Slashdot Mirror
Ron Paul Campaign Answers Slashdot Reader Questions
On January 15th we asked you for tech-oriented questions we could send to the various presidential candidates, and you responded like mad. The candidates were the exact opposite: not a single one answered emails we sent to their "media inquiry" links or email addresses. Slashdot has more readers than all but a handful of major daily papers, so that's kind of strange. Maybe they figure our votes aren't worth much or that hardly any of us vote. In any case, the Ron Paul campaign finally responded, due to some string-pulling by a Slashdot reader who knows some of Ron Paul's Texas campaign people. Perhaps other Slashdot readers -- like you (hint hint) -- can pull a few strings with some of the other campaigns and get them to communicate with us. Use this email address, please. But first, you'll probably want to read the Ron Paul campaign's answers to your questions (below).
1) Global high tech
In the last year, India and China have both announced and made progress towards implementing their own space programs. How should America respond to such growing technological boldness in such countries? Is it a threat or an opportunity?
Ron Paul campaign:
America should stop subsidizing the defenses of the rest of the world and worry more about its own national security interests, including its interests in a viable space program. As president, I will also work to remove barriers to private space flight.
2) Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?
I've noticed that a number of candidates (I'm not naming names) and a number of administration officials will not answer a question in a clear and concise fashion. The subject could be anything from "Do you think waterboarding is torture?" to "What will be your stance toward the war in Iraq if you are elected?"
So my question to you is, "Do you think that I want someone in that office (Whichever one it is) who is deliberately attempting to deceive me?"
Even if you don't answer this question, I hope you think about it the next time someone asks you a question.
Ron Paul campaign:
The American people should expect clear and direct answers to their questions. Not only have I always strived to clearly state my position on issues, but my voting record backs up my commitment to the free-market, limited government philosophy I espouse on the campaign trail.
3) Marijuana
I'm a college graduate with a decent job in a technical field. I pay my taxes, my debts are minimal. I get along well with others, and am close to my family. I like to think that I am a good citizen and contribute to society. Yet because I smoke marijuana instead of drinking beer when I come home from work, my government has declared war on me.
My question is this: Do you believe I belong in jail? If so, why? If not, what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?
Ron Paul campaign:
I oppose federal laws outlawing marijuana and I oppose federal interference with state medical marijuana laws.
4) What do you think about technology?
Can you clarify your policy around fair use of digital media and content? More specifically, can you explain how you will balance the rights of the average citizen to use digital content in "fair use" ways (backups, time-shifting, parody, etc.) with the need for corporations to protect IP investments? With the previous two administrations we have seen an erosion of fair-use rights via the DMCA and copyright extension bills. As President, will your policies tend to favor these trends or reverse them?
Ron Paul campaign:
I favor enforcement of intellectual property rights; however, some of the steps taken to protect these rights impose unreasonable burdens on the consumers and even raise civil liberties concerns. As president, I will seek a balance between the interest of copyright holders and consumers of digital media.
5) What do you think about patents?
People complain about taxes being the main hindrance of innovation, but when someone creates a new product, be it an iPhone or a Blackberry, they aren't looking out for the tax man. The main hindrance to American technological innovation is a patent system that rewards people for sitting on ideas and punishes those who create new products.
It has become an accepted fact that when you create something new, you will likely have to pay companies that had nothing whatsoever to do with your invention, just because they filed a patent while never intending to actually produce or sell anything.
As President, would you fix our broken patent system?
Ron Paul campaign:
Patents have a role to play in encouraging innovation. While I do not have a plan for patent reform yet, I would want to work with Congress to make sure that the US patent system encourages and rewards innovation. Making sure the patent system is fair to small business and entrepreneurs, rewards the actual inventors of a product, and does not tilt the playing field to large corporations will be a priority in my administration's approach to patent law.
1) Global high tech
In the last year, India and China have both announced and made progress towards implementing their own space programs. How should America respond to such growing technological boldness in such countries? Is it a threat or an opportunity?
Ron Paul campaign:
America should stop subsidizing the defenses of the rest of the world and worry more about its own national security interests, including its interests in a viable space program. As president, I will also work to remove barriers to private space flight.
2) Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?
I've noticed that a number of candidates (I'm not naming names) and a number of administration officials will not answer a question in a clear and concise fashion. The subject could be anything from "Do you think waterboarding is torture?" to "What will be your stance toward the war in Iraq if you are elected?"
So my question to you is, "Do you think that I want someone in that office (Whichever one it is) who is deliberately attempting to deceive me?"
Even if you don't answer this question, I hope you think about it the next time someone asks you a question.
Ron Paul campaign:
The American people should expect clear and direct answers to their questions. Not only have I always strived to clearly state my position on issues, but my voting record backs up my commitment to the free-market, limited government philosophy I espouse on the campaign trail.
3) Marijuana
I'm a college graduate with a decent job in a technical field. I pay my taxes, my debts are minimal. I get along well with others, and am close to my family. I like to think that I am a good citizen and contribute to society. Yet because I smoke marijuana instead of drinking beer when I come home from work, my government has declared war on me.
My question is this: Do you believe I belong in jail? If so, why? If not, what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?
Ron Paul campaign:
I oppose federal laws outlawing marijuana and I oppose federal interference with state medical marijuana laws.
4) What do you think about technology?
Can you clarify your policy around fair use of digital media and content? More specifically, can you explain how you will balance the rights of the average citizen to use digital content in "fair use" ways (backups, time-shifting, parody, etc.) with the need for corporations to protect IP investments? With the previous two administrations we have seen an erosion of fair-use rights via the DMCA and copyright extension bills. As President, will your policies tend to favor these trends or reverse them?
Ron Paul campaign:
I favor enforcement of intellectual property rights; however, some of the steps taken to protect these rights impose unreasonable burdens on the consumers and even raise civil liberties concerns. As president, I will seek a balance between the interest of copyright holders and consumers of digital media.
5) What do you think about patents?
People complain about taxes being the main hindrance of innovation, but when someone creates a new product, be it an iPhone or a Blackberry, they aren't looking out for the tax man. The main hindrance to American technological innovation is a patent system that rewards people for sitting on ideas and punishes those who create new products.
It has become an accepted fact that when you create something new, you will likely have to pay companies that had nothing whatsoever to do with your invention, just because they filed a patent while never intending to actually produce or sell anything.
As President, would you fix our broken patent system?
Ron Paul campaign:
Patents have a role to play in encouraging innovation. While I do not have a plan for patent reform yet, I would want to work with Congress to make sure that the US patent system encourages and rewards innovation. Making sure the patent system is fair to small business and entrepreneurs, rewards the actual inventors of a product, and does not tilt the playing field to large corporations will be a priority in my administration's approach to patent law.
So, like, I'm confused. Who is actually answering these questions here? The title and story intro say the questions are answered by the "Ron Paul campaign." So does that mean this is, in fact, Ron Paul himself answering, or his people, or a combination, or...?
...I still support Ron Paul and am very vocal in proposing him as a choice to my many family, friends and customers who do vote.
Nonetheless, these answers were a bit short and vague, but I do agree with how he answered them. Ron Paul's greatest asset is that he does listen. I have an interesting story dating back many years to a gold conference I attended in San Mateo. Ron Paul was a keynote speaker there, and after his speech, everyone left the convention room to gather for drinks and snacks. Outside the room, I started speaking with some younger folk who gathered outside the convention room (the average age of people in the room was probably 70, and I was the only person under 40 who wasn't a nurse of an old person in a wheelchair). Even almost a decade ago, Paul had young fans who would gather to talk to him outside of the official convention. As I spoke to these teenagers and young adults, many from the convention gathered to hear me out. After about 45 minutes of fielding questions, the crowd finally dispersed, and then I noticed that Dr. Paul was in the crowd listening. A congressman who took time out from his then-hectic schedule to actually hear me speak about gold and freedom. We spoke for a few minutes, and since then I've regularly talked to him at other conventions he's attended. It's ridiculous to me to think that a popular congressman would take even a few minutes out of his life to listen to anyone but lobbyists, but Paul has done it again and again with people around him. Even during the current campaign I've seen Paul spend hours after a speech to shake hands, answer questions bluntly, and sign pocket Constitutions.
Paul's most magic words I've heard him speak is to say that as President he doesn't have the power that people would want HIM to have. He admits that the President's powers are very limited, and his sole purpose to be President is to use the bully pulpit to raise awareness on Constitutional issues. He would be wonderful with the veto pen, and he would call our big business and lobbying groups for their actions, as he has done (on C-SPAN) over his many years in Congress.
On the war issue that many neoconservatives hate him for, Paul has said repeatedly that he is against undeclared wars. He's also said that Presidents are to follow Congress on declaring war or refusing it. This means that Paul _would_ go to war if Congress declared it, even in Iraq. He's putting politicians in their responsible positions by demanding that they follow the Constitution.
Paul wants the Federal Department of Education gone, because they make a mess of education. He also admits he can't do it alone. He wants the IRS gone, because of its unconstitutionalist, but he can't do it alone. A vote for Paul is NOT a vote for getting rid of anything, or stopping a war, or ending rampant government growth -- it's a vote to put a freedom lover in the most powerful bully pulpit, to remind the politicians and the masses that freedom and responsibility are the individual's right to protect and follow through on.
Even though I don't vote, I support voters who make clear choices based on the Constitution that we believe in to protect the freedoms that I believe are God-granted, or inherent at birth for all people in all countries. Paul's message is powerful in that he's not looking to lead people, but to follow them, and protect their freedoms so they can make responsible, or irresponsible choices, and learn lessons from those choices. He's not looking to stop abortion, but to stop Federal involvement in an issue that is debatable as a "murder" cause. The definition of murder is a State issue, and Paul wants to force the issue there. I appreciate his candor and honesty even though I disagree with many positions of his.
I'm glad he answered these questions simply, because it allows you to see that Paul believes the President is near powerless, except for the veto pen and the bully pulpit.
Just blowing off steam. Sheesh.
I don't really see how that's the case, both answers seemed pretty compatible... perhaps if you had given a reason or two we could discuss this further. Your lack of details notwithstanding, let me try to explain why they are not in conflict: 1: He basically stated that by discontinuing our subsidization of other countries through military aid, they will quickly find they have a lot less money to blow on costly, competitive space plans. Beyond that, it's not our business to try to interfere with other countries' efforts to build a space infrastructure. We ought to try to improve our own, of course. 2: He said he believes we all deserve straightforward, concise answers to our questions. I see no conflict... I assume you intended to say that his answer to question 1 was somehow not a straight answer, but I contend that if you try using that brain of yours for something other than snarky comments you will quickly find he gave a very concise, logical answer to question 1 while explicitly avoiding buzzwords and fluff.
The whole thing is bullshit. There's no way anyone spent more than 15 minutes on these stupid answers. Also, typical politician speak, in which they take 5 sentences to say "I agree".
1) Global high tech
...It is very cold in space.
In the last year, India and China have both announced and made progress towards implementing their own space programs. How should America respond to such growing technological boldness in such countries? Is it a threat or an opportunity?
Khan Paul campaign:
Do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish that is best served cold?
2) Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?
I've noticed that a number of candidates (I'm not naming names) and a number of administration officials will not answer a question in a clear and concise fashion. The subject could be anything from "Do you think waterboarding is torture?" to "What will be your stance toward the war in Iraq if you are elected?"
So my question to you is, "Do you think that I want someone in that office (Whichever one it is) who is deliberately attempting to deceive me?"
Even if you don't answer this question, I hope you think about it the next time someone asks you a question.
Khan Paul campaign: Oh, I've given you no word to keep, Admiral. In my judgement, you simply have no alternative.
3) Marijuana
I'm a college graduate with a decent job in a technical field. I pay my taxes, my debts are minimal. I get along well with others, and am close to my family. I like to think that I am a good citizen and contribute to society. Yet because I smoke marijuana instead of drinking beer when I come home from work, my government has declared war on me.
My question is this: Do you believe I belong in jail? If so, why? If not, what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?
Khan Paul campaign:
I've done far worse than kill you. I've hurt you. And I wish to go on... hurting you. I shall leave you as you left me, as you left her. Marooned for all eternity, in the center of a dead planet. Buried alive... buried alive.
4) What do you think about technology?
Can you clarify your policy around fair use of digital media and content? More specifically, can you explain how you will balance the rights of the average citizen to use digital content in "fair use" ways (backups, time-shifting, parody, etc.) with the need for corporations to protect IP investments? With the previous two administrations we have seen an erosion of fair-use rights via the DMCA and copyright extension bills. As President, will your policies tend to favor these trends or reverse them?
Khan Paul campaign:
You see, their young enter through the ears and wrap themselves around the cerebral cortex. This has the effect of rendering the victim extremely susceptible to suggestion. Later as they grow follows madness.. and death.
5) What do you think about patents?
People complain about taxes being the main hindrance of innovation, but when someone creates a new product, be it an iPhone or a Blackberry, they aren't looking out for the tax man. The main hindrance to American technological innovation is a patent system that rewards people for sitting on ideas and punishes those who create new products.
It has become an accepted fact that when you create something new, you will likely have to pay companies that had nothing whatsoever to do with your invention, just because they filed a patent while never intending to actually produce or sell anything.
As President, would you fix our broken patent system?
Khan Paul campaign:
No. No, you can't get away. From hell's heart, I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.
Khan Paul 2008
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
So we should vote based on who's viable rather than who's right? Anymore, this seems to exemplify exactly what's wrong with this country.
Not just leading, but real "softball" questions. I'm surprised they didn't ask if he likes puppies. I'm pleased to learn he believes in providing direct answers to direct questions and I'd like some answers to questions such as:
Do you believe the current levels of illegal immigration are harmful to America in terms of economy and culture? If so, how do you propose to reduce/end illegal immigration?
Do you believe in open borders -- unrestricted immigration?
In Republican debate #2, you implied that America was not attacked on 9/11. What words, the, would you use to describe the events of that day -- the murder of thousands of people by organized foreign nationals subsidized by States, the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars in property and the follow-on damage to our economy?
Should those on welfare be disallowed from voting?
What restrictions to firearm ownership do you support?
Do you believe the Federal government has exceeded the authority granted to it by the Constitution? If so, how do you propose to return America's Federal government to the limited powers proscribed therein?
How will you reduce America's dependence on foreign oil?
Is healthcare a right?
Please give you opinion regarding Kelo v. City of New London (Supreme court deciison which gives municipalities broad powers to seize private property for the purpose of increasing tax revenues).
etc.
Frankly, I'd like answers to those questions from ALL politicians. It would be a step forward, instead of the current internecine squabbling : the "he said/she said/you made the girl cry" pandering Soap Opera.
To be fair, those questions outright SUCKED. *That's* the best Slashdot can give our candidates? No wonder no one responded! I was expecting questions that would give a layman's summary of all the great issues whose explanation we take for granted, including patents, copyright, distribution monopoly, fair use, parenting in the digital age, internet governance, etc., and then ask for a well-reasoned or thought-out action plan. But these questions do nothing to motivate a person to think deeply about anything I care about.
Fuck, you have an opportunity to get official answers to questions that would *never* be asked in a mainstream debate, and instead you shove forward crap about Marijuana and "our elected officials deceive us"? We all deserve the shitty response we got.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
It is actually pretty consistent with the rest of his campaign literature...
His logic goes like this.
Why spend 1 trillion dollars and 100,000 soldiers protecting oil flow and royally pissing off huge numbers of people. If the "real" cost of oil is $200 a barrel and we are hiding that by using tax payer money to provide security then stop doing that. With the true price of oil unmasked, then other alternatives become economically viable.
Why put 35,000 troops and a hundred million dollars a year into other countries we have been at peace with since 1960 or earlier? We could have those troops ready to move fast to real problem areas and use the money to buy new planes and tanks instead of funding discos in germany, japan, and south korea where our young troops go to party on leave.
---
In a recent election in texas we passed 14 of 15 tax increases. Because they were phrased as vital new services instead of as tax increases. Easily 30% of what the federal government does could be cut back and then you can immediately pay off the deficit and then lower taxes. And those lost services would be replaced at the state level in the states that felt they were good enough to pay for.
We have essentially created a "commons" of "free" money in the federal government. We are looting and pillaging it while ignoring the fact that the "free" money is really coming out of our own pockets.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The problem with that philosophy is that the candidate does not know that you don't agree with on most issues and only voted for them because they were "viable". In their perspective you fully support the platform they ran on. This can be seen from the 2004 election where the many voters felt they were voting for "the lesser of 2 evils", but Bush took winning the popular vote as a "mandate" for his policies.
In order for anything to actually change, you sometimes have to vote for candidate "A" who has no chance of winning the current election. When this occurs then the other candidates/parties will be forced to consider the positions of "A" and likely integrate some of "A"s positions into their platforms.
Java has no friends.
"Little is much when little you need."
For those of you asleep at the wheel, the PATRIOT act was re-authorized in March of 2006, at which time Obama voted for it.
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
--James Madison
I normally wouldn't answer a rant like yours, but I feel I must as it's been rated "insightful" for some frightful reason. Guess I'll be losing my Karma.
You are wrong. Most people do not want to have the gov't be their mommy. Most people either feel helpless to fix the system, are just greedy, or don't think at all. They know the government is broken, but don't feel that they can do anything about it. One man I know feels that the tax cuts are wrong, and that W. has betrayed his conservative ideals, but this man still wants his tax cut money. Why? Because he says that the system is so far gone, he may as well "get his". I think that if you ask around, most people will say they just "want theirs". Greed is good, right Mr. Libertarian? Problem is, if we don't work together sometimes things just don't work.
Gagh, you made me defend centrists. Now I must shower.
You are full of shit. Period.
Nothing in his congressional record, personal life, nor his medical practice leads one iota of credence to the newsletters. In fact, it's just the opposite.
Would the president of the NAACP back someone like you just described? Of course not. Would someone that you just described deliver babies for free to African American and Hispanic families that were too poor to afford it? No.
He was running a full time medical practice and left the newsletters in care of people he thought he could trust. That was a mistake, as there were those who had a different agenda. At least he admitted he had been careless, unlike MOST of our elected officials (Iraq War).
His actions speak a lot louder than the words written by some assholes who had a vendetta. Here's a challenge for you. I want you to find one, just one instance where an action in his personal, medical, or political life shows paranoid racism. You won't find one.
He's not a libertarian. He's a constitutionalist. There is a difference.
~X~
~X~