Also to include if it wasn’t already when it comes to politics they have party whips which they go up to say you if you were in congress and say hey if you don’t vote yes for this next bill then we wont let you get on the farm committee like you want to be and make your life hell.

Also they vote to keep there position in congress and be reelected and make those who give them money to be happy so they will still give them money.

What we need is somebody who will stand up against all of that because anything to change copyright has to go through the congress

Hillary Clinton up in arms over plastered Ted Kennedy’s support of Barack Hussein Obama! Hillary thinks Teddy should be supporting a white candidate. Clinton undoubtedly also expected Ted Boy to have a little respect for a woman. Throwing her arms up…

I dislike both parties and both have greatly expanded the Federal Government but I might point out that the largest single expansion took place under Franklin Roosevelt (New Deal, etc), who was a democrat. Then comes George Bush(homeland security, etc) the younger, who is a republican.
But the New Deal was bigger than anything else by a factor of 5-10 at least. But every president thus far has, without exception, expanded the government to some degree.

if you think you’re wasting your vote on ron paul because he’s unelectable, you’re just another person that feeds the election gameshow. you throw away your vote by giving it to a candidate that doesnt fully represent your values. thats a weak compromise.

That’s absolute crap. The reason net neutrality is because of the government regulations that GRANT them that near-monopoly. It is competition that would keep the net neutral, as people demanding that as a service would cause a company to come into existence to serve them.

You are correct that a monopoly is a profitable position – which is why they constantly lobby the government to provide it. This country had THOUSANDS of “phone companies” until the government nationalized the phone system for awhile. Then after that they just made it a monopoly state-by-state and gave it to AT&T.

if Government is the problem, then MORE government is not the answer. Net Neutrality legislation is NOT the answer. As soon as you go that route you’ve said “It’s ok if you regulate the internet”. Pandora’s box has been opened and things will get a lot worse. You’re influencing them right now, but once that door is opened I want you to consider – who has more money and contacts to influence our government? You, or the providers?

You open that door and you’re screwed. The free market and competition is the ONLY answer to this problem. We need LESS regulation, not more.

In other words you cannot legislate net neutrality. Government cannot make a law/s telling people they can/can’t censor speech (websites) on the internet.

The US already has the 1st amendment — rather it used to.

The 4th amendment also protects your privacy on the net.

Your activities cannot be monitored nor tracked unless there is a warrant supported by Oath or affirmation.

Democrats do not understand this however and think the best option is MORE government.

You have already fed the Beast too much! It has become enormous, arrogant, and vicious. It’s now biting the hand…

Wolf in sheep’s clothing, beware.

Looks like the US Pirate Party is just a sham. They probably are just part of the Man trying to gain trust and have the naive follow. Or worse they may just be ingnorant and naive themselves!

Private property rights, small government, and liberty, good.

No property rights, big government, and tyranny, bad.

Easy, look at his voting record! He is the only one who doesn’t say he’s for/against something and then votes a different way when it comes time to be counted! He has always done exactly what he says he will do![/quote]
Yeah, he says he’s against net neutrality, he voted against net neutrality. So, get ready to pay a lot more for even posting a comment here, except he’s not really against net neutrality, but he doesn’t really understand it all, so he voted anyway, and didn’t bother researching the topic. Great idea.

[quote]Also, he is also the ONLY candidate that doesn’t take any money from big corporations or their lobbyists![/quote]

Sorry, Obama hasn’t either. The difference is, Obama has receieved donations (acceptance of them is automatic) yet has refunded them. Why not go and check the facts yourself, it’s listed on the FEC, as all candidates are required to do. Sounds like Ron Paul’s campaign just fed you a lie. If they’er feeding you stupid, easily disproved lies now, how many if he were ever to get into office?

[quote]Ron Paul is not running as a republican, but as an independent (because there are no real republicans left). These days most people would say he falls much more under a category like ‘Conservative Libertarian’.

Ron Paul is the first independent to actually stand a chance in a 100 years or more (Ralph Nader was pretty funny and helped start internet gorilla campaigning, but never really stood a chance)! We all know neither party is worth a shit anymore, so vote independent and tell all the bitch-ass demirepublicrats to all take a walk![/quote]
Another lie, alas. Lets see, 1968, Wallace got 46 electoral votes, 48, strom thurmond got 39, 1912, teddy got 88.

More recently, perot got 19% of the popoular vote in 92, half that of incumbent Bush.

This is hwere the Paul campaign has fallen down, it makes too many claims that rely on the ignorance of the general populace. The most ignorant, instead of going, as I just did with your claims, “that doesn’t sound right, let me check that” go “cool” and pas it on as fact. Also, notice that I, for one, have given verifyable facts, you have given claims, mine are easy to check, yours doesn’t even stand brief scrutiny. Thats why the only major candidate Paul beat in Iowa, was the one that didn’t bother with Iowa.