View Full Version : Leo Laporte to talk about Ron Paul tomorrow
hambone1982
10-12-2007, 07:04 PM
I heard a teaser this morning on KFI AM 640 (in LA) that Leo Laporte will be talking about Ron Paul during his show tomorrow. Leo's show starts at 11 am pacific time tomorrow.
Here is the website where you can stream the audio live tomorrow:
http://www.kfiam640.com/main.html
ctb619
10-12-2007, 07:07 PM
is that the technology guy?
kylejack
10-12-2007, 07:07 PM
Yes.
I've been waiting for this. He should talk about the most popular candidate on the net. Plust, Leo's got a huge following.
LibertyOfOne
10-12-2007, 07:43 PM
Leo is the dude from the screen savers. Strange that he would bring up Ron.
Leo has always struck me as a free-market libertarian. That's just what I pick up from listening to him, anyway.
kylebrotherton
10-13-2007, 04:10 AM
This is awesome. Leo Laporte's radio show is broadcast locally. But the station lets him podcast it with a few weeks delay. Tech enthusiasts all over the world listen to the podcast. Of course most of them would already know about Ron Paul.
Leo should probably like Ron Paul's stance on tech issues, because he admits his ignorance. Many lawmakers assume more knowledge than they actually possess.
If you're going to call, I can suggest a few topics:
1. Net neutrality is unnecessary with Ron Paul in office, because he will open up competition and stop government colluding with mega-corporations. Net neutrality only addresses a symptom, Ron Paul will cure the disease.
2. Paul opposed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (source (http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=2168))
3. Ron Paul strongly opposes unwarranted government surveillance and wiretapping.
4. Paul sponsored HR193 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:8:./temp/~bdDZU3::|/bss/d110query.html|), to provide "a full tax deduction for higher education expenses and interest on student loans."
5. Paul sponsored HR1059 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:20:./temp/~bdDZU3::|/bss/d110query.html|), "to provide a tax credit for elementary and secondary school teachers."
6. Paul sponsored HR1060 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:21:./temp/~bdDZU3::|/bss/d110query.html|), "to provide a tax credit for professional school personnel in pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and grades 1 through 12."
7. Ron Paul will look to the constitution on copyright law, and not take orders from RIAA and MPAA.
8. Paul supports free speech, and opposes FCC infringement of the First Amendment.
OptionsTrader
10-13-2007, 04:23 AM
It makes great sense. http://www.kfiam640.com/main.html thanks.
kylebrotherton
10-13-2007, 08:55 AM
This is awesome. Leo Laporte's radio show is broadcast locally. But the station lets him podcast it with a few weeks delay. Tech enthusiasts all over the world listen to the podcast. Of course most of them would already know about Ron Paul.
Leo should probably like Ron Paul's stance on tech issues, because he admits his ignorance. Many lawmakers assume more knowledge than they actually possess.
If you're going to call, I can suggest a few topics:
1. Net neutrality is unnecessary with Ron Paul in office, because he will open up competition and stop government colluding with mega-corporations. Net neutrality only addresses a symptom, Ron Paul will cure the disease.
2. Paul opposed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (source (http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=2168))
3. Ron Paul strongly opposes unwarranted government surveillance and wiretapping.
4. Paul sponsored HR193 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:8:./temp/~bdDZU3::|/bss/d110query.html|), to provide "a full tax deduction for higher education expenses and interest on student loans."
5. Paul sponsored HR1059 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:20:./temp/~bdDZU3::|/bss/d110query.html|), "to provide a tax credit for elementary and secondary school teachers."
6. Paul sponsored HR1060 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:21:./temp/~bdDZU3::|/bss/d110query.html|), "to provide a tax credit for professional school personnel in pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and grades 1 through 12."
7. Ron Paul will look to the constitution on copyright law, and not take orders from RIAA and MPAA.
8. Paul supports free speech, and opposes FCC infringement of the First Amendment.
bump.
LibertyOfOne
10-13-2007, 04:52 PM
I went to his website twit.tv. He has a netcast labeled October 13th, but in the audio he says it originally aired on September 30th. So there is a two week lag on the podcasts.
NewEnd
10-13-2007, 04:57 PM
Paul might get hit on net neutrality though. I hope he changes his tune on that.
terlinguatx
10-13-2007, 04:58 PM
...
andrewgreve
10-13-2007, 05:01 PM
I sent a very short message to Leo about 3 months ago asking when we were gonna hear his thoughts on RP. Looks like I finally have my answer.
DrNoZone
10-13-2007, 06:15 PM
Paul might get hit on net neutrality though. I hope he changes his tune on that.
You mean you hope he compromises his beliefs on that issue? Goes more communist? You hope he puts federal regulations on the internet? Or that he put regulations on businesses who provide access to the backbone? What part of unconstitutional don't you see in this?
torchbearer
10-13-2007, 06:21 PM
Dr. Paul should defend and explain his stance on not regulating the internet.
TheMikael
10-13-2007, 06:23 PM
I've always liked Leo, since the good old Screen Saver days. :)
I'm one of Leo's fans on Pownce and he sent out this message:
http://pownce.com/leolaporte/notes/831365/
He's positive for the most part, but can't seem to get over that Paul is against abortion and has a Libertarian philosophy.
Some of the comments to the post are mind-numbing...
TheMikael
10-13-2007, 06:26 PM
I love Leo! It's a shame The Screensavers (and all good techtv programming) has been replaced by mindless garbage.
I agree :)
Revision 3 is what I watch now.
Leo owns, TechTV days were so grand.
However, Paul voted against the regulation of the ISPs and, if it would had passed, essentially allow ISPs to regulate.
Paul voted against regulating internet businesses, not the internet.
LibertyOfOne
10-13-2007, 06:31 PM
Paul might get hit on net neutrality though. I hope he changes his tune on that.
On leo's twit podcast he has been open to other alternatives to net neutrality in the past.
torchbearer
10-13-2007, 06:34 PM
Leo owns, TechTV days were so grand.
However, Paul voted against the regulation of the ISPs and, if it would had passed, essentially allow ISPs to regulate.
Paul voted against regulating internet businesses, not the internet.
What consitutional power does the federal government have the gives it the right to regulate a private business? Should the government regulate cell phone companies too? no. Free markets will give you the most goods possible at the cheapest rate possible. why? because if you aren't getting your money's worth, you aren't going to buy it, therefore, in a free market, the consumer has control of the product, not the government and its big money special interest, who will fight over control of the internet once government steps in...
I agree :)
Revision 3 is what I watch now.
DIGGNATION!~~~~~~~~~
libertarianguy
10-13-2007, 06:50 PM
test
What consitutional power does the federal government have the gives it the right to regulate a private business? Should the government regulate cell phone companies too? no. Free markets will give you the most goods possible at the cheapest rate possible. why? because if you aren't getting your money's worth, you aren't going to buy it, therefore, in a free market, the consumer has control of the product, not the government and its big money special interest, who will fight over control of the internet once government steps in...
lets not get into that agrument with the internet.
the ISPs should have no right to regulate what sites people can access or not. that would be violating other people's property.
they have the access to accessing the internet, they should set the speeds at a certain price.
if you think regulating what site I can and can not go to would help them grow as a business, hah, no it doesnt ;). what we have now, a free realm of internet, is good.
libertarianguy
10-13-2007, 06:53 PM
test
TheMikael
10-13-2007, 06:54 PM
DIGGNATION!~~~~~~~~~
yep :cool:
wtf??? The phone lines are your property?
...phone, lines? Statements like this make me wonder how educated you are on the subject.
[ISP]----[House]
|
|
[Internet]
^They don't own this
no one does, because it is a network
they own a service to access it.
By blocking certain websites, they are violating the rights of the people who pay to host sites like this website.
Why should Ron Paul Forums.com pay for a server to host their site, and then pay money to the ISPs for their customers to access them?
If it was like that, we'd have 1000 websites just like we have TV.
But we don't, and everyone can access the web, and everyone can do what they please. No one is censoring anything.
And it must remain that way.
kylejack
10-13-2007, 06:58 PM
lets not get into that agrument with the internet.
the ISPs should have no right to regulate what sites people can access or not. that would be violating other people's property.
The traffic runs over their lines. They absolutely have the authority to control that which runs over their lines.
if you think regulating what site I can and can not go to would help them grow as a business, hah, no it doesnt ;). what we have now, a free realm of internet, is good.
So then you agree, the free market will demonstrate to them how foolish it is to mess around with people's internet.
LibertyOfOne
10-13-2007, 07:01 PM
lets not get into that agrument with the internet.
the ISPs should have no right to regulate what sites people can access or not. that would be violating other people's property.
they have the access to accessing the internet, they should set the speeds at a certain price.
if you think regulating what site I can and can not go to would help them grow as a business, hah, no it doesnt ;). what we have now, a free realm of internet, is good.
By that logic I shouldn't have the right to tell people they can't do such and such on my own property. It wouldn't violate anyones rights being that people make a voluntary choice to get service from ISP x. Now if you signed a contract with ISP x and they didn't hold up to their end of the contract then you have legal recourse. We don't have much choice in contracts in todays market given that it's not a free market when it comes to internet service. ISP x most likely is some cable company with a government granted local monopoly. The problem is not one of neutrally, but one of competition. When ISP x has a local monopoly at locality y, company z can't lay cables to compete with company x. Normally when there is a free market one does not have to lay cable. There is another company that owns the lines and sells access to other companies. We have seen this with power companies already. So the same could apply with internet access.
steph3n
10-13-2007, 07:07 PM
The only problem right now is that the FCC only allows 1 and SOMETIMES two providers to have copper in a market, which is selling a monopoly getting rid of this would allow true free market phone competition.
if you go try to wire up a city with copper even for only internet services, in a market controlled by verzion you will 100% surely get slapped with a lawsuit.
LibertyOfOne
10-13-2007, 07:08 PM
...phone, lines? Statements like this make me wonder how educated you are on the subject.
[ISP]----[House]
|
|
[Internet]
^They don't own this
no one does, because it is a network
they own a service to access it.
Does not matter being that they own ISP to house. You can't push regulation without violating private property rights. Now if ISP x said that you get internet access for $xx.xx, but they regulated the content. You don't need regulation for that being that it is a case of fraud which can be dealt with in normal courts.
kylejack
10-13-2007, 07:10 PM
The only problem right now is that the FCC only allows 1 and SOMETIMES two providers to have copper in a market, which is selling a monopoly getting rid of this would allow true free market phone competition.
if you go try to wire up a city with copper even for only internet services, in a market controlled by verzion you will 100% surely get slapped with a lawsuit.
Yeah, but more frequently its the local or state PUC. And I'm not sure what to do about that, besides fighting them in the legislative bodies and city halls.
I'm opposed to regulating the internet.
no government.
no business.
no one.
that's my stance, you guys can disagree with me.
but the internet has changed my life.
LibertyOfOne
10-13-2007, 07:16 PM
In a real market the people would do the regulating. If the people wanted free unfiltered and unthrottled bandwidth then the market would meet those demands. Net Neutrality is a cure to a symptom, but abolishing government protected local monopolies is the cure to the cause.
michaelwise
10-13-2007, 08:07 PM
Dr. Paul should defend and explain his stance on not regulating the internet.I thought he did already. He said, once you start making regulations of any kind, it opens up the door for more regulation down the road, or something like that.
I learned a lot from The Screen Savers. Watched it years before I bought my first computer. Yes I still own my 1st computer, 4 years old now. I think they gave away too much inside information about hacking and stuff like that. Not something they want the masses to have access to.
kylebrotherton
10-14-2007, 01:01 AM
from his show notes:
http://techguylabs.com/radio/ShowNotes/Show395#toc5
There’s been a lot of attention this week to a candidate named Ron Paul. He’s very out spoken, and he tells it how he means it. Usually no one would vote for him. But the Internet has really driven his support. In fact, his slogan is “Google Ron Paul”. Leo’s not saying this as a Ron Paul supporter, but just to show you how this is all changing.
When Clinton got elected in 1992, the web was only 3 years old and only used by very few people. These days, the Internet is a mainstream way to reach people. Geeks like Ron Paul because he’s a libertarian. Digg which is a website that posts stories depending on how many “diggs” a story gets. It’s a true democracy.
The front page of Digg has the most dugg stories recently. In the last 30 days, the most popular article on Digg with 12,000 diggs is a video of Ron Paul. It’s the 15th most Dugg story of the year.
We’re here in the infancy of the Internet, and this is only the 5th Internet election. The Internet is becoming more popular, and it’s a great way to research a candidate. What did you do before the Internet? Maybe you read the pamphlet posted through your letter box? Now you just have to Google a candidate’s name.
I thought he did already. He said, once you start making regulations of any kind, it opens up the door for more regulation down the road, or something like that.
I learned a lot from The Screen Savers. Watched it years before I bought my first computer. Yes I still own my 1st computer, 4 years old now. I think they gave away too much inside information about hacking and stuff like that. Not something they want the masses to have access to.
Too much? Pshh that's what made them great :) Geeks4thewin!
Leo owns, TechTV days were so grand.
However, Paul voted against the regulation of the ISPs and, if it would had passed, essentially allow ISPs to regulate.
Paul voted against regulating internet businesses, not the internet.
Yes but if the ISP's become "regulated" then it becomes a political football where whichever ISP buys off congress gets the most perks and they can start passing MORE bills that cripple competition or close off the market to newcomers completely.
They've done this with telcom, airlines and oil companies in the past, what makes you think the ISP's won't do the same?
Yes greed sucks but at the same time passing a law doesn't solve the ultimate issue. They always find another way to fuck with the market and if you give power to congress, then they start lobbying congress instead.
It's not perfect but I prefer it to ugly alternative.
Yes but if the ISP's become "regulated" then it becomes a political football where whichever ISP buys off congress gets the most perks and they can start passing MORE bills that cripple competition or close off the market to newcomers completely.
They've done this with telcom, airlines and oil companies in the past, what makes you think the ISP's won't do the same?
Yes greed sucks but at the same time passing a law doesn't solve the ultimate issue. They always find another way to fuck with the market and if you give power to congress, then they start lobbying congress instead.
It's not perfect but I prefer it to ugly alternative.
Because no ISP is pushing for this,
because today the internet is not regulated - and look at the internet now,
No one will ever convince me that regulating ISPs from regulating the internet is a bad idea.
libertarianguy
10-14-2007, 01:41 AM
test
drednot
10-14-2007, 01:51 AM
Because no ISP is pushing for this,
because today the internet is not regulated - and look at the internet now,
No one will ever convince me that regulating ISPs from regulating the internet is a bad idea.
If there are 2 ISPs, and one offers you a censored internet for $2 less per month, it's pretty clear you (and most of us), would tell them to take a hike.
Thus, it's not going to happen in a free market.
It's a good thing we regulate Microsoft from regulating internet access through IE. Oh wait, we don't.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.