Candidates Barely Mention Tech Issues

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
If you tuned into the ]MySpace candidate event earlier this week hoping to see where the candidates stand on tech issues, you might be disappointed.

Net neutrality, piracy, and online privacy were barely mentioned (UPDATE: Ron Paul did briefly allude to his opposition to restrictions on Net use and online government snooping), and environmental and energy issues were only addressed peripherally as the vast majority of talk focused on the war in Iraq and the economy.
Click to expand...
 
I'd have to agree with Ron Paul on tech issues (as well as most everything else). I don't want the federal government anywhere near the Internet. They are too close to the corporations and so they would just make (more) problems.
 
Net Neutrality Neutrality legislation is a wolf in sheep's clothing & thats why Dr.No vote no to it.
 
AFTFNJ said:
Net Neutrality Neutrality legislation is a wolf in sheep's clothing & thats why Dr.No vote no to it.
Click to expand...


no more edit huh?

Net Neutrality legislation is a wolf in sheep's clothing & thats why Dr.No voted no to it.
 
Vote Ron Paul in 2008! You may not like his (some would say) odd stance on foreign policy, but as soon as our beloved dollar finishes its collapse our foreign policy will likely be irrelevant.

I realize that it could be said that you are throwing your vote away by doing pulling the lever for Dr. Paul, but I prefer to think of it as sending a message to the clowns in Washington - that America is waking up to what you are doing to us financially. Ron Paul won't win the White House but hopefully someone like-minded will in 4 to 8 years. If we have that long...

(And no, I'm not a Ron Paul spammer who joined the [H] to make a few quick Ron Paul posts and split. Just want to qualify that :D)
 
of course not. then there would have to be some actual learning going on. Our "candidates" are all tweedle dee or dweedle dum.

no one with common sense or a foot in reality will win. only in D.C. can someone raise and spend 100 million dollars to obtain a job that pays 150k a year. and i am supposed to believe there no graft going on :rolleyes:
 
xxGriff said:
of course not. then there would have to be some actual learning going on. Our "candidates" are all tweedle dee or dweedle dum.

no one with common sense or a foot in reality will win. only in D.C. can someone raise and spend 100 million dollars to obtain a job that pays 150k a year. and i am supposed to believe there no graft going on :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Dude, being the POTUS is not about the salary. None of these people need the money. It's all about The Power. Becuase you'd be the fucking POTUS.

Anyway, I think tech issues are irrelvant when:

1) we're pushing a 9.2 trillion debit. Approx 40% of this racked up during the current administration.
2) They want to give us a tax rebate using money we don't have. So they'll borrow it from China so we can buy more Chinese crap. Stimulus package fpor which economy, again?
3) The FY 09 budget from W is 3 trillion. That's a first and it doesn't include the cost of Iraq and Afghan operations.

Factoid: W was the first to hit $2Tn and now the first to hit $3Tn. It took over 200 years for us to hit 1Tn, during the Regan years.

Man, I don't care who makes it into office. Any of the candiates from either party will be better than our current retard.

Enjoy: Debt-o-graph
 
ianken said:
Dude, being the POTUS is not about the salary. None of these people need the money. It's all about The Power. Becuase you'd be the fucking POTUS.
Click to expand...

They do make a hell of a lot of money after the presidency from public events and such.

Factoid: W was the first to hit $2Tn and now the first to hit $3Tn. It took over 200 years for us to hit 1Tn, during the Regan years.
Enjoy: Debt-o-graph
Click to expand...

Its also important to note that the exponential increase in debt began after Nixon ended the Bretton Woods system, the last tie between the dollar and gold.

Yet another issue that only Dr. Paul will talk about.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Its also important to note that the exponential increase in debt began after Nixon ended the Bretton Woods system, the last tie between the dollar and gold.

Yet another issue that only Dr. Paul will talk about.
Click to expand...

Exactly right! That's why your savings can sit in the bank yet be worth less year after year, at no fault of your own. It's the hidden tax of out-of-control inflation. Won't be all that "hidden" for long, though.

It doesn't help that too many people don't seem to want to -- or either simply can't -- understand these financial concepts.
 
main stream media blacks out Ron Paul, the only sensible candidate right now. Yet they give all the time in the world to Romney, McCain, Hliary and Obama? Romney & McCain are nuts. Hilary is going to move us toward a welfare state. And Obama, I haven't heard him talk about anything of substance on the level of RP. All I hear from Obama is godam sugar coated rhetoric. I'm afraid Obama will under the guise of "uniting" is going to move us more dependent on the government.
 
zomg leik RON PAUL.

Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul. Ron Paul.


Sorry, the reality is, it's over for him. He isn't going to win anything. Everyone can go cry themselves to sleep now. Seriously. He cannot collect enough delegates to become the nominee. His average is around 6% of the vote, depending on which statistics you go off of.

I could guarantee if another candidate popped up that supported legalizing marijuana, the internet children would be behind him 100% just like Ron Paul, even if they didn't agree with any other ideals he believes in. Face it, nearly all Ron Paul supporters don't believe in true conservatism, or probably even know what it stands for. When you bring up hot button issues, Ron Paul supporters act like the most leftist socialists you can find on the face of the earth. Quite comical and ironic. :p
 
Hey w1retap...to be honest most of the time i agree with you...but i have to disagree on this one.

can you please back up the leftist socialist stuff, i'm a precinct leader for the campaign and was following it long before i joined and I just don't see it.

Also the the primaries are well above 6%, and the phone polling and such is a poor gauge because of so many first time or party changed voters.

While i do believe his chances are hurt due to the media dogs keeping him under wraps as much as possible... i really don't see the people supporting him to be the way you describe, and i've seen a lot of them.
 
I don't think anyone here is under the delusion that he can win, but okay.

And you're entitled to your opinion of course but I think you're wrong about the motivations of "most" Paul supporters. Personally I don't smoke marijuana -- but I do think that the State's should legislate that (along with about 85% of what the wasteful federal government currently legislates).

Wouldn't it be wonderful to live in a Union where the States are free to govern and legislate based on the will of their respective peoples? After all, no one could argue that the people of California have the exact same beliefs as those from Georgia. Or New York. Or Hawaii.

That's why the founders set it up that way.
 
Manaknight said:
Can you please back up the leftist socialist stuff, i'm a precinct leader for the campaign and was following it long before i joined and I just don't see it.
Click to expand...
Visit some college campuses and look in various web forums across the web. I'm not speaking of well informed voters. I'm speaking in terms of the Ron Paul band wagon effect on young voters.
 
gotcha, that does make a bit more sense, though i would also go so far as to those are the ones that i don't really see when i'm out and about.

actually though i have to give credit to where i live... the colleges are actually quite well informed, granted the upside is you have CMU, Duquesne (catholic university), and University of Pittsburgh), from what i see there thankfully you don't get that kind of bandwagon.

Though poking around to an extent i see your beef with the forum ones.

And you are pretty dead on Gollum. whats good for one state isn't good all over the place, which between that, the abolishment of the fed, and privacy rights, i'm all for him.

the thing with tech is it should be covered more, but as noted in this thread, with the exception of Ron Paul the other bought and paid fors don't need to talk tech, they just need to crash the dollar like instructed, then yeah...it doesn't matter
 
If you want to do a fun little experiment, on campus or wherever there are Ron Paul supporters in person, ask them why they believe Ron Paul would make a good president. Act like you're part of the newspaper doing a survey or something. Here's the answers you'll receive... in this order.
1. Change... (and they won't be able to tell you what the change is)
2. Marijuana Legality (they'll stall at first but then eventually get to the point)
3. Voting Record (they'll tell you he has a strong voting record)

Which then brings you to the lighting questions round. Ask about what they believe in or how they would vote on certain issues, then see how it matches up with Ron Paul's record. You'll find pretty comical results. My brother did one of these surveys for his comparative politics class and the results were utterly hilarious. I don't remember the percentages, but it was somewhere around ~78% would actually align their viewpoints with the furthest left candidates in the election, but instead they are very uninformed and just went along blindly with the bandwagon. It is pretty scary that these are the same type people that will be the first to call you a blind sheep for supporting a strong offense and national defense. :p But, from what I saw, hardly a quarter of the Paul'ites could actually tell you what the man stands for and how their views are aligned with his.

Just for kicks though, attend one of the campus rallies for Ron Paul. It is the most delusional bunch of circus clowns event you could attend on a campus. (besides when Michael Moore comes to speak). It almost reminds me of the movie Happy Gilmore with the type of crowd he attracted. lol.
 
interesting i'll have to try that, though admittedly i'm less cynical due to just being happy to have popular votes.

however i see your point.

I guess sometimes it's odd for me who does support the majority of the positions..
 
Don't get me wrong though, I do agree on many of Ron Paul's positions. I'm merely saying that a lot of the voter's he's attracting have very different positions than he does, in fact quite the opposite positions. The bandwagon effect has a pretty powerful influence through peer pressure and "being cool" in the in-crowd. As long as you know what you stand for and you align yourself with the candidate that fits you best, you should be good to go. It's fairly easy to make the distinction between people who do their political homework and people who just either vote straight ticket or follow the crowd.
 
Well said - and I think we can probably all agree that there are not enough of the former and far too many of the latter.
 
ianken said:
Dude, being the POTUS is not about the salary. None of these people need the money. It's all about The Power. Becuase you'd be the fucking POTUS.

Anyway, I think tech issues are irrelvant when:

1) we're pushing a 9.2 trillion debit. Approx 40% of this racked up during the current administration.
2) They want to give us a tax rebate using money we don't have. So they'll borrow it from China so we can buy more Chinese crap. Stimulus package fpor which economy, again?
3) The FY 09 budget from W is 3 trillion. That's a first and it doesn't include the cost of Iraq and Afghan operations.

Factoid: W was the first to hit $2Tn and now the first to hit $3Tn. It took over 200 years for us to hit 1Tn, during the Regan years.

Man, I don't care who makes it into office. Any of the candiates from either party will be better than our current retard.

Enjoy: Debt-o-graph
Click to expand...

ok dude...

my point is taking massive amount of money from special interests to get "elected" and there is no pay off???

was i taken too literally? methinks so. yeah, the shrub spends money like he can just print more...wait he does just print more.

the point is, NO ONE is going to "give" that much money to a person and not expect something in return. he could not possibly re-pay that money on the salary any elected official makes, so there IS GRAFT. simple. i do not need a lesson in US Gov't. or history, i do pay attention and despite the rumors, i can read and have my own opinion. i know what is going on, and what we are being offered.

in my entire voting life, i have voted against people not for anyone. because we are only offered dweedle dee or dweedle dum. this last two times we got dweedle dum and nothing in my experience shows me that dweedle dee will make much of a difference...dude :rolleyes:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"We must stop talking about the American dream and start listening to the dreams of Americans. " - Max Beerbohm

but since it makes sense....it wont get off the ground in D.C. unless it can be earmarked in a bill.
[/FONT]
 
"You last visited: 11-01-2005 at 12:46 PM " Has it been that long? But I just had to login to jump into this conversation.

w1retap... I have talked to a lot of Ron Paul supporters, both online and off, and honestly haven't run into anyone like you have described. Granted, I don't spend much (any) time on college campuses, so maybe that where the divide is.

Every Paul supporter I have talked to has an understanding of the issues far surpassing those of any other candidates supporters, and even surpassing some of the candidates themselves (McCain/Economy, enough said).

Now Clinton & Obama supporters on the other hand... talking to one of them, or even listening to one of the candidates themselves talk, is like watching a poorly written (you know, writers strike and all) twilight zone episode. Ask them a direct question about issue A, and they babble on about "change". Ask them another direct question about issue B, and once again the babble on about "change". Ask a question about issue C.... well, you get the point. It's like they have been attacked by some brain melting, lexicon eating virus, whose only weakness it the word "change".

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means."

I'm (obviously) without a doubt a Ron Paul supporter. And while I wish everyone would vote for the good Doctor, what I think is most important, and the bane of any politician (Paul is a statesmen, not a politician), is informed voters.

I think every voter (and if you're not, fine, it's not for everyone), should at least put a little bit of effort into seeing what issues the different candidates stand for, and how their records represent those views. Given that prerequisite, there is NO candidate for a true conservative or libertarian, besides Ron Paul.

I'm vuke69, and I approve this message.
 
Ron Paul has some nice policies and hits hard on keys issues which I like but dang, have you watched him do a debate? It explains why he has so few supporters. The guy has some common sense about things like illegal immigration and SS and all but, he is like half a deck short of a full deck when it comes to politics.

No insult or put down or anything meant for anyone that supports him. I support his policies, except when it comes to Iraq. I have nothing against anyone that supports the people they like. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it :)

Now, on the subject at hand. Most of the politicians are old farts that never got into tech much it seems. Most don't have a clue as to how to get on the Internet, much less anything tech related. Well, that's the way it appears anyway. I mean look at all the idiotic tech related bills they have passed. They scream "stupid" when it comes to tech.

You should try the Candidate Calculator if you haven't. It's a little outdated with people that dropped out but, it's interesting none the less.
 
xxGriff said:
of course not. then there would have to be some actual learning going on. Our "candidates" are all tweedle dee or dweedle dum.

no one with common sense or a foot in reality will win. only in D.C. can someone raise and spend 100 million dollars to obtain a job that pays 150k a year. and i am supposed to believe there no graft going on :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Tax deductions. It's 300k now. Insurance for life, speaking engagements that pay out the ying yang for a LONG time, benefits out the arse and many many many other benefits and money. Plus, some do actually want to go in to try and change things, only to get caught up in reality.

It's all about choosing the lesser of the evils when it comes to electing politicians.

Besides, we don't really elect anyone. The electoral colleges do.
 
Steve said:
If you tuned into the ]MySpace candidate event earlier this week hoping to see where the candidates stand on tech issues, you might be disappointed.
Click to expand...

There isn’t enough money anywhere to make me go to my space.

The candidates appear to have zero knowledge of the net or any technology in general so the are leaving it alone.

Now, if they would just apply that practice to politics…………………..:rolleyes:
 
Cinge said:
Ron Paul has some nice policies and hits hard on keys issues which I like but dang, have you watched him do a debate? It explains why he has so few supporters. The guy has some common sense about things like illegal immigration and SS and all but, he is like half a deck short of a full deck when it comes to politics.
Click to expand...

It's rather hard to explain why you should be president when you're given 5 minutes per debate to explain whats wrong with the economy/federal reserve and why we need to get out of Iraq. The rest of the candidates just claim they're the better conservative, vow to "defend freedom," and say they'll cut taxes.

Did you see him blast Romney and McCain for arguing over nonsense for half an hour at the last debate?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fhAokoMgSDc

As for tech issues, Dr. Paul knows he's not an expert on technology and says so, but he stands by his platform of small government and personal liberty when it comes to taxing/regulating/censoring the internet.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6224161.html

He certainly seems more informed about tech issues than most people in their 70s.
 
Oh, I'm sure there are some out there that are pretty tech savvy but, unfortunately, it doesn't seem as if any of them are the ones passing bills, etc. If they do, it's for the lobbyist and not for us.
 
Cinge said:
Oh, I'm sure there are some out there that are pretty tech savvy but, unfortunately, it doesn't seem as if any of them are the ones passing bills, etc. If they do, it's for the lobbyist and not for us.
Click to expand...

I think what you are trying to say it; Follow the money;)
 
When I was lamenting the lack of technical know-how in our current government, my doctor friend said that for all I know the internet could be a fad...:confused: If people think like this, no wonder nobody cares to mention tech issues.
 
Cinge said:
Oh, I'm sure there are some out there that are pretty tech savvy but, unfortunately, it doesn't seem as if any of them are the ones passing bills, etc. If they do, it's for the lobbyist and not for us.
Click to expand...

Except for Dr. Paul. He has never taken money from lobbyists, and he even pays for his portion of the cost of awards and such that congress gives out.

Yet another reason to go vote for the guy.
 
G0lluM said:
Vote Ron Paul in 2008! You may not like his (some would say) odd stance on foreign policy, but as soon as our beloved dollar finishes its collapse our foreign policy will likely be irrelevant.

I realize that it could be said that you are throwing your vote away by doing pulling the lever for Dr. Paul, but I prefer to think of it as sending a message to the clowns in Washington - that America is waking up to what you are doing to us financially. Ron Paul won't win the White House but hopefully someone like-minded will in 4 to 8 years. If we have that long...

(And no, I'm not a Ron Paul spammer who joined the [H] to make a few quick Ron Paul posts and split. Just want to qualify that :D)
Click to expand...
Only financially?

A vote for Ron Paul is a message that America is waking up to what the government is doing to us in MANY areas of life --finance, privacy, foreign policy, etc. That is, we're waking up to the fact that we're being screwed, and that checks and balances aren't working anymore in government, be it checks to the executive OR legislative branches.
 
I noticed some people were talking about us being in debt. I think that we're not really in debt because the majority of our shit is spread out in the world, if we were to liquidate it all then we'd be loaded.

That's just my opinion
 
MrHood22 said:
I noticed some people were talking about us being in debt. I think that we're not really in debt because the majority of our shit is spread out in the world, if we were to liquidate it all then we'd be loaded.

That's just my opinion
Click to expand...
No, it's more than that. We have a trade deficit (i.e., we're importing more goods than we're exporting), largely related to free-trade acts that benefited other countries than us, encouraging many of our own corporations to move their manufacturing to those countries (where labor was cheaper) to cut costs, and cutting domestic jobs in the process.

We have a national debt because we spend more than we take in on taxes, and we borrow from others. Much of our debts are owed to foreign powers, some of them (i.e., China) whose positions are highly contradictory to our own, and yet they now have us over a barrel so we can't squawk too loudly on their human rights/environmental/etc. issues.

Debt is debt. When you measure debt, you usually take assets int account (at least, you do on a small level, as well as at a corporate level, so I'd assume that you'd use the same yardstick for government). Example: I may own $20,000 of my house and consider it an asset, but if I owe the remaining $100,000 of its value to the bank, I'm still in debt. Liquidating the house would not bring me back into the black unless the market dictates my house is worth at least the $120,000 I bought it for. In the same vein, a corporation is in debt if its debts/expenses outweigh its profits+assets. Make no bones about it, we are in debt.

Note: this is a very simplistic explanation, and may have flaws, but the basic premise is there.
 
MrHood22 said:
I noticed some people were talking about us being in debt. I think that we're not really in debt because the majority of our shit is spread out in the world, if we were to liquidate it all then we'd be loaded.

That's just my opinion
Click to expand...

And if we were totalled up all the money we have given all the countries out there in aid, we would be 3trillion, or more, in the black. Maybe we should stop giving to all these other countries and start taking care of our own people first.
 
enjoy the internet as it is now. its the wild west. net neutrality will come and be about as flavorful as your Live! On Demand! service from commycast.

but the best part is, once america devolops its own "amerinet", there will still be ways to hook up to the real internet (satellite, probably). what im saying is the real internet will never die, a part or a lot of it will always be out there somewhere...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top