We’ve spoken with most of the top presidential candidates over the last few months to get their on record position on ten key technology issues (Barack Obama, John McCain, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich). But we were never able to nail down time with Ron Paul, despite his strong support from the Internet in general.
Well, it’s never too late. Just two hours after we made our Tech President endorsements live on Fox News this morning, we were able to get some phone time with Dr. Paul as well. The podcast is up at TalkCrunch and embedded below, and we will have a transcript up shortly as well.
Dr. Paul said some very interesting things in the podcast. Among other things, he is softening his anti-net neutrality viewpoint (see here as an example). He’s now readily admiting that he’s willing to listen to both sides of the argument before making a final decision. Ditto on the 700MHz discussion.
More analysis after the transcript is finalized. We’ll post it here.
Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Update: Here is the transcript from the call:
Michael Arrington: Hello, this is Michael Arrington with TechCrunch. Today I have the honor of talking to Dr. Ron Paul, a republican candidate for president in 2008. Dr. Paul, welcome to TechCrunch.
Dr. Ron Paul: Thank you, nice to be with you today.
MA: Where are you today and what are you up to?
RP: I’m in Arlington. I’m voting today. We have the financial package to vote on, so I’m in Washington.
MA: Ok, Great. It’s actually great that we’re able to talk to you. So many of our readers are Ron Paul supporters. You have, as you know of course, a tremendous level of support on the internet, with very, very loyal followers. So, I think they’ll be interested in hearing your position on some of these issues.
RP: Ok.
MA: To jump right in, I think you have in the past, I believe, stated that with regard to net neutrality, government interference in the marketplace that you’re opposed to that policy. Is that something that you wish to clarify?
RP: Well, it’s something that I have an open mind to because of the complete understanding of how I’m going to solve a problem, which government helped create. I just don’t like solving problems with more government regulation and I see some of the solutions as more regulation. But I also see the problem coming, because governments too often have given licensing privileges to certain groups and phone companies and providers. So it’s something I really struggle with and hope that I can come up with something that is practical and also consistent with my philosophy that you don’t resort to government regulation, because I want to be very consistent. I don’t want the government involved in the internet and I don’t want taxes on internet. And I may not understand everything I have to about the internet, but I do know one thing. That we can’t allow the government intrusion into the internet, because there has even been moves on for international controls and international taxation and to me it’s a saving grace. We, in our campaign, can get around the mainstream media mainly because of this.
So I’m very, very caution, but I’m also very open to finding solutions to some of these problems I think the government created.
MA: You know I think you’ll find in Silicon Valley, and certainly me personally, have very libertarian leanings and generally like the government to be out of our business. There are two cases: one is net neutrality, and one is the new seven hundred megahertz cellular spectrum auctions that are going on where the government has, or somehow has set up, a sort of monopoly situation where there is only one or very few consumer choices. And in that case I think there can be some abuse of the consumers by those companies, and personally I feel that it probably makes sense for the government to try to level the playing field.
I think you’ve stated your position on net neutrality fairly succinctly, but moving into the mobile space; there are only two or three US carriers where you can buy a mobile phone from, you have very few choices in the types of services you can enjoy on those mobile phones. Now the government is licensing 700Mhz spectrum and the FCC has opened up somewhat but not completely in sort of leveling the playing fields. Some of the big players - AT&T, Verizon - that are currently in the space have said, look, government should stay out, we should be able to do what we like with these auctioned spectrums once we get them. Some of the new players like Google are saying, look, lets set some rules that say people can do cross-services, cross-applications and let people have some freedom there. Is this another case where you have an open mind and you want to see how it works out, or do you…
RP: You know, absolutely, because it does get complex, not only technologically it’s complex for me but it’s also legally complex. But if I think back in the 20s when we just had radio waves to deal with, I would have wanted to develop property rights principles where they were set up and they were sold or issued or auctioned off and get into the hands of private individuals, just like oil fields or what else. I mean, in Texas everything was developed by private property ownership. So if somebody can help me along on private property ownership in solving these problems, I’m very open to that and I don’t pretend to know the exact details of how to do it because to me the government has been the source of so much of our problems but I still want to stick to the principles of private property ownership with minimum if no government regulation.
MA: Let’s talk about China for a second. There have been instances where China is alleged to have perpetuated human rights abuses against their own citizens. Some of the ways that they block internet access and otherwise monitor their citizens is using US technology: hardware from Cisco, software from Microsoft, and other companies. Do you have a position on whether US companies should have any restrictions at all on doing business with countries in ways that might perpetuate human rights abuses?
RP: Probably not, because I think about human right abuses in this country and that’s were I have a responsibility. If you think of the trends since
9-11 we’re violating individual rights right and left and continuously in the congress so I hardly can take the position that I am going to instruct and tell the Chinese what we can do or restrict you or somebody else from dealing with china if they are not following things perfectly. It’s an issue and we can speak out and we can voluntarily boycott. But I’m not going to write laws what they can and can’t do with china.
MA: Fair enough. Lets talk about education fro a moment. There are some statistics that suggest the U.S. is falling behind in terms of the per capita basis in encouraging youngsters to study math and science and go into technology fields. Do you think the government has any place or ability to help bridge the gap when it comes to technology education.
RP: Well the federal government has no legal responsibility or authority to do so. If you happen to belong to a local school district and they’re not doing the job, yes you can run for school board and emphasize certain things. That’s generally how the system has worked over the many years of our history. But what we need is more competition in schools. This is similar to the question “well they’re not doing well in spelling”, but lo and behold if you have home schoolers and private schoolers they do very well in spelling or in arithmetic. Why can’t we do the same way with technology? We need more competition. We need more local control. We need the families and parents in charge and I think we would solve a lot of these problems. But if it’s a reflection of a culture where people are lazy and they don’t want to study — I don’t happen to believe that’s the way we are.
I think it’s the meddling in our school system, more concerned about all our money going to Washington and then coming back, with worrying about “No Child Left Behind”, and living up to regulations and lack of funding because we don’t have as much money. I think that’s where the real problem lies.
MA: And with identity theft. Identity theft has been around for ever, but the internet has made it really easy for people to gather information and then exploit it as well and make money that way. It’s a huge multibillion dollar a year issue. Can the government, or should the government, do anything more than they currently are to try and stop it?
RP: Yeah, I think there definitely is a role because this is theft, this is fraud and people aught to go to jail for this and I think the fact that we do have at the federal level a responsibility to promote interstate trade and not impede trade. So, I think under those conditions the government should. But too often the government does the opposite, just seeing how they have forced us to use the social security number as our identifier. So they have literally enhanced.
MA: They’ve made it easy
RP: They made it easy for us. to make that more honest and good. But I think most of these. I think the interstate commerce clause which means that we don’t want to impede trade and communications as well as the issue of fraud.
There is definitely a responsibility for government to be involved. That to me is also a very complex technological matter, that that deals with. You know some times the private sources can also protect us on the internet as well, where there are some protective devices. I’m betting that private sources are going to come up with better devices than government will ever do.
MA: Interesting. I have a specific question on intellectual property. You know, we’re seeing the record labels and now more often the movie studios, through their organizations, start to sue individuals, even put people in jail, for file trading. Do you think that intellectual property protections of those property rights are important enough to enforce on the individual level for people in the US, sue them put people in jail.
RP: Well, I don’t have a complete answer for that. I think people who steal deserve to be punished. When they start talking about a 16 year old that took something off the internet and put him in jail, it gets a little more complex. But once again I think that technology is what’s eventually going to solve this problem, because I can’t imagine us having a federal police force going out and checking every individual who might have taken something off the internet. To me it’s the complexity of saying playing FM music in a restaurant is breaking the law because you weren’t authorized to do this.
But once the music is floating around, how many policemen are you going to have find out who turned on what radio where. So there’s a limit in the practicality of how this can be used.
MA: What’s your position on renewable energy, how much government should be funding technologies, research in that area, just sort of the governments position on getting us off of oil in the future.
RP : Well I think the federal government should have zero. I think they should just get out of the way and let pricing determine what we should do.
They do have a negative responsibility and that is we need to make sure everyone can do what they like without being impeded by the government.
Such as if nuclear energy is technologically the best and the cheapest way to produce electricity we shouldn’t be stopping it.
Right now they’re talking, we have subsidized ethanol production from corn and it turns out it was not a very good idea and it was wasteful so the government is not very good at directing resources into alternative fuel.
It also turns out that hemp happens to be a very, very good source of ethanol and thats illegal to raise in this country. So the government just needs to get out of the way, we need some money, we need free market pricing, we don’t need to be directing resources. People say “Well we need R&D, we need to send the money there”, but who gets the money? Its the cronies, the political cronies get the R&D. It goes in the wrong direction, it also contributes to the malinvestment with the inflationary system already has created. So to me I think the government should just butt out when it comes to picking what fuel we should be developing.
MA : OK but how about this. When you look at pollutions and in particular today carbon emissions, which may or may not be a pollutant causing global warming, they are not charged. Should pollutants, and I’m defining that broadly, should the government force enterprises to consider the cost of those pollutants when creating goods and services?
Should there be some kind of cap or marketplace for carbon emissions?
RP : Well, like you even suggested they’re not even positive yet so we certainly shouldn’t be doing something that we don’t know about. I think the principle that we should apply is no one has the right to pollute their neighbors property. And if carbon is a danger people should be held responsible. In the industrial revolution the corporations and the governments colluded to allow pollution and individuals had no recourse in the court. We didn’t emphasize property ownership back in those days and we still don’t. Now, we trade these rights to pollute. If pollution is bad you don’t want to be able to buy it one from person and then say “OK I did A so now I can do B and B I’m allowed to pollute”. That is too much over management from government for me. But if pollution is bad and you can prove it you should be stopped, you can’t dump your sewer into a river and you shouldn’t be able to dump pollutants into the air, and they should be stopped but I think it should be done by property rights and local controls.
I think of the time when we had noise pollution when the cars first came out. The cars were very very noisy and a local city ordinance said “Hey you can’t come to town and make all this noise you’ll wake up everybody” and all of a sudden they put mufflers on our cars so I think of solving some of these problems more in that manner.
MA : OK last question, and I think its an easy one, is on internet taxes.
Should they be banned permanently?
RP : Obviously we should never never have taxes on the internet. They should be automatically banned. I just think it would be atrocious if that happened. Not only do I think the federal government would start taxing us then I think you’d have UN taxes on the Internet as well.
Regulations and taxations on the internet, we have to be very, very strong to prevent this. The tragedy right now is there has been an intrusion since
9/11 because they say “A-hah you might be participating in some sinister activity so therefore we have to have access to all your emails and everything you put out there” and that to me is a vicious intrusion into our 1st Amendment rights.
MA : Are you a Windows or a Mac guy?
RP : I’ve been using Windows.
MA : What’s your favorite gadget?
RP : Pardon me?
MA : What is your favorite gadget, the iPod, something else?
RP : Well I’m not too much into gadgets, I have a Blackberry but I tend to use a laptop computer more than my Blackberry because its a little bit to small for me.
MA : Dr. Paul I really appreciate your time. Is there any last words you have for our technology readers and listeners on your policies on tech?
RP : Now I have great faith and confidence in technology though I have a limited amount of expertise in it but I do have a political opinion of it.
I think so many of our problems can be solved if the technology is allowed to develop in a free market economy with high respect for property rights and I just think our solutions can be found there and not with dependency on government.
MA : Thank you so much for your time.
RP : Thank you very much.
There you go angry readers. Are you happy now????
He voted NO on establishing “network neutrality” (non-tiered Internet).
Check out the rest of his voting record:
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.
[Voted to] Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer.
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels.
Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes.
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.
Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record.
[Voted to] Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states.
Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight.
Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment.
Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration.
This guy is on the far, extreme right.
Cool, a candidate who flip flops on key issues depending on who he’s talking to. Just the kinda guy who
Its funny that readers of this site hailed net neutrality as an absolute necessity, until Ron Paul decided to not support it. And you call the rest of us sheeple.
http://lolronpaul.ytmnd.com/
…who I wanna vote for.
Typical liberal. Taking all of these votes out of context. Ever hear of states’ rights and personal responsibility?
Typical right-winger hiding in anonymity.
Wonder what all the Paul fans in the other thread will be saying about Net Neutrality now that he’s changing his tune. I doubt we’ll see it vilified and distorted in quite the same way this time around… heh.
Woohoo.
Go Dr. Paul. You deserve a fair treatment in the media.
Thank you techcrunch.com.
Where’s that stupid t-shirt “Vote or Die!!!” PEople choose to die. There’ no oxygen on U.S economy.
“He’s now readily admiting that he’s willing to listen to both sides of the argument before making a final decision”
At least he’s not a politician
When you list Dr. Paul’s voting record please take into consideration that the reason he votes no to alot of things (national amber alert) is because he does not support using taxpayer money to fund the project or he sees no authority in the constitution giving the federal government the right to oversee the project. He may personally support something but not want to use your money to funds someone else’s agenda. This is why state rights are crucial. Individuals have more power and control at the state level as to where the money goes.
omg serious head-up-your-ass issues at techmunch
errr, Ivan, you need to go read what your fellow Ron Paul supporters are saying in our endorsement post before you thank us.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008.....hn-mccain/
I never get it when people attack politicians for “flip flopping.” They are supposed to represent their constituents… and if the people change their mind, they’re SUPPOSED to flip around like a sail on a boat. That’s the sign of a responsive representative.
But then, I like it when my senators and such change their position after enough of us call them. Call me crazy.
Michael,
You or TechCrunch.com have every right to endorse whomever you chose to. I can’t take that right away from you and Dr. Paul would agree with me.
Having said that I am going to read the comments but it doesn’t matter as your company’s endorsement might be self motivated with a different mindset of the future and the things to come with it. After all, maybe President … friends will make sure TechCrunch.com is part of the 1000 website package that verizon.com and comcast.com will be offering with their tiered internet, if you catch my drift.
Politics are always fun my friend. I however still thank you for bringing Dr. Paul’s name to light.
Did you retards read what he said???!!!??? This is perfectly in line with what he has always said…..READ THE LINKS — or like all retards whatever the title is must be what the article is all about. Just in case your to damn lazy to click the links here is the exact quote.
Congress has considered Net neutrality legislation, but it never became law. Do you still support the legislation that was re-introduced in 2007 (S 215), which gives the FCC the power to punish “discriminatory” conduct by broadband providers?
Paul: No. Net neutrality legislation will hamper the development of new Internet services and harm consumers in the long run. The best way to address the concerns of proponents of Net neutrality is to remove government-imposed barriers to entry into the Internet provider market.
“has considered “, “never became law”, “re-introduced”
Most important words in the question….
Hey, nice job on getting an interview AFTER making your endorsement
I just love one issue voters. American Life has degraded to a new low. The difference from flip flopping and reasoned change is: flip flop is having someone say I never said that. Reasoned change is stating I am not fully informed, and others had a different position and now their persuasive, articulate debate has shown me a closer accurate view. Ron Paul has reasoned change, he admitted not having a complete understanding of new technology and is willing to listen to all related information on Net Neutrality.
Hey Michael,
One more thing I need to ask you.
How long did it take you to choose the word “softens” instead of “changes” in your title? Must have been really hard to decide given the possible new hits techcrunch could get with “changes” as a title.
And here… Right in the first paragraph, the admition that Ron Paul was not spoken with previously. Interesting considering he was not endorsed because of his anti-government stances are in the opinion of Arrington “anti-technology”
If any president declares Internet Tax…. LOL…. HAHAHHA
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Ebay, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Dell, Redhat, internet, all major computer companies would get extremely piss off and far upsetting. They can’t afford to paid triple taxation on corporate forms. They would start moving companies to oversea and put American shadow bankruptcies.
It seems like Techcruch.com has something against Ron Paul (as of every media outlet). The poll numbers were blatantly ignored and the results were ruled against majority vote. The “new” results were announced of television stating that Techcruch.com was backing a candidate that it’s readers did not vote for. After this was announced the Techcrunch.com user’s became upset.
Now that the reader’s are upset a magical interview appears with Dr. Paul, trying to put him down (in the title, but obviously incorrect). This may be in hopes that the readers calm down and don’t backlash against Techcrunch.com.
…
Uh, MA. You’re wrong, RP has not changed, softened or even lightly whipped his stance (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6224161.html) you just suck at research.
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer.
Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight.
Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment.
Does NOT sounds like a libertarian to me based on the above votes. The government need to get out of MY BUSINESS . . .
I’m no longer voting for Dr. Paul.
I found that interview to be a bit too heavy on MA’s views and interpretation of the TC reader’s opinion, especially in regards to the 700mhz stuff.
@ Michael Arrington
What do you mean by saying that RP has “Softened his stance on Net Neutrality”? As far as I know, Paul’s stance has not really changed, but I could be wrong.
I’m new to this site, but not the tech industry. I’ve been following the NetNeut debate for some time now and believe I have a pretty good grasp on both sides of the debate and am able to view this debate through a somewhat objective lens. It seems to me that many people commenting on this site do not fully understand this issue. I think it would be helpful to have some sort of OBJECTIVE description of the debate located somewhere on your site.
I’m sure there are a lot of PaulBot’s that have commented on this site, and thus, discredited anyone else who chooses to defend positions similar to those of Ron Paul. I just want to make the point that questioning one’s support of Net Neutrality does not immediately make a person a PaulBot.
@ WebSideAdventures — It appears you are not much of a fan of Ron Paul’s voting record? I would be glad to post the voting record of Dennis Kucinich for you, but I don’t want the Justice Dept after me for pushing Socialist propaganda.
So Paul supports game the ‘voting’ quite clearly and then are upset when the popular vote isn’t used to pick the candidate? This isn’t digg. Its an endorsement based on issues, which Paul couldn’t be bothered to address with TC until AFTER they were announced. There was more than enough time.
Seems to me he was very nice to Paul. We don’t need to worry about human rights abuses in other countries because the US has some flaws? I am all for continuing to fix our own flaws, but that certainly shouldn’t mean that we disregard the severe human rights abuses from other countries around the world. I am not talking about China, BTW.
And whats with this global warming doesn’t exist till its proven thing? By your definition of proof do we need to be physically at dooms doorstep?
Solution to polution? I can now sue giant companies that have more money than god. Thats just great. How am I supposed to prove the air is damaging my lungs until it has actually damaged my lungs. far too late.
The freaking role of government is to protect its people…
Life as a libertarian must be great. Everything is everyone else’s problem. As president the federal government is responsible for nothing, and can’t be held accountable for anything. The government should stay out of everyones business except foreigners, pregnant women and homosexuals and anyone else ‘different’. Then it is the governments business to make laws, shoo them away or otherwise get into their business.
He can let a publication print under his name with people thinking its associated with him for YEARS printing racist horrible things, then deny it has anything to do with him later and magically it should all be ok and not reflect on his character. Personal responsibility man.
@will
You have fallen into the typical trap of media sensationalism. None of those things you have listed will ever impact your life yet you are willing to throw out the baby with the bath water for those meaningless issues.
Who is the Libertarian candidate you are voting for I would love to support them.
@Joshua
Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of evils. We can not afford to police the world and I do not have the money for that. You are free to donate to the save the world foundation of your choice but people in those countries have to stand up for themselves and eliminating the Income tax will allow you to donate even more. We have human rights abuses happening here in America at the governments hand that should not be stopped? What do you think is going to happen global warming is going to be solved by the USA? You are diluting yourself is you do not think that we will burn every lump of coal and every drop of oil we get our hands on. Get over it! No matter what lying politicians tell you we will. Just look at you typing on a keyboard made of petroleum, shipped to you buy burning gas, and eating up electricity that was made by burning coal. Hypocrite or ignorant?
@Michael Arrington So how does this work? You had an appointment with Ron Paul late in the morning, you did your Tech President endorsements live on Fox News nevertheless, and then had the call with Ron Paul? Or you made your Tech President endorsements live on Fox News, and then suddenly someone called you to say that Ron Paul was available in the next hour?
Will (comment 25), I refer you back to comment 11.
Most of the issues you mention propose using taxpayer funds to finance federal remedies which are not authorized by the constitution. It’s important to remember that one of the ways that the federal government should stay out of our business is to stop spending our money unconstitutionally.
@Michael Arrington And another thing, if you had this input from Ron Paul say a month ago would you have made a different endorsement?
Michael,
As some have said, Paul hasn’t changed his stance, you just seem to understand it better after interviewing him.
The main thing you need to realize about Ron Paul is he wants the government to stop interfering with our lives and screwing things up! NO other candidate is ever going to talk like that because they all stand to benefit from special interests. Ron Paul has no special interests - he’s all funded by grassroots average-joe supporters.
Do you think any other candidate has the guts to stand up and prevent the government from spying on all internet communications “in the name of anti-terrorism”? I DON’T!! They are suckers and easily swayed because if they voted against it, someone could claim they are “anti patriotic” or “making america unsafe”.
@ Joshua (#28) —
“The freaking role of government is to protect its people…”
What exactly is the federal government supposed to be protecting me from? Your statement implies that you believe people or citizens are some sort of object possessed by the government. What a terrifying thought.
I’d suggest that before you make such sweeping statements, you should learn a thing or two about libertarian ideology as well as the other popular ideologies of today’s political climate. Your comment completely misrepresented Ron Paul’s statements. I’d also like to point out that Ron Paul is running for President on the Republican ticket, not the Libertarian ticket.
I can’t believe I’m going to say this…
Like most people I also support keeping the Internet unregulated, free and open.
Regulation stifles growth and innovation and that is unacceptable.
I truly believe that this is what Ron Paul wants as well.
However, he believes that free and open markets will create the best course. If telecoms want to survive, they will need to provide a service that is acceptable to a majority. If they don’t, they will fail.
Most of the people here that think more regulation is required for every thing in order to protect them from the evil corporations, will be the first to scream when they see the price on the tag for that regulation.
…next up:
Speech Neutrality
…my neighbor is saying things I don’t like and…
I just don’t understand how net-neutrality legislation is a good idea. On a tech site, you’d think we would have just a little more intelligence on the matter.
I started an ISP back in 1993 when the Internet wasn’t even a household word. If the providers started doing this stupid tiered service that everyone screams about, I could easily purchase a large pipe to the Internet and start selling internet service again. That is the free market at work people.
The Internet is not broken. Why are we trying to fix it?
@shawn
Those things does matter me.
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) - What if my son is gay?
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005) - What if I get Lou Gherig’s Disease?
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. - What if I’m Bhuddist?
Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. what if my anti-war stance has drawn the ire of the FBI?
Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. What if my cousin is an “illegal alien”? What if I AM an immigrant who used to be “illegal” ?
These matter DOES matter to me. They are not the bath water, they are the baby. They are the WHOLE enchilada!
@ Akston
not banning gay adoption, allowing research, for civil liberty, no school prayers etc . .. these are all position of ZERO or less government involvement yet somehow Paul decides for MORE government and MORE intrusion. . . you cant explain these votes away by supporting “states rights” - the state is also a govenment entity that needs to get out of my wallet and my life.
I’m very sadden by Paul’s past records.
[i]Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005) - What if I get Lou Gherig’s Disease?[/i]
This is so retarded. No one has ever voted against “allowing” human embryonic stem cell research. Not even the Fundies ever did. What Ron Paul voted against was FUNDING human embryonic stem cell research. While I disagree with him about abortion, he is completely right about this. The gubmint needs to get out of funding research of any kind. I don’t care whether its stem cell or string theory.
Get the bureaucrats out of the way,
I really don’t see how he’s flip flopping or changing his mind. Could someone please post what exactly he changed his mind on?
He’s always been pro internet freedom, and I don’t see anything different in this conversation.
Come on will these issues are not in the interest of most Americans and are not worth giving up freedom for.
The school prayer bill Paul sponsored is not aimed at making anyone pray it explicitly forbids forced prayer. That bill was designed to allow people to pray in schools or give freedom of religion. As a Buddist you should love the law as it will give you the right to meditate and to form a group of Buddists to meditate together with restriction.
The bill for intelligence was to a large bill that funded all intelligence. Paul is the only Republican that voted against the patriot act and the FISA bill. You are completely being misled by this information source you have. You need to get a good source for information.
ON stem cells did you know that Ron Paul voted no on a stem cell ban and also voted no on a federal ban on human cloning? Both of these severely limits the science that could help your genetic disorder.
And finally for your gay adopted son Ron Paul voted against the national amendment to ban gay marriage. Don’t you think your son has the right to live in a state that will accept him and his partner’s right to live together in peace? or are civil unions offered up by the liberals good enough for you?
Not sure who or where you are getting your information but your sources are misleading you, you should try; if you have time; to find information that is less biased and does not have an agenda.
Reposting the first dude’s very excellent and fully accurate post of Dr. Gold-Standard’s voting record.
Ron Paul voted NO on establishing “network neutrality” (non-tiered Internet).
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.
[Voted to] Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer.
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels.
Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes.
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.
Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record.
[Voted to] Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states.
Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight.
Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment.
Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration.
IOW, Ron Paul has a near 100% voting record IN FAVOR OF GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE in the areas where the government has no place regulating, and AGAINST GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE WHEN IT’S ACTUALLY NECESSARY, like environmental regulation, where corporations generally foist off the externalities of pollution onto the surrounding communities.
States’ rights is no excuse; the Constitution applies to the federal AND state governments.
Way to go, “Libertarian.”
Sorry this is totally off topic, but what audio player is used for this audio file embed? Anyone know?
Kudos to TC for not endorsing Ron Paul even though his cronies made him win the “popular vote”. Nobody would ever take an Internet vote seriously anyway, you all know that, right? Even more kudos for raising a political issue on a Tech blog, even though many people don’t want to hear about it.
Anyway, to the Ron Paul “supporters”: How about you read the Federalist Papers which elaborate pretty well on the intentions of the Constitution. I think you will come away with the impression that Ron Paul has (intentionally?) misunderstood the Constitution. Unless you want to interpret it literally, I guess, but that’s a different issue. Just read the Federalist Papers. While you’re at it, read “Alexander Hamilton” by Ron Chernow. Hamilton is really the guy responsible for our strong federal government, for example by assuming the states’ debt after the revolutionary war. He deserves great respect.
Everything is easy and elegant if you take Ron Paul’s road. Why? Because it’s an abdication of responsibility. Everything becomes someone else’s problem. Pollution? Just leave it to the consumer. Which consumer? Someone other than you. What about abuse in China? Not up to us - now please go to WalMart and buy some crap to support the economy. It would be the end of the USA. Happily, Hell will freeze over before he becomes President. Now I’ll just sit back and watch the flames.
Why doesn’t someone clear up the issue here and state ron pauls record on net neutrality? I’m not from the states and i’m not aware of his opionion up until now but i think its important from the prospective of yesterdays post and the insuing meltdown - just exactly what has he said / voted for prior to yesterday?? Anyone?
This is the saviour of the Internet? His response to the net neutrality question is to ramble. His answer to the China question is to point out American human rights violations, which would normally get him howled down for avoiding the question to score a cheap point. His answer to the question about education is a complete mess that mixes up funding and motivation. The solution to identity theft is private companies’ “protective devices”? What, like an Internet chastity belt?
Of course, the average politician often gives unconvincing responses, incoherent arguments, and messes up their sentences. But Paul is supposed to be an above average politician, a leader, for God’s sake. How he’s managed to command the spotty, seething masses of Digg.com I’ve no idea, because compared to Obama, or even Clinton, Romney and the rest of the field, he’s about as inspiring as a sack of porridge.
@ Jorge
Have you ever read the constitution?
You speak as though your opinions are absolutes and that it is impossible that another person may have opinions differing from your own.
lol I skimmed through some of these comments and I’m going to try and answer briefly and in detail for those that are confused.
- He voted against Net Neutrality because he feels the government shouldn’t even know about the net, period. When the government knows about something they automatically will get their hand in it. He wants it in an ” Open Market ” not to be government regulated because anytime the government is involved ( just look at the departments and programs ) they screw it up.
- When you bring up ” if the government should limit this company or that company” , it’s a branch of Communism. That is like saying ” If TechCrunch became the primer blog site to visit and the world decided to only view this site because it was their choice to, the government would cut it down to a limit so other sites can come up. Is that TechCrunch’s fault or the consumer?
The government should not limit someone or something because of it’s success, if you don’t like it then don’t support it, you want to change it, then create something new for consumers ( That is a truly free market that Ron Paul preaches )
- Anything he votes against ( no ) to is because he doesn’t want ” US Taxpayers ” to pay for these programs, It’s unconstitutional.
- And To Mattias: I see your post so I’m going to reply to it because it falls in line with some others that think along the same line as you do:
A Consumer is the purchaser of an item, if you bought it ( or support it ) you deal with it. I don’t know where you got the idea he means for someone else to worry about it ( That is the democrats way ) . If everyone watched for themselves they’d use a little more caution instead of the way it could go where it would be ” Oh I bought it but now ,it’s doing this, let me complain to the government so I can sue ”
The Democratic field ( in other words ) are Socialists. Look at the stances.
The founders cherished Liberty not Democracy, learn the difference. This is the ” Republic of the United States Of America ” not the Democratic.
And on a final note, don’t get confused on how and why Ron Paul is running when in the votes he is not cutting it or likely to be president, look at him as a Rude Awakening for the people who have been sleeping all these years.
People who were never into politics, never looked at history, never thought about running are now, getting involved in every which way possible.
You are responsible for your own actions, not the government.
I’m blown away by the preposterous misrepresentations of Ron Paul’s record on this website. I hope nobody is fooled by this downright false characterization of Ron Paul’s voting record.
“Reposting the first dude’s very excellent and fully accurate post of Dr. Gold-Standard’s voting record.” Whoever posted this has some guts, the first post was a complete trash piece by someone who obviously doesn’t do his own homework.
I looked up those votes. The things you claim he voted “YES” or “NO” for are things he voted because they were either unconstitutional, or represented more government interference in our lives. Watch any Ron Paul speech. He’s ALWAYS consistent. NO other candidate can say this, especially for TWENTY YEARS.
Check out this video of Ron Paul 20 years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBLaLFOYuRg Does this sound like a guy who changes his view on positions?
All I can say is those reposting garbage should be ashamed of themselves. I encourage EVERYONE to do their OWN research because the characterization of Ron Paul by that first voter is egregiously misrepresentative of what Ron Paul stands for and HAS VOTED FOR his entire life.
@Stryder: I could write a long reply, but you already (unwittingly) made all my points. The one problem I have with Ron Paul is that he’s crazy, but happily it’s not a big problem.
lol I see Mattias, so you’re point of view is different ( in the sense of wanting government to interfere when you see fit ) so I guess it’s ok. That’s what makes you you and me me
This is a rare time where two individuals will see differently and end it peacefully *puts gun away* lol >:p
Ron Paul has been a Congressman for how long? How many votes are on his record? Apparently at least two people on this comment page seem to think that posting NINE of his votes somehow represents his entire ideology. That may be one of the stupidest arguments I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading. Or just another limp-wristed smear attempt. If you want to talk about voting records, I challenge anyone here to defend ANY other candidate’s voting/legislative record in its entirety. Ron Paul will win in the category of consistency any day of the week, against any other candidate. You point out how he voted to abolish the Department of Education like that is a bad thing. You people seriously need to wake up. The US Constitution gives the federal government no authority to control education, and the DoE and Child Left Behind are destroying public education in this country. I work in education, my wife is a teacher, her sister is a teacher, her mother is a teacher…I could go on. Do you even realize what these school districts do to our children to compete for federal dollars? It’s sickening, dangerous, and unconstitutional. Most of the people working in education have had enough.
Also, to the genius who brought up the Federalist Papers…would you care to explain how, exactly, Ron Paul has “misinterpreted” the Constitution, and the source of the interpretation you apparently subscribe to? You must be reading a different document (IE not the Supreme Law of the Land) if you think that Ron Paul’s views on constitutional authority are anything but honest and politically accurate. We aren’t talking about the Bible here, the US Constitution enumerates the rights of the people and the powers of government very clearly, with little room for interpretation. If something is wrong, we amend it. Otherwise we follow it without any deviation. Our government has failed to do so, and we have all failed to punish them for it. Ron Paul is our only hope.
The bashers and haters seem to be a bit silent about their preferred candidates…probably because not a single one of them even comes close to Dr. Paul in the categories of honesty and consistency.
RestoreTheRepublic # 53
Yeah, that about sums it up.
@RestoreTheRepublic: I’ll be happy to oblige. I’m not an expert, but I do know some things. If you were to follow the constitution the way RP has it down, you would not have much of a United States. You would not have a US Treasury, for example. This seems like a given thing to have, and possibly something that might have had a big impact on the development of this country, but no, this was a huge controversy at the end of the 18th century.
There are many examples of things we take for granted that the federal government has done in the last few hundred years that aren’t talked about in the constitution. Alexander Hamilton was (I think) the first to introduce the implied powers of the executive branch, and that argument has admittedly been used to some extremes at times.
RP is basically picking and choosing what he thinks is “unconstitutional” for the federal government to do. He is holding up the constitution as this wonderful document that we should adhere to, but conveniently forgetting how it’s been interpreted for the last 200+ years. That’s including by those who wrote it! It doesn’t get any more clear than that.
I agree that the No Child Left Behind legislation is a good candidate for The Stupidest Idea Ever, but that doesn’t mean the federal government is all bad. It needs competent leadership, who values competence over loyalty. In theory the people should choose the most competent leader. Unfortunately the leadership we have has been very manipulative, playing on peoples’ fear to stay in power. You might guess from what I’ve written that I would vote for Obama, or maybe even Bloomberg if he runs.
@Stryder: That’s pretty funny because I was about to write to you that surely all you need to be happy was your property and a gun to protect it, maybe in sub-Saharan Africa where you would have very little government involvement? But I settled for the shorter version, which I should probably have done for RestoreTheRepublic also.
By the way, what does “Restore The Republic” mean? Restore to what? The 18th century standard, exactly as it was in 1776, before the federal government was established? Or maybe to the time of the Gold Rush? Please explain.
All right, that’s enough “bashing and hating” for now. Actually I kind of feel sorry for the guy.
net neutrality is NOT what it seems. it is like “no child left behind” in that it isn’t going to do what it seems it will do.
Don’t be so damn ignorant about this issue, it is important to understand that Net neutrality is being pushed by corporate lobbyists. you all should ask yourselves, WHY??!
Here’s the scam folks… Until you READ the entire bill, you have no idea what’s been slipped in there. The Patriot Act is an ideal example of this. Simply look at what’s been done under the guise of a glossy, noble sounding title…
Legislation is rarely a genuine reflection of the TITLE it’s been given…
Legislation is rarely a genuine representation of the PEOPLE it will affect–rather the will of powerful lobby dollars… You all know this…
Don’t let WebSide Ventures fool you with sound-bites. Look at the fruits Ron Paul has bore and perhaps even, READ the legislation he’s voted on!
I’ve never known of a politician as principaled an honest as Ron Paul.
What a mess. You people’s ideas are everywhere. Not a bad thing, it’s really great people are arguing over this stuff. I think #53 has it most correct. People make this country go round, not government. They wouldn’t be helpless without it, albeit things would be more chaotic. People in the Katrina disaster weren’t killing each other and raising hell. Criminals, sure, but the vast majority of people are pretty reasonable and only want to live and be happy. Government is good but needs to be strictly limited and defined, or you get what we have today… a pile of angry people.
3 simple things are the core of government’s purpose.
- protect individual rights
- protect property rights
- defend the country
Regulating money falls under property rights. The Dept of Treasury is necessary because it regulates the value of money. Money is property. Of course Paul believes in the Dept of Treasury. He is, however, against private involvement in regulating money, ergo the Federal Reserve.
The gay adoption thing needs more info. I don’t buy that he’s all anti-gay. Many other voting stances paint a different picture. I’m sure it’ll get clarified somewhere. Like Todd says, check the legislation. And if I’m wrong… oh man, what a sinister guy… lets execute him, that bastard.
Please get off the emotional high horses.
Cheers!
What a cynical lot we Americans have become. I am continually amazed and somewhat disgusted. Some people above are jumping to conclusions they obviously haven’t researched, and launching attacks based on poor “evidence”. I know it feels good to state your opinion and all, but for the sake of the rest of us, please take responsibility for yourselves. Talking about things you don’t fully understand muddies an otherwise intelligent conversation, and turns healthy debate into “I’m smart, you’re stupid”.
My point? America needs to unify. Not by the iron fist of the collectivists, but by our free will and rationality as individuals. Not the easiest thing to do, I realize, but at least we can try. Can’t we?
Ron Paul is harmless. Better than that, he really wants to fix this mess. None of these other CFR cronies running for President are serious about THAT. Sound ideas, principles, and theorems- not outward appearances of the same- are going to be our guides in this revolution.
I think we need to get back to the Constitution, or as near as possible. The Law needs to be clear and concise, so all can know it and understand it. If we get to that point, We the People will at least be in charge of our own destiny again. No more lawyers yanking us around with laws we’ve never even heard of. We’re at a crossroads as a nation… Golden Age, or despotism?
Lovers of Liberty: get the facts, run for office, support like-minded people, and we can certainly take our power back.
Ok, I feel better now.
You can lead a cow to fluoride, but you can’t make him think.
Ethanol is a good option to replace the fuel, that the prices are higher every day. It is easy to make even in your own backyard and the instructions on how ethanol is made can be found on the Internet.
finally, a Ron Paul interview on Techcrunch. Good work guys. Don’t forget to Vote for Ron Paul in your states primary!
WOW Another great interview as expected from Cong. Ron Paul. We need honest leaders.
Mattias: “RP is basically picking and choosing what he thinks is “unconstitutional” for the federal government to do.”
This is true, but not the way you make it sound. He picks and chooses what is unconstitutional for the federal government to do based on a strict literal translation of the constitution. The U.S. Constitution is not like the bible. it is law, a written legal contract between the government of the United States of America its people. There must not be any “interpretation,” but only reading and applying what is there. If the constitutions gives us the right to bear arms, than we must all be allowed to do so. If we feel exceptions should be made (such as for atomic bombs or people who are clinically insane or have criminal records) than the contract must be changed, not simply “interpreted” differently in a way that it was “supposed” to mean, which is really just going to end up being whatever meaning you want it to have.
As far as I can tell Ron Paul think the Fderal government should have a role in just the fallowing:
1. National security. (as apposed to global security, i.e. Iraq/Korea)
2. Providing and protecting a sound currency. (as apposed to a private bank running the show)
3. Protecting the inalienable rights of the people outlined in the constitution. (as apposed to things like the patriot act, the FDA, IRS, banning gay marriage, national ID cards, the FDE, and many many other examples)
4. Amending the constitution when the people see fit. (such as a constitutional amendment defining when human life begins, as apposed to the courts legislating instead of judging)
So basically the federal government would by tiny if he had his way, letting the free market (NGO’s, companies, churches, consumers, families, etc.) take care of many of the things the Fed does (very poorly, I might add) these days. Yes, he is picking and choosing the role of the federal government, but he’s picking and choosing very little, and he’s picking and choosing based on a strict reading (rather than “interpretation”) of the U.S. Constitution.