We need to get the guy that says "Are you ready for some football?!?!?!?!" to say "Are you ready for some Ron Paul?!?!?!?!" Before this next interview! I'm more than excited for Mr. No Limits Ventura and Dr. No more B.S. Paul! By the way Joseph that Newsweek deal is just plain idiotic.
I remember in 2007 when they had the candidate matrix on MSNBC's site and they had a red-green color system and Ron Paul was the greenest candidate out of everyone (meaning favorable) yet he's not in office. It's plain nuts. I'm so frustrated with our fellow Americans.
Ya the link is a little funny, but if you go to newsweek.com and then search "GOP 2012" or whatever it will pop up and you can see how much Newsweek believes Ron Paul has a chance at getting the GOP nomination.
Will Ron Paul or Ratigan mention the major gold fraud fallout and market manipulation that was disclosed within the last week? I can't find any mainstream media covering this issue which is a huge freaking deal. Anyone investing in gold and only has it on paper is being scammed!
Give Eliot Spitzer credit for stating that Dr. Paul has "enormous political sway and popularity across America"!!!! and acknowedging that he created the tea parties!!!!
Courts have ruled against so-called "net neutrality," keeping the governements hands off the internet, at least for the time being.
A federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.
Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose so called "net neutrality" obligations.
It marks a serious setback for the FCC, which needs authority to regulate the Internet in order to push ahead with key parts of its massive national broadband plan.
Good for now. We'll see if they pass another law to grant the FCC the power and try again. Or the Cybersecurity Act will just usurp that for the president cart blanche.
The funny thing is, the phone's have been around since before I was born, and I never heard about phone companies granting special privilages on their carrier lines.
I'm a bit confused why this is good. I dislike the federal government telling companies what to do, but this may be a case where it's actually better for the public.
The way I understand it, Comcast was/is filtering user traffic. Bittorrent traffic is slowed/blocked. The FCC was trying to halt the filter, saying "traffic is traffic". Essentially Comcast can decide what webpages/traffic it's users can utilize. Normally this would not be a problem but in most cases Comcast is a monopoly and the only choice being filtered internet wouldn't be ideal.
What good is regulating broadband anyway....if something is not available will not someone step forward to provide whatever is lacking? If the government action is restrictive in any way, will not restrictions just engender an internet black market?
I get all kinds of crap on the net. I don't think a single day goes by that I am not informed that I am awarded millions of dollars by some guy in Nigeria. If they can't police transparent fraud, how could they ever regulate someone who is actually intelligent?
I do believe that the FCC is unconstitutional. However, I also believe that we should strive to keep an eye on situations like these.
Unless we know the parties involved in Internet communications are just as committed to dissolving the FCC as we are, I don't have a problem with trying to regulate them. I think we can all agree that the Internet infrastructure is fairly fragile; for instance, in an emergency, if the government really wanted to shut down the Internet, what would prevent them from occupying and manually shutting down the major bandwidth servers nodes?
I think transparency is a relative term and we should be careful until everyone's cards (the FCC and the ISPs) are on the table.
I strongly disagree that it's a victory for Internet freedom.
Giving ISPs the ability to filter the Internet and promote their own content at the expense of everyone else's is against Internet freedom, it would seem to me. Despite some of what's being published, the net neutrality policies would NOT allow the government to control or filter the Internet either... it simply prevents Internet service providers from throttling bandwidth for certain companies while allowing full speed for others.
To those who would say "let the free market deal with it", I would agree, except that we don't have a free market in ISPs right now. Granted, this is mostly due to government subsidization, particularly in the Clinton years, of several large companies (and smaller companies that eventually were acquired by larger ones) to lay down fiber and expand high-speed Internet service; yet we can't ignore the fact that, today, most Americans are lucky if they have two decent options for Internet service.
I, for example, live in Baton Rouge and can either choose from Cox Cable, who are admitted throttlers of BitTorrent files and AT&T DSL, which is, well, AT&T, and we all know their nasty little habits (hint: they usually involve the NSA).
While regulation wouldn't be my first choice, it's about all you have left. Any other ideas would be appreciated, but I just don't see why we should be celebrating this. Worry more about the bills that would give the Internet to the Pres on a silver platter if he declares a "cyber-emergency"...
Kevin, I agree that there's a weird anti-liberty situation here.
On the one hand, we should be against the FCC having any power. The government should stay away from the internet.
On the other, Internet companies in some areas have a monopoly. If we go against net neutrality, we're essentially feeding into a non-free-market situation.
But, it's important to stress that the non-free-market situation we're seeing with ISPs, is directly caused by the government granting monopolies to certain companies. Usually we're talking about local/city/state governments. But there have been federal subsidies as well.
Therefore, we must be against net neutrality. And we must support anything that will encourage a free-market in ISPs. But since there's nothing like that on the table, we're left with being against net neutrality.
This could have a positive effect in the future though. If ISPs abuse their service, that could be used by us to try and encourage a free-market in internet service. But I don't see that happening. All of the things that the net neutrality movement is trying to avoid, are things that don't exist now. If the ISPs haven't done these things so far, why would they start now?
And again, in the cases of ISPs throttling certain traffic, the best solution there is to encourage competition. Not to regulate.
I don't *for a second* believe that this decision will mean more 'freedom' for anyone.
I'm a Comcast customer, paying a little more than $110/month for cable TV and high speed internet. I've avoided Comcast's VoIP service called "Comcast Digital Voice" in favor of VoIP service from Vonage, which is cheaper and offers more features.
What, pray tell, will happen to my Vonage phone service now?
Comcast now has the 'freedom' to effectively put a pair of pliers on the line *only* running to my Vonage box, while inserting a stent in the line for their own VoIP service.
And video content? Interesting... My TV has an Ethernet jack on it. This jack is for plugging the TV *directly* into the internet. With internet 'widgets' on the set, I can access (and pay other providers directly for) Blockbuster video on demand and Amazon.com video on demand. Think Comcast will allow this traffic to interfere with the delivery of their own content and services? Why would they?
Now, I'd be happy to choose another provider -- and I would do so in a heartbeat -- but there aren't any other providers in my area. So, I'm stuck with only one choice and soon I expect that choice to 'shape' my internet traffic any way it wants, because after all this is 'freedom'.
I'm sorry, but depite Adam's well-written article to the contrary (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=25893), you will not convince me that this is a win in favor of freedom.
Here is what Ron Paul said about Microsoft, I remember this quite clearly and it was not difficult to find (http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-01-29/ron-paul-on-c-spans-washington-journal/):
> If the business is big, it’s big for one reason in the free market. Because it
> provides a product at the right price. The price is low. But what you want to make
> sure there’s always free entry. But just because somebody, like Microsoft, because
> they’re big, you know, there’s an anti-trust laws passed, you know filed against
> Microsoft. Well, Microsoft is big because you and I, we are buying their products.
> But you don’t want government to come in and say how much business that Microsoft
> should have. But you have to have free entry.
Read the last sentence again: YOU HAVE TO HAVE FREE ENTRY.
Does Comcast favoring their content over the content of others sound like free entry to anyone?
Sorry, no way.
Comcast sees the writing on the wall. TV shows aren't an 8:00 pm deal anymore, customers want 'on demand' access. Comcast is clearly trying to position themselves as the uber-provider: Own the pipe, own the content.
Gee, that C4L video on YouTube sure looks fuzzy...?
Accurate assessment by Dr.Paul. Also Ratigan Show is the only sober reporter on MSNBC but show is buried in obscure time slots and not repeated (liberal shows favored).
I don't know why they keep saying that the Republicans do not have a plan when they asked to put cross state line competition into the bill, tort reform and the Doctor fix as well as many other things including health care savings accounts.
Let me tell you this, my feet are KILLING ME! I went to staples today and spent $101.00 with a $20 off coupon and had 1,500 copies of "A letter to the American people" with the campaign for liberty link on it as well as asking for support for Edward M. Gonzalez for Congress to defeat Zoe Lofgren. I just rolled and banded 250 and put on door knobs and I really feel like I did something to change this nation.
Each an everyone of us need to do something because our Supreme court and States are letting the Feds, special interest groups, lobbyists and unions roll right over us. The day of enjoying apathy is over. Go into the materials link and print out some fliers or buy some pocket constitutions for your friends.
@nurse emily
Its because they are totalitarians which don't recognize the existence of the private sector. Its a total state mentality where everything is state action and private action doesn't exist.
Of course I am partial because we are family, but I think Kelley Paul is great! If Rand moves on to the Senate this fall, she could be a great messenger for Liberty and limited government.
Disclaimer: This website has moved. Please visit campaignforliberty.org
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
RSS feed
