Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
His supporters understand viral marketing better. His tiny baseline in the beginning was simply better at running a campaign. He's been able to take advantage of the first real eCampaign.It's got less to do with his message, which is actually quite mad, and more to do with advertising buzz stances, like those on the Fed and net neutrality. As DC and now host have pointed out, and I even chimed in a bit, his policies are too libertarian to make the country better. He's a fanatical libertarian.
As for support, Hillary will win the 2008 election against Googliani. It's not what most people want (I'd be a bit happier with Obama, and much happier with Kucinich, obviously), but it's the reality.
|
Actually, his stance on Net Neutrality probably hurts more than helps when it comes to the internet/tech savvy crowd. His stance is, or course, opposed to federal regulation on the issue, which is the complete opposite stance from the majority of the internet crowd from which he has so much support. He's lost more than a few followers on this issue, I would bet. I'm of the opinion, that status quo has worked so far, and the amount of outrage over the suggestion of a tiered internet from ATT has pushed the idea out of the realm of possibility (for now).
Quote:
|
It's been my experience, and it isn't in reference to anyone here in particular, that there are many ron paul supporters who have very little awareness about what the man is actually about. Generally it's a matter of, "Oh snap, he wants to abolish the income tax? Sign me up," or, "Wait. A republican who believes in fiscal responsibility? Ha! What a novelty- he has my vote."
|
I dont think thats the case at all...
Quote:
|
They're usually a little dumbstruck when it comes up that he wants to abolish the fcc. They generally think its a good idea initially, because, you know, the fcc won't let you say "fuck" on network television. Then when you tell them that the fcc is also largely responsible for the fact that you can get only one station on your radio per frequency or the fact that your toaster doesn't intefere with your cell phone reception you kind of get a sideways look, and then the conversation ends. And that about sums up the lot of them for me.
|
The FCC is a perfect example of a bureaucracy that has fallen prey to regulatory capture... monopolistic telcos and the FCC are great buddies working together for their own benefit, to the detriment of the free market and the country as a whole. As a professional in the IT industry, I am onboard for FCC abolition.
Here's a nice article on the issue:
http://www.news.com/2010-1028-5226979.html
Quote:
The original justification for existence of the FCC was to rein in an unruly marketplace. That thinking dates back to the 1920s, when Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover, an engineer by training, was worried about the unregulated new industry of broadcasting. Hundreds of radio stations had been launched, and the only requirement was that they register with the Commerce Department.
Conflicts began to arise. The Navy complained of the "turbulent condition of radio communication." But courts were already undertaking the slow but careful common-law method of crafting a set of rules for the new medium. An Illinois state court decided in 1926, for instance, that Chicago broadcaster WGN had the right to a disputed slice of spectrum, because "priority of time creates a superiority in right."
But Hoover and Congress didn't give the courts a chance. The Radio Act of 1927, followed by the Communications Act of 1934, gave the FCC unlimited power to assign frequencies, approve broadcasters' power levels and revoke licenses on a whim. The FCC already enjoyed the power to regulate telephone lines and eventually would accumulate the authority to regulate cable as well.
Abolishing the FCC does not mean airwave anarchy.
If the FCC had been in charge of overseeing the Internet, we'd likely be waiting for the Mosaic Web browser to receive preliminary approval from the Wireline Competition Bureau.
What it means is returning to bottom-up law rather than the top-down process that has characterized telecommunications for the last 80 years.
|