much of a leap to think that he would cease to enforce them.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Civil suits? What law would you even sue them under? You have to make the laws forbidding such behavior before you can sue them for doing things.

There is more than enough reason someone can engage in a lawsuit. If a cat burgaler can sue a home owner for injury upon breaking into a home, there's bound to be room to qualify "damages assessed" from such actions, if someone were to engage in it. It doesn't mean they'll win, but that's not my point.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

There is more than enough reason someone can engage in a lawsuit. If a cat burgaler can sue a home owner for injury upon breaking into a home, there's bound to be room to qualify "damages assessed" from such actions, if someone were to engage in it. It doesn't mean they'll win, but that's not my point.

Um, no, that wouldn't apply. If I buy gas for $3 a gallon at Chevron, and then Chevron raises their prices to $30 a gallon, forcing me to quit my job because I can't afford to drive to work, I can't sue them for damages. The same applies to ATT. They provide a service, and can determine what they believe is a fair price to charge for their service. In fact, this is exactly the sort of situation that net neutrality is designed to combat, because this sort of thing is currently legal.

[nonhuman]

I'm afraid I don't know a whole lot about his history in this regard. The only thing a substance that a quick Google search found was this: CR: GOOD TIME FOR CONGRESS TO REASSESS ANTITRUST LAWS

While it certainly shows him to be skeptical of current antitrust law and practice (which well he, and anyone else, should be), I'm not sure it really shows him to be pro-monopoly.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Um, no, that wouldn't apply. If I buy gas for $3 a gallon at Chevron, and then Chevron raises their prices to $30 a gallon, forcing me to quit my job because I can't afford to drive to work, I can't sue them for damages. The same applies to ATT. They provide a service, and can determine what they believe is a fair price to charge for their service. In fact, this is exactly the sort of situation that net neutrality is designed to combat, because this sort of thing is currently legal.

It's not net neutrality that keeps (or would keep) AT&T in check, it's the market. AT&T doesn't charge $100/month for internet because they have Qwest, Comcast, and a handful of others at a lower price. They would if they could.

I'm supposing though at AT&T makes a rash decision one day to deny access to a certain sector ("they could hold our country hostage and force us to pay higher rates") or group. This kind of intentional denial of service could cause severe damage, and therefore has grounds for legal action.

If they send out a warning to their customers, then the market has time to respond, and that time will reflect on AT&T. If AT&T decides to block all access to Microsoft, they would contact their customers and their customers (I'm sure at the urging of MS) would abandon AT&T. The Market empowers the consumer, not the law.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

While it certainly shows him to be skeptical of current antitrust law and practice (which well he, and anyone else, should be), I'm not sure it really shows him to be pro-monopoly.

But this is exactly the kind of crap Ron Paul pulls. He says stuff like "I'm not anti-net neutrality, I'm just against the government interfering in the internet", which is the exact definition of anti-net neutrality. If he's against regulating business, then he is for allowing monopolies to exist. You can't separate the ideal he wants to pursue from the sorts of things that ideal will lead to.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Um, no, that wouldn't apply. If I buy gas for $3 a gallon at Chevron, and then Chevron raises their prices to $30 a gallon, forcing me to quit my job because I can't afford to drive to work, I can't sue them for damages. The same applies to ATT. They provide a service, and can determine what they believe is a fair price to charge for their service. In fact, this is exactly the sort of situation that net neutrality is designed to combat, because this sort of thing is currently legal.

Your own example sort of defeats itself. Chevron will never, can never, raise the price of gas to the point where people can't afford it. It just can't happen. If nobody can afford to buy gas that means Chevron isn't making any money. It also means that any of the other oil companies can just sell gas for less and steal all of Chevron's business.

Your mistake seems to be in thinking that companies determine fair prices: they don't. Consumers determine fair prices. You do it every day when you decide whether or not it's worth spending $x on y gizmo. The fact that you bought a Mac rather than a cheap-o Gateway means you think that Apple is offering a fair price for its product. If the number of people buying Macs were to drop significantly, Apple would reduce their prices to bring them back.

Yes it would be perfectly legal for all those horrible things to happen. But we don't need laws to prevent them, because they will never happen.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Your own example sort of defeats itself. Chevron will never, can never, raise the price of gas to the point where people can't afford it. It just can't happen. If nobody can afford to buy gas that means Chevron isn't making any money. It also means that any of the other oil companies can just sell gas for less and steal all of Chevron's business.

The example is extreme, but you're assuming ATT has competition, when the reality is that they don't. Whatever ATT decides to charge, we have no choice but to pay.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Your mistake seems to be in thinking that companies determine fair prices: they don't. Consumers determine fair prices. You do it every day when you decide whether or not it's worth spending $x on y gizmo. The fact that you bought a Mac rather than a cheap-o Gateway means you think that Apple is offering a fair price for its product. If the number of people buying Macs were to drop significantly, Apple would reduce their prices to bring them back.

Consumers only determine fair prices when there is honest competition. ATT again, has no competition. Whatever price they choose to charge stands.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Yes it would be perfectly legal for all those horrible things to happen. But we don't need laws to prevent them, because they will never happen.

I'm not sure you get it. It's already happening. The ISP's have said it is going to happen. This isn't a theoretical we're talking about, it is happening.

[nonhuman]

How does AT&T have no competition? That's just blatantly untrue. It's not true in terms of physical infrastructure, and it's not true in terms of wireless infrastructure.

And if the ISPs do this, so what? People will complain. A lot. And one of those ISPs will come to the obvious conclusion that if they provide a service that doesn't do this, they'll take a lot of business away from the ISPs that do.

Remember: the internet isn't a big truck, it's a series of tubes.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I'm not sure you get it. It's already happening. The ISP's have said it is going to happen. This isn't a theoretical we're talking about, it is happening.

If it's happening, then why is it still a question? Why aren't ISPs charging Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and the host of other huge companies large amounts of money not to throttle their content delivery down? Why is the subject a matter of discussion on prevention rather than repairing?

Granted, we have a few examples of data being delivered at an intentionally slower rate, but as you point out, the ISPs wouldn't just wait and ask nicely. They don't care, they would just make their money. So if it is happening, why aren't we seeing the direct effects right now (and being universally aware of it?)

[goMac]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

How does AT&T have no competition? That's just blatantly untrue. It's not true in terms of physical infrastructure, and it's not true in terms of wireless infrastructure.

You're thinking on a very limited scale, of ATT as an ISP. ATT is much bigger than that, they actually run the gigapops that all other ISPs plug into. This is why ATT is the company that the government is working with to monitor the internet. You may use Comcast, but at some point Comcast has to get on ATT's network, at which point ATT has control of the packets.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

And if the ISPs do this, so what? People will complain. A lot. And one of those ISPs will come to the obvious conclusion that if they provide a service that doesn't do this, they'll take a lot of business away from the ISPs that do.

Again, the ISPs only bring a wire from ATT's network to your house.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Remember: the internet isn't a big truck, it's a series of tubes.

And ATT controls most of those tubes. ATT runs the entire backbone of the internet.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by goMac 

You're thinking on a very limited scale, of ATT as an ISP. ATT is much bigger than that, they actually run the gigapops that all other ISPs plug into. This is why ATT is the company that the government is working with to monitor the internet. You may use Comcast, but at some point Comcast has to get on ATT's network, at which point ATT has control of the packets.

Please point us to references...

[goMac]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

Please point us to references...

I'll do you one better. Here's a map:



ISP's don't just wire their networks to each other. Comcast doesn't just run a wire from Seattle to Portland to move traffics back and forth. ATT runs their network to population centers, and then ISPs hook into ATT's backbones. ATT's network is used to get packets in between cities, or in between ISPs.

[Uncle Skeleton]

That doesn't really demonstrate that ATT is the only option for doing so. Just sayin'

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That doesn't really demonstrate that ATT is the only option for doing so. Just sayin'

Yeah, I've been doing some more research. Ars ran an article that basically says the same thing about ATT in a different context.

"There's a certain creepiness to having one of the country's largest IP networks doing deep packet inspection and monitoring, but consumers who value their privacy can always go somewhere else, right? Not necessarily. In addition to running a massive network of its own, AT&T runs a good chunk of the backbone infrastructure in the US. It's a rare bit of traffic that can make it to its destination without passing on to an AT&T-owned network. If the company deploys its anti-piracy technology to all data passing through its networks, AT&T's "solution" could affect most US Internet users. In addition, many US residents have limited broadband choices."

AT&T willing to spy for NSA, MPAA, and RIAA

[nonhuman]

There are definitely other companies that own fiber running throughout the country. Google bought up a whole bunch of dark fiber a little while ago. It certainly is not all owned by AT&T, even if much of it is. If there's any non-AT&T backbone out there, then traffic can be routed through it to avoid AT&T's network. Yes that will cause bottlenecks and slowdowns, but once it becomes obvious that the consumers want an alternative to AT&T one will be made available.

[Face Ache]

You'd think a country that is starting (and losing) stupid wars and flushing its economy and civil rights down the crapper would be worried about more than their internet bill.

Meet the new boss - same as the old boss.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

There are definitely other companies that own fiber running throughout the country. Google bought up a whole bunch of dark fiber a little while ago.

Google doesn't nearly have enough dark fiber to deal with a mass migration off of ATT.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It certainly is not all owned by AT&T, even if much of it is. If there's any non-AT&T backbone out there, then traffic can be routed through it to avoid AT&T's network. Yes that will cause bottlenecks and slowdowns, but once it becomes obvious that the consumers want an alternative to AT&T one will be made available.

If your computer is on an ATT gigapop, how do you plan on getting traffic re-routed to you? Your ISP would have to run new cabling to a different gigapop run by a different company, which wouldn't be cheap. And if ATT really wanted to cause a problem, they could probably buy out other companies on the internet backbone. This very nearly happened when MCI went under. MCI at the time was also a very major backbone provider, and ATT went to congress and offered to take control of MCI's network if they went under, purely out of kindness of course. Fortunately Verizon bought out MCI's network.

But if you look at ATT... ATT is actually SBC (another internet backbone vendor). SBC bought ATT (and their portion of the network), and then renamed themselves ATT. The new SBC/ATT then bought out Bell South, yet another internet backbone provider. Who knows who ATT will buy next? That's just the magic of a completely free unregulated market.

[subego]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

I try to avoid voting for candidates because of the issues they support or don't. People change their opinions all the time, I'd prefer someone who is reliable, honest, and fair.

Uhh, that's what I'm trying to do by asking for some clarification on his position. I don't have to agree with him, but I'd like to know why he feels the way he does.

Likewise, the issue I have with it isn't so much that I disagree with him, it's that (considering what he claims his philosophy to be) he should disagree with him. Himself... whatever.

This relates directly to reliability, honesty and fairness.

[SirCastor]

I guess A few of us have really derailed this thread. Sorry folks.

[macintologist]

Ron Paul raised a million bucks already.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Anyone know how well campaign funding correlates with winning the election, historically?

[olePigeon]

I don't understand why people base their choice of a candidate on how much money they raise.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I don't understand why people base their choice of a candidate on how much money they raise.

I don't think a lot of people do that, but I can see why people do make their decision partly on it. In this day and age, the money a candidate has to spend on his campaign tends to equate greatly to his ability to win. You may be the best person suited for the job, but if people don't know about you (IE they haven't seen television/newspaper/radio spots etc) they won't vote for you. Fund raising tends to suggest to people a willingness of a population to support a candidate. And that part very much makes sense to me. If people are actually willing to open their wallets it shows that they don't support a candidate solely on a rhetorical basis, but they have a desire to see that candidate in office. It also shows that people believe that candidate can win.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Yeah, I've been doing some more research. Ars ran an article that basically says the same thing about ATT in a different context.

"There's a certain creepiness to having one of the country's largest IP networks doing deep packet inspection and monitoring, but consumers who value their privacy can always go somewhere else, right? Not necessarily. In addition to running a massive network of its own, AT&T runs a good chunk of the backbone infrastructure in the US. It's a rare bit of traffic that can make it to its destination without passing on to an AT&T-owned network. If the company deploys its anti-piracy technology to all data passing through its networks, AT&T's "solution" could affect most US Internet users. In addition, many US residents have limited broadband choices."

AT&T willing to spy for NSA, MPAA, and RIAA

Russ Haynal's ISP Page <- AT&T would be signing it's own death warrant because all of those ISPs run their own fiber and would love to take the major cities from AT&T.

Sorry, Data is old, but here's a more recent map.

http://advice.cio.com/themes/CIO.com...p_labels_0.pdf

AT&T is blue.

[tie]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I don't understand why people base their choice of a candidate on how much money they raise.

Well, if you are going to give money to a candidate, you don't want your money to go to waste. In an "ideal world" that doesn't and can't exist, then I'd see your point, but...

I find it more confusing that people base their choice of a candidate on whether or not fundraising is displayed in real time:

Originally Posted by macintologist

I don't think any campaign has ever done this before. We can see a candidates fundraising efforts in real time!

I donated 25 bucks to his campaign and it was well worth it.

(Yes, I realize macint. meant it was worth it for other reasons, but I had to read it twice .)

[subego]

Which overpriced cell phone does Ron Paul use?

Answer.