Alex Jones' discussing Ron Paul's stance on Net Neutrality NOW

[LibertyEagle]

http://www.gcnlive.com/listenlive.htm

He is saying Ron Paul is wrong on his stance.

[Delaware]

f*ck alex jones , if he continues to give Ron any more bad pres, then we should put some bad press out about alex.

[Noodles]

Bad press or not, I am not for limiting free speech. Many who support Dr. Paul do not agree with every one of his stances. Food for thought.

[DjLoTi]

Ron's stance is clearly defined on the G4 ' Attack of the show ' interview.

[DeadheadForPaul]

I'm personally for net neutrality but I don't think this issue is that big of a deal compared to foreign policy, spending, etc.

It's like #76 on my list

[TheEvilDetector]

Although I do share alot of beliefs with Alex Jones, including 911 inside job stuff, it saddens me to say that overall Alex Jones is creating a lot of trouble for RP by such pronounciations.

We all know that RP has nothing to do with 911 "truthers". We also know that in his interviews AJ talks over his guests often and rambles in his questions. Taking these facts into account its not hard to conclude that AJ is also not very helpful to RPs campaign due to associations and show presentation.

[andrewgreve]

f*ck alex jones , if he continues to give Ron any more bad pres, then we should put some bad press out about alex.

OK did you listen to the segment? Alex was not giving RP bad press. Instead of sniping at Alex for being incorrect about this, I sent a few e-mails to his staff with the link I pasted below and a nice comment saying that I believe RP is getting his position from theories such as these, and that I hoped Alex and staffers would take a few minutes to check out what I was sending them.

We need to break out of the paradigm that everyone is out to "get" everyone else or take others down for their own benefit. The Ron Paul rEVOLution is about acting like adults and treating other people like adults. Alex Jones acts like an adult and is very respectful to his callers (unless they brazenly attack him) so if you want to explain to Alex your views about RP's view on net neutrality, all you have to do is call in to the show and express yourself.

[DeadheadForPaul]

OK did you listen to the segment? Alex was not giving RP bad press.

Some view all press from Alex Jones as bad press. I'm staying out of all Alex Jones convos though :cool:

[andrewgreve]

For anyone who wants to be educated on why the Austrian School's (Ron's) position on Net Neutrality is what it is, you can start by reading this journal article by Tommy DiLorzenzo called 'The Myth of Natural Monopoly':

http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf

[LibertyEagle]

It wasn't all that bad. It sounded like it was going to be at the beginning, but didn't end up being that bad when all was said and done, IMO. He just disagrees with Ron Paul's stance on Net Neutrality and said Paul was wrong.

No biggie.

[mdh]

Still, it's tough for me to fathom why AJ would be seemingly supporting more federal government regulation/control/intervention in internet content. Weird.

[Green Mountain Boy]

I don't think it's necessary to get all riled up about Alex Jones. Jones has promoted Ron Paul for a long time and I think many people have learned about Ron Paul through his websites and radio program.

[jd603]

Ron Paul sees it as a form of government regulation, which usually just gives the government a new way to cause problems and is part of the problem in many industries...

These big telecom providers used government regulations to help them build their monopolies, without them, there would be much more competition today.

The problem is, they've taken control, it is more of a monopoly, so we might just need "more regulation" for a short period of time until the telecom market can be opened back up again and more CLECs can be formed etc. It was our government that destroyed tons of CLECs in the last 6 years and hurt competition.

I'm going to read the actual legislation and report back.

[TheConstitutionLives]

Someone needs to call in and confront Alex on all this crap regarding RP and negative press. I for one hope RP never goes back on his show.

Call in to the show and say that you "disagree" and they'll put you in front of the line.

[torchbearer]

For anyone who wants to be educated on why the Austrian School's (Ron's) position on Net Neutrality is what it is, you can start by reading this journal article by Tommy DiLorzenzo called 'The Myth of Natural Monopoly':

http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf

I love the info.

[TheConstitutionLives]

I don't think it's necessary to get all riled up about Alex Jones. Jones has promoted Ron Paul for a long time and I think many people have learned about Ron Paul through his websites and radio program.

That's true but Alex doesn't know when to stop. He needs to back off and realize that the average American thinks his ideas are radical and if we're all working to help RP we have to be realistic and not put RP in any more controversial light. AJ puts words in people's mouths so HE can get the credit.

[andrewgreve]

Someone needs to call in and confront Alex on all this crap regarding RP and negative press. I for one hope RP never goes back on his show.

Call in to the show and say that you "disagree" and they'll put you in front of the line.

OK so now dissenting from Paul on an issue is "negative press." Riiight...

I hope for one that RP goes on Alex's show every day from now until the end of time. (You asked me to say it.)

Go ahead and call into the show. Good luck. Remember, you're not going to get very far with a sniping and negative attitude. If you want to express your views about NN to AJ, then all you have to do is be cordial, polite, well informed, and able to express yourself in a coherent manner.

[LibertyEagle]

Someone needs to call in and confront Alex on all this crap regarding RP and negative press. I for one hope RP never goes back on his show.

Call in to the show and say that you "disagree" and they'll put you in front of the line.

Ok, but this particular piece was fair, IMO. The articles a couple of days ago are another thing, but he has the right to disagree with Paul's stance on Net Neutrality. If we want to give Alex another way to think about Net Neutrality, then call in and tell him. I myself don't know enough about the issue to do so.

[andrewgreve]

I love the info.

:)

[andrewgreve]

I myself don't know enough about the issue to do so.

A quick search revealed this gem from Mises: http://www.mises.org/story/2139

Now, let me take a few minutes and read it :D

[LibertyEagle]

Thanks, Andrew.

[mdh]

Ron Paul sees it as a form of government regulation, which usually just gives the government a new way to cause problems and is part of the problem in many industries...

These big telecom providers used government regulations to help them build their monopolies, without them, there would be much more competition today.

The problem is, they've taken control, it is more of a monopoly, so we might just need "more regulation" for a short period of time until the telecom market can be opened back up again and more CLECs can be formed etc. It was our government that destroyed tons of CLECs in the last 6 years and hurt competition.

I'm going to read the actual legislation and report back.

Fixing government regulation with more government regulation is never acceptable. It's one means of incrementalism, one more step towards absolute government control.

"There is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program" - Milton Friedman

[andrewgreve]

Thanks, Andrew.

Also check out "The Myth of Natural Monopoly":
http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf

If you read that and you have the feeling that you're just starting to be hungry, I recommend going to the Media section of Mises.org and having a field day learning about whatever interests you :)

[TheConstitutionLives]

OK so now dissenting from Paul on an issue is "negative press." Riiight...

I hope for one that RP goes on Alex's show every day from now until the end of time. (You asked me to say it.)

Go ahead and call into the show. Good luck. Remember, you're not going to get very far with a sniping and negative attitude. If you want to express your views about NN to AJ, then all you have to do is be cordial, polite, well informed, and able to express yourself in a coherent manner.

whoah woah. Sorry, I'm talking about the "staged terror" incident. Not the Net Neutrality issue. Sorry. Should've made that clear.

[andrewgreve]

whoah woah. Sorry, I'm talking about the "staged terror" incident. Not the Net Neutrality issue. Sorry. Should've made that clear.
ok

[jd603]

EDIT: FYI, I thought things through and changed this post a lot , also e-mailed Alex, also e-mailed the RP campaign to discuss things with them.

Key is the last-mile, our government had enabled competing providers to utilize the "last-mile" of connections back in 1994 or so... this created hundreds of competing companies, if there were more of those companies today, AT&T and Vz etc. would not dare cause problems for consumers as they would lose massive amounts of customers. However, in 2004, our government revoked the previous laws and BLAM , most of these companies took a huge hit and had major problems.

It is a tricky subject and a little confusing, since our government regulations helped create these monopolies, they didn't really occur in a free market, legalizing competition over the "last-mile" would be enough to solve the problem for many years to come. I believe that is Ron's goal, to legalize competition (by allowing competitors to use the last mile), if he were to do that, these so-called net neutrality bills would have no reason to EXIST at all and the free market would most likely handle it and any disputes or issues could be handled on a case-by-case basis, ie, not one size fits all.

so Ron Paul's philosophy of legalizing competition and LESS regulation would actually work COMPLETELY in telecom. If I'm understanding his philosophy right.

Edit: also, this all needs to go through congress anyway, so it's not all Ron Paul anyway, but at least they would listen to him if he were elected and hopefully can influence enough people.

[Wyurm]

Alex Jones is to Libertarians and/or conspiracy theorists (depending on the subject matter of the show) what Rush Limbaugh is to Republicans. Rush says some pretty outrageous things that even other Neocons don't always agree with, but he does it for effect, to generate that "what the heck is that?!?!" attention. Its more or less just shock value, kinda like a neon sign in a dark alley. Not that pretty, but it sure catches your attention.

Alex is good at what he does, in fact, thanks to him there are alot more people waking up and realizing they need to question authority. This is a good thing, whats happening here that is perceived as a bad thing is that Alex comes off as insane sometimes. Trust me, when anyone mentions Alex Jones, they usually dont know who he is, or they do know and by mentioning Alex you just discredited anything you were about to say. Its not that Alex lies or anything, alot of what he says is truth, but he says it in a yelling, southern preacher way. That and he tends to engage in alot of name calling.

You really should listen to the interview he had with David Rothschild. I was beyond shocked he actually managed to get a Rothschild on his show, but even more shocked that he stayed on for over 30 min. (and yes Alex called him all sorts of names and blamed his family for just about everything.) You can find an Mp3 of it here: http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/global_warming_rothschild_jupiter_closer_to_sun_th an_earth.htm about halfway down.

In short, take what Alex says with a grain of salt and realize that whether or not you agree with what he says, his show does serve a good purpose. Oh, and please keep in mind that if you try to argue with him, and that includes by e-mail, it will only antagonize him and it is his show so you arent going to get anywhere.

[rpf2008]

Bad press or not, I am not for limiting free speech. Many who support Dr. Paul do not agree with every one of his stances. Food for thought.

I second that motion.


(1)Although I do share alot of beliefs with Alex Jones, including 911 inside job stuff, it saddens me to say that overall Alex Jones is creating a lot of trouble for RP by such pronounciations.

(2)We all know that RP has nothing to do with 911 "truthers". We also know that in his interviews AJ talks over his guests often and rambles in his questions. Taking these facts into account its not hard to conclude that AJ is also not very helpful to RPs campaign due to associations and show presentation.

(1) I don't think Alex is creating trouble for Mr. Paul. I've heard a lot of both Mr. Paul and Mr. Jones have said and I don't see anything out of line.

(2) I believe Mr. Paul is a very smart person and knows exactly what he's doing when he goes on Mr. Jones show. If by 911 "tuthers" you mean people who investigate the facts then yes, Mr. Paul has everything to do with 9/11 "truthers".

Ron Paul is a 9/11 "truther". (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMTyga2NvCc)

[Tpoints]

can anybody help me find the recording or transcript of this interview? THANKS!