So much for Ron Paul, he voted against net neutrality

[e-brake]

Despite the fact that no one would know who the hell he is without the internet and net neutrality he voted against it. When he was confronted by his supporters his only response was "Quite frankly I don't understand all the details..."

So much for the last candidate for president that I felt I could support this year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RJzZjdVCNs

[BrandonWhat]

Originally Posted by e-brake

So much for the last candidate for president that I felt I could support this year.

Why not Pelosi?

[zerojunkie]

As much as I dislike Ron Paul, he didn't just say that he didn't understand that much about it and voted against it anyways. The one thing I like about him is that he really is for smaller government, and regulating something like net neutrality is just another needless expansion of government. Net neutrality has never existed, ISP's have always known it's in their best interests to provide unfettered access to the internet or people will vote with their pocketbooks.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by e-brake

Despite the fact that no one would know who the hell he is without the internet and net neutrality he voted against it. When he was confronted by his supporters his only response was "Quite frankly I don't understand all the details..."

So much for the last candidate for president that I felt I could support this year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RJzZjdVCNs

Hi, welcome to what a real Libertarian looks like. He voted against it because he didn't want *any* regulation on the Internet at all.

[umalak_]

it's not like he stands any chance to win it anyway

[DJPePe]

Originally Posted by umalak_

it's not like he stands any chance to win it anyway

Never say never my friend.

[umalak_]

never. there, i said it.

[Iridescectile]

That fact is it is unlikely that any candidate is going to agree with your views a 100%. I have mixed feelings about the whole net neutrality issue and I completely disagree with Ron Paul on abortion, however still believe he is the best candidate running for president (Gravel is the only other one who even comes close to being acceptable to me) and I do think Ron Paul has at least some chance of being elected.

[puppethead]

Originally Posted by e-brake

Despite the fact that no one would know who the hell he is without the internet and net neutrality he voted against it. When he was confronted by his supporters his only response was "Quite frankly I don't understand all the details..."

So much for the last candidate for president that I felt I could support this year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RJzZjdVCNs

Your interest is very easily broken. You make a quick decision on the last candidate that you could support and worse its just one issue, while the other candidates have
pages full of issues.
Luckily CNET had the best information to lead me to the full conclusion. Ron Paul does not oppose Net Neutrality at all. He Voted NO on a so-called "Net Neutrality" amendment to the Internet Non-Discrimination Act. Net Neutrality was in the name of the amendment but it was NOT benefiting Net Neutrality. It would have amended the Act in place now that passed in early 2006.
http://wyden.senate.gov/media/2006/0...lity_bill.html

And here's an article about the amendment later that year that got voted down. The second half of the Article is more specific to why it was voted down. Mainly that it would hand over full control to the FCC
and alow them to Tax the Internet. Whereas the Non-Desc Act is working just fine, there is still some FCC regulation, but they have limits now at least.

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6058223.html

The thing is. There are extremes on BOTH sides of the Net Neutrality issue. Protecting Net Neutrality works by not letting either Extreme take over the other. Too Little Regulation or Too Much. Since then here's another Act that passed and between the two we have pretty good Net Neutrality so far, we dont need FULL Regulation which Ron Paul is against thank god! You should be very concerned that he reads carefully and understands bills that get rushed through congress unlike most every other congressman.

http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=node/3292


Just because someone tries to "slip" something through congress labeled as Net Neutrality, doesnt mean that it is. Its a fine line to walk. Im glad I dont make that decision. Also through research on many websites, I see how so often different News Sources interpret something completely different than another, and I also see how alot of News Sources just copy the words from another with no research of their own.

Please help set the record straight though when you see people slamming Ron Paul on this subject. Thanks!

-Joel / PuppetHead
www.myspace.com/bands4ronpaul

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by umalak_

never. there, i said it.

Right now Ron Paul has more money in his campaign than McCain, the guy most pundits thought was a lock for the GOP nomination 6 months ago.

[umalak_]

even if Paul won the nomination, i think the country is going Democrat this next election.

Even if every single American knew exactly who Ron Paul was, what he stood for, where he thinks this country should be headed... I think STILL they'd vote for someone else. People either don't understand, don't care, or don't agree with the ideas that Ron Paul has.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by umalak_

even if Paul won the nomination, i think the country is going Democrat this next election.

Even if every single American knew exactly who Ron Paul was, what he stood for, where he thinks this country should be headed... I think STILL they'd vote for someone else. People either don't understand, don't care, or don't agree with the ideas that Ron Paul has.

People said that in 2004. If the Dems nominate another lifeless dickbag like Kerry(and you would think they'd have learned from Gore), all bets are off.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

Right now Ron Paul has more money in his campaign than McCain, the guy most pundits thought was a lock for the GOP nomination 6 months ago.

McCain is a lock to drop early... what can he expect from spending the last 8+ years pissing off the people he now needs for money and other support?

Originally Posted by Dionysos

People said that in 2004. If the Dems nominate another lifeless dickbag like Kerry(and you would think they'd have learned from Gore), all bets are off.

Hillary has her shit together though and it looks like shes grabbed the party by the ears and is trying to whip it into shape despite itself... the Dems have a better chance now, imo, than they did against GW. They just fell all over themselves finding ways to lose to that guy. So, the GOP may have a (good lord how couldn't they) a much better candidate than GW but the DNC's improvement I think may well be greater.