Ron Paul being ousted by Fox - Needs your help NOW

[Jeffiner99]

For those of you who don't know, Ron Paul is a Libertarian running as a Republican Presidential candidate. He is a friend of poker, the internet and all of us. He would abolish all attempts to regulate the Internet and wrote a beautiful speech when he voted against the UIGEA (the version in the House).

Anyway, Fox news will be hosting the next Republican Debates on May 15 (after that date this thread can be deleted). Although Ron Paul has paid 25k to be a part of the South Carolina ticket (where the debates are being held) Fox news is preventing him from taking part in the debates.

Please act NOW. We don't have much time.

Please send an email to Fox News asking that Ron Paul be included in the debates. I have a "typical" message you can use below or write your own. The more of us that flood their emails with requests the more likely it is that they will change their minds. We have won battles like this before.

Here is the typical email:

"As a loyal Fox viewer I ask that you include Ron Paul in the South Carolina Debate. I feel Dr. Ron Paul embodies the true ideals our nation stands for, and his views and plans need to be heard. Please remain the Fair and Balanced network by including Dr. Ron Paul, otherwise I will find my news elsewhere."

Here are the email addresses. Sorry it is long, but you can cut and paste the whole list at once. Also, if some folks would occasionally reply to this "thread" then this can stay at the top. I don't know how to make this a "sticky":

TO CALL FOX NEWS CHANNEL:
1-888-369-4762
TO E-MAIL COMMENTS:
Comments@foxnews.com
AmericasNewsroom@foxnews.com
Beltway@foxnews.com
Myword@foxnews.com
Bigstory-weekend@foxnews.com
Bigstory-weekend@foxnews.com
Bullsandbears@foxnews.com
Cash@foxnews.com
Cavuto@foxnews.com
Fncimag@foxnews.com
Forbes@foxnews.com
Friends@foxnews.com
Comments@foxnews.com
Feedback@foxnews.com
Jamie@foxnews.com
Feedback@foxnews.com
Fncspecials@foxnews.com
FNS@foxnews.com
Newswatch@foxnews.com
Foxreport@foxnews.com
Foxreport@foxnews.com
Atlarge@foxnews.com
Hannityandcolmes@foxnews.com
Heartland@foxnews.com
JER@foxnews.com
Lineup@foxnews.com
Martha@foxnews.com
Ontherecord@foxnews.com
Oreilly@foxnews.com
Redeye@foxnews.com
Special@foxnews.com
Studiob@foxnews.com
Comments@foxnews.com
Cavuto@foxnews.com
Hemmer@foxnews.com
colonelscorner@foxnews.com
Comments@foxnews.com
Fatherjonathan@foxnews.com
Drmanny@foxnews.com
Lisonlaw@foxnews.com
Housecall@foxnews.com


Thanks all.

[blutarski]

I appreciate the effort you've put into your post, but you can't seriously consider any Libertarian as a viable presidential candidate.

[Skallagrim]

I will send an e-mail Jeffiner, because I support Mr. Paul and free speech.

But no way will I ever put in writng that I am a "loyal Fox viewer" nor acknowledge them as "Fair and Balanced." /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
I will send an e-mail Jeffiner, because I support Mr. Paul and free speech.

But no way will I ever put in writng that I am a "loyal Fox viewer" nor acknowledge them as "Fair and Balanced." /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. But it doesn't matter. Any note you send will help. The more the better.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
I appreciate the effort you've put into your post, but you can't seriously consider any Libertarian as a viable presidential candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we have a chance because he is running as a Republican. Besides, I vote for whom I want for President, not who I think will win. If we all thought like that then why not a Libertarian? I think the ideals appeal to most Americans if they only knew what they were. I also think that most people who don't vote are Libertarians.

We will never get what we want if give up. We will certainly never get it by voting for a different guy.

So why not dream? It could happen. Is it better to support something you want or remain silent?

Come on. We can do this!!!!!

Rah rah rah team.

[TheEngineer]

Done.

We should all send a note simply because he's a good friend to our movement. Also, he provides great contrast to the other candidates who claim to support limited government while proposing expanding the role of government.

[Truthiness24]

I appreciate the effort you've put into your post, but you can't seriously consider any debate on Fox to be legit in the first place.

[r0eKY]

ron paul is our only hope please goto youtube and listen to him he will open your eyes

[EGO]

I was going to go to bed, but I'm too ticked off now. Not that I should be surprised.

I want people to have a chance to see and vote for a candidate that represents their values the closest. I'm sick of pseudo-conservatives like McCain and Guiliani, and so is the country. Ron Paul was considered to be the most appealing candidate after the first debate.

I sent off an e-mail, and would encourage everybody to do the same. It doesn't have to be a missive, just a quick statement saying that you would really like to see Ron Paul in the debate, and that you won't be watching otherwise.

This is more than about FOX excluding "my candidate". They shouldn't be able to do this to anyone who is a legit candidate. It shouldn't matter if FOX analysts don't think that someone can win - the media shouldn't be in the business of influencing decisions during an election.

I'd prefer to find out who won these elections the next day, anyhow - or at least not until after all the polls are closed throughout the country. Meh, I'm flaming out here.

Good night now.

[Reef]

use this for emailing (commas added):

Comments@foxnews.com, AmericasNewsroom@foxnews.com, Beltway@foxnews.com, Myword@foxnews.com, Bigstory-weekend@foxnews.com, Bigstory-weekend@foxnews.com, Bullsandbears@foxnews.com, Cash@foxnews.com, Cavuto@foxnews.com, Fncimag@foxnews.com, Forbes@foxnews.com, Friends@foxnews.com, Comments@foxnews.com, Feedback@foxnews.com, Jamie@foxnews.com, Feedback@foxnews.com, Fncspecials@foxnews.com, FNS@foxnews.com, Newswatch@foxnews.com, Foxreport@foxnews.com, Foxreport@foxnews.com, Atlarge@foxnews.com, Hannityandcolmes@foxnews.com, Heartland@foxnews.com, JER@foxnews.com, Lineup@foxnews.com, Martha@foxnews.com, Ontherecord@foxnews.com, Oreilly@foxnews.com, Redeye@foxnews.com, Special@foxnews.com, Studiob@foxnews.com, Comments@foxnews.com, Cavuto@foxnews.com, Hemmer@foxnews.com, colonelscorner@foxnews.com, Comments@foxnews.com, Fatherjonathan@foxnews.com, Drmanny@foxnews.com, Lisonlaw@foxnews.com, Housecall@foxnews.com

[jlkrusty]

Okay, just sent. That took all of one minute.

[spatne]

I agree with you, but your post is a bit misleading. Paul is a *Republican* running for the Republican nomination. He's a sitting GOP Congressman, for crying out loud, and it's ridiculous that they're shutting him out. Something tells me they're letting Duncan Hunter participate, though...

[jtollison78]

Are you sure he's being shut out? This article claims that everyone is in despite earlier reports to the contrary:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200705/POL20070502d.html

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]


Are you sure he's being shut out? This article claims that everyone is in despite earlier reports to the contrary:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200705/POL20070502d.html

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be correct. It appears that campaigns to bug fox have been successful.

So thanks to all who have participated. I think we did our job. Sorry for being so late on this. I was not kept up to date. Yes, he has now been invited to debate in SC on May 15. Set your tivos.

Anyone know how to kill this thread now? We won.

[Taso]

I have no intention of voting for Ron Paul, and I dislike him as a candidate.

I may not agree with what he has to say, but I will defend to the death his right to say it.

Email sent.

[lfairban]

What if he gets the nomination and runs agains Hillery?

I would hate to think that in the presidential election, I might actually vote for a Repub . . .

. . . I'm sorry. I just can't say it.

[DrewOnTilt]

Done.

[farmslicer7]

Last Night on Red Eye (a fox news show at like 1 am) one of the correspondents said "to all you Ron Paul supporters out there, stop sending us emails and send them to the AP" so I guess its working... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[yahboohoo]

[ QUOTE ]
no way will I ever put in writng that I am a "loyal Fox viewer" nor acknowledge them as "Fair and Balanced." /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

[DrewOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
Last Night on Red Eye (a fox news show at like 1 am) one of the correspondents said "to all you Ron Paul supporters out there, stop sending us emails and send them to the AP" so I guess its working... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFLMAO.

What the hell is the AP? The Associated Press? That makes no sense.

[PBJaxx]

Sent

[rabbitlover]

What is the reason Fox gives for excluding him?

[Coy_Roy]

Great article about Ron Paul by Paul Joseph Watson:

Only Ron Paul Can Defeat Hillary Clinton (http://infowars.com/articles/us/vote_08_only_ron_paul_can_defeat_hillary.htm)

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the reason Fox gives for excluding him?

[/ QUOTE ]
This happens every debate season. Sponsors want to cut the field down to only include those candidates with a realistic shot of winning. That way, the questions can presumably be addressed in greater depth by the folks who are most likely to matter.

The last Republican debate had something on the order of 10 candidates, so a lot of the questions were things like "I want all of you who agree with this to raise your hands."

So it's a tough decision under the current debate structure. We either lose most of the interesting folks, or we lose most of the interesting questions/answers. Understandably, debate sponsors want to ensure that there's some interesting content.

As a libertarian, I like Ron Paul quite a bit, obviously. But even I am unlikely to tune in merely to watch him raise his hand!

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the reason Fox gives for excluding him?

[/ QUOTE ]
This happens every debate season. Sponsors want to cut the field down to only include those candidates with a realistic shot of winning. That way, the questions can presumably be addressed in greater depth by the folks who are most likely to matter.

The last Republican debate had something on the order of 10 candidates, so a lot of the questions were things like "I want all of you who agree with this to raise your hands."

So it's a tough decision under the current debate structure. We either lose most of the interesting folks, or we lose most of the interesting questions/answers. Understandably, debate sponsors want to ensure that there's some interesting content.

As a libertarian, I like Ron Paul quite a bit, obviously. But even I am unlikely to tune in merely to watch him raise his hand!


[/ QUOTE ]

No, watch it. I saw the last debate. He was quite good.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the reason Fox gives for excluding him?

[/ QUOTE ]
This happens every debate season. Sponsors want to cut the field down to only include those candidates with a realistic shot of winning. That way, the questions can presumably be addressed in greater depth by the folks who are most likely to matter.

The last Republican debate had something on the order of 10 candidates, so a lot of the questions were things like "I want all of you who agree with this to raise your hands."

So it's a tough decision under the current debate structure. We either lose most of the interesting folks, or we lose most of the interesting questions/answers. Understandably, debate sponsors want to ensure that there's some interesting content.

As a libertarian, I like Ron Paul quite a bit, obviously. But even I am unlikely to tune in merely to watch him raise his hand!


[/ QUOTE ]

No, watch it. I saw the last debate. He was quite good.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, just to be honest - I'll watch every freaking televised debate I can find, even if it's some low-level office in some far-off region. I'm a political junkie. Unfortunately, I was traveling on business during the debate; maybe I can find it on CSPAN.

Anyway, good to hear that Paul got a chance to show his stuff. I'll look forward to seeing it.

My larger comments are for the viewing public at large, of course.

[THAY3R]

This guy seems AWESOME. I hope he wins so I can be proud to live in America again.

[thelogan]

Done, it's a worthy cause, even if Fox are 50-1 to listen to the clamour of emails.

[Misfire]

Looks like Ron Paul is now in.

[ QUOTE ]
The three frontrunners and seven other Republicans vying for the 2008 nomination will all get their chance Tuesday night to leave their impressions on primary voters. Appearing on stage with the frontrunners at USC's Koger Center for the Arts are Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, California Rep. Duncan Hunter, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo and former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270812,00.html

[BIG NIGE]

Is there a thread, official or not, for the debate going right now? I'm watching it and Ron Paul is kicking serious ass. There was an audible murmur among the crowd when he said he wanted to get rid of the department of education and department of homeland security.

[Karak567]

paul just took a huge nosedive

[arod4276]

my lord.....he just blew the 1/10000000 chance he had

[TheEngineer]

Why couldn't he have just said, "Iraq didn't commit the 9/11 attacks?" Geesh.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
Why couldn't he have just said, "Iraq didn't commit the 9/11 attacks?" Geesh.

[/ QUOTE ]

What happened?????? I have it tivo'd. Will be watching later.

[bsheck]

I didn't catch all of it, but Paul basically stated that the reason we were attacked on 9/11 was because of our involvement in the Middle East, and Giuliani got offended and said that was the most ridiculous explanation for the 9/11 attacks he ever heard.

I think this can help Dr. Paul however. If this didn't come up, he's not going to be talked about on the post-debate talk shows and in the media. Now he will.

[arod4276]

he also wont be allowed in future debates i fear

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't catch all of it, but Paul basically stated that the reason we were attacked on 9/11 was because of our involvement in the Middle East, and Giuliani got offended and said that was the most ridiculous explanation for the 9/11 attacks he ever heard.

I think this can help Dr. Paul however. If this didn't come up, he's not going to be talked about on the post-debate talk shows and in the media. Now he will.

[/ QUOTE ]

True....he'll get attention he wouldn't have had otherwise. I hope he can explain his position more effectively with more time to discuss it, but I think he'd dug himself in too deep a hole.

[Karak567]

Sorry, guys. Paul is done.

[Ron Burgundy]

Check out that poll on Fox! Paul in the lead BEEYOTCH!

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
Check out that poll on Fox! Paul in the lead BEEYOTCH!

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you post a link?

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Check out that poll on Fox! Paul in the lead BEEYOTCH!

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you post a link?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's on TV, they said they'd update it periodically.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't catch all of it, but Paul basically stated that the reason we were attacked on 9/11 was because of our involvement in the Middle East, and Giuliani got offended and said that was the most ridiculous explanation for the 9/11 attacks he ever heard.

I think this can help Dr. Paul however. If this didn't come up, he's not going to be talked about on the post-debate talk shows and in the media. Now he will.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is right. Does that matter?

[Karak567]

[ QUOTE ]
Check out that poll on Fox! Paul in the lead BEEYOTCH!

[/ QUOTE ]

I really doubt that will last.

[Ron Burgundy]

They showed it again:

Paul: 30%
Romney: 28%
Giuliani: 17%

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Check out that poll on Fox! Paul in the lead BEEYOTCH!

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you post a link?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's on TV, they said they'd update it periodically.

[/ QUOTE ]

found it. Everyone get out your phone:

You Decide: Let FOX News know who you think came out on top by voting with a text message.

The number to which you can send your text-message is 36988. It will accept your vote between 9 p.m. EDT and 12:30 a.m. EDT.

The codes to enter for each candidate are:

R1 — Sam Brownback

R2 — Jim Gilmore

R3 — Rudy Giuliani

R4 — Mike Huckabee

R5 — Duncan Hunter

R6 — John McCain

R7 — Ron Paul

R8 — Mitt Romney

R9 — Tom Tancredo

R10 — Tommy Thompson

The codes are case-insensitive, so "r5" will work as well as "R5."

1. On your cell phone, select the text-messaging (SMS) option.

2. Create a new text message.

3. Address the message to 36988.

4. In the body of the message, simply type the code for the candidate you feel won the debate — "R1" through "R10."

5. Send the message.

(Note: On some phones, steps 3 and 4 may be reversed. Some older phones may not be capable of sending text messages.)

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't catch all of it, but Paul basically stated that the reason we were attacked on 9/11 was because of our involvement in the Middle East, and Giuliani got offended and said that was the most ridiculous explanation for the 9/11 attacks he ever heard.

I think this can help Dr. Paul however. If this didn't come up, he's not going to be talked about on the post-debate talk shows and in the media. Now he will.

[/ QUOTE ]

True....he'll get attention he wouldn't have had otherwise. I hope he can explain his position more effectively with more time to discuss it, but I think he'd dug himself in too deep a hole.

[/ QUOTE ]

No such thing as bad publicity?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't catch all of it, but Paul basically stated that the reason we were attacked on 9/11 was because of our involvement in the Middle East, and Giuliani got offended and said that was the most ridiculous explanation for the 9/11 attacks he ever heard.

I think this can help Dr. Paul however. If this didn't come up, he's not going to be talked about on the post-debate talk shows and in the media. Now he will.

[/ QUOTE ]

True....he'll get attention he wouldn't have had otherwise. I hope he can explain his position more effectively with more time to discuss it, but I think he'd dug himself in too deep a hole.

[/ QUOTE ]

No such thing as bad publicity?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true. As for his answer, I think you'll have to hear it when you get to that part of the TiVo. His answer could make sense as part of a larger discussion, but missed pretty badly for a 30 second answer.

The other candidates said we were attacked on 9/11 because "the terrorists hate our freedoms". Obviously a wrong answer as well, but the sheeple enjoy that pablum.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't catch all of it, but Paul basically stated that the reason we were attacked on 9/11 was because of our involvement in the Middle East, and Giuliani got offended and said that was the most ridiculous explanation for the 9/11 attacks he ever heard.

I think this can help Dr. Paul however. If this didn't come up, he's not going to be talked about on the post-debate talk shows and in the media. Now he will.

[/ QUOTE ]

True....he'll get attention he wouldn't have had otherwise. I hope he can explain his position more effectively with more time to discuss it, but I think he'd dug himself in too deep a hole.

[/ QUOTE ]

No such thing as bad publicity?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true. As for his answer, I think you'll have to hear it when you get to that part of the TiVo. His answer could make sense as part of a larger discussion, but missed pretty badly for a 30 second answer.

The other candidates said we were attacked on 9/11 because "the terrorists hate our freedoms". Obviously a wrong answer as well, but the sheeple enjoy that pablum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. Do you really think the sheeple are still fooled by that? sigh... yes, they probably are. We are [censored].

[Karak567]

Rudy NAILED him. Great moment for Rudy who may also be sympathetic to our cause. I doubt he'll care enough to do anything pro-actively but he may sign a bill if the dems pass it.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know. Do you really think the sheeple are still fooled by that? sigh... yes, they probably are. We are [censored].


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, they are. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

You may want to turn off TiVo for a moment....Paul is being interviewed now.

[Karak567]

i cant decide if i really, really like ron paul or dont support him at all

this is tough for me

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know. Do you really think the sheeple are still fooled by that? sigh... yes, they probably are. We are [censored].


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, they are. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

You may want to turn off TiVo for a moment....Paul is being interviewed now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rep. Paul articulated his position much better to Hannity than he did during the debate. During the debate, it almost sounded like he was saying we were attacked because of our actions in the Middle East. When speaking to Hannity, he said that we were attacked because our actions in the region pissed off some people in the Middle East.

[Karak567]

He said that may have HELPED motivate the attack. He is not listing that as the sole reason. That is a very important point to make. Plenty of things helped motivate the attack, that was one of them. The point remains it was unavoidable and Paul admits this.

I'm ultra-conservative and I feel like Paul supports me on some issues and not on others. Online gambling, while very important to me, is certainly not in my top 3 issues when it comes to voting for a candidate. I think it is the thinking of people like me, the grassroots conservatives who feel left out by the neo-cons, which will result in the winner of the Republican primary.

Right now I am confused. This is good for a "tier 2" candidate like Paul.

[dorethawsp]

I know we are just a small message board group, but c'mon fellas. Ron Paul supports our cause but he's a fringe candidate we really don't want to be too associated with.

[Karak567]

[ QUOTE ]
I know we are just a small message board group, but c'mon fellas. Ron Paul supports our cause but he's a fringe candidate we really don't want to be too associated with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you guys need to realize no one really gives a [censored] about online gambling. There's much bigger issues out there. It's not like we're a headline group and this is going to destroy us if he goes down too.

[dorethawsp]

Probably true, but I think it serves us best to steer clear of the crazy isolationist libertarian guy.

[bsheck]

[ QUOTE ]
I know we are just a small message board group, but c'mon fellas. Ron Paul supports our cause but he's a fringe candidate we really don't want to be too associated with.

[/ QUOTE ]
He stands for a lot of good things, even though he's not "mainstream". If he were to win the nomination (I know it's an extreme long shot but this is just a hypothetical) I think there are a lot of people who would get behind him. Libertarians, right wing nutjobs (like me), gamblers, anti-war people, etc. He's a much more attractive candidate than anything the Democrats have to offer, and in my opinion, anything else the Republicans have to offer too.

[dorethawsp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know we are just a small message board group, but c'mon fellas. Ron Paul supports our cause but he's a fringe candidate we really don't want to be too associated with.

[/ QUOTE ]
He stands for a lot of good things, even though he's not "mainstream". If he were to win the nomination (I know it's an extreme long shot but this is just a hypothetical) I think there are a lot of people who would get behind him. Libertarians, right wing nutjobs (like me), gamblers, anti-war people, etc. He's a much more attractive candidate than anything the Democrats have to offer, and in my opinion, anything else the Republicans have to offer too.

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy is Dennis Kucinich on the opposite side of the fence. He is seen as loony.

[r0eKY]

i love how fox new puts poll from every source on there site now that someone other than ron paul won.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
They showed it again:

Paul: 30%
Romney: 28%
Giuliani: 17%

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because every Dem watching prefers Paul over every Republican. I'm surprised the Fox analysts didn't figure that out.

[dorethawsp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They showed it again:

Paul: 30%
Romney: 28%
Giuliani: 17%

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because every Dem watching prefers Paul over every Republican. I'm surprised the Fox analysts didn't figure that out.

[/ QUOTE ]

True dat.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
i cant decide if i really, really like ron paul or dont support him at all

this is tough for me

[/ QUOTE ]

I voted for Paul for president back in 1988. After tonight, I'm embarrassed by that fact.

His answers were so incredibly superficial, and this debate had adequate time for thoughtful response. There's really no excuse for not addressing serious questions seriously.

I'm so very disappointed in my libertarian. Ron Paul, you're no Harry Browne.

[r0eKY]

fox only let people vote via text messaging on a cell phone between certain times 7 to 12.

they ask ron paul a question about "9/11" then after his response Giuliani chimes in with some rant about how ron paul is blaming America for the attacks which i didn’t hear him say then the crowd erupts in cheers. Post review Giuliani was the first person talked to and the ron paul so called call out was the first thing brought up.

we are in big trouble no one is listening

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know. Do you really think the sheeple are still fooled by that? sigh... yes, they probably are. We are [censored].


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, they are. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

You may want to turn off TiVo for a moment....Paul is being interviewed now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rep. Paul articulated his position much better to Hannity than he did during the debate. During the debate, it almost sounded like he was saying we were attacked because of our actions in the Middle East. When speaking to Hannity, he said that we were attacked because our actions in the region pissed off some people in the Middle East.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I see the difference?

It seems clear to me that Paul believes that 9/11 would not have occurred if the U.S. had the sort of isolationist foreign policy that he advocates. Even when pressed by Giuliani, he didn't really back down and talked about "blowback" and the whole long series of events that resulted from the U.S. effort to depose the Prime Minister of Iran in 1953. Whether this is tantamount to "blaming" the U.S. is a matter of semantics.

I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with his position. Actually, I both agree and disagree with it; I'm not a sociopolitical relativist and do believe that the terrorists are inherently evil, but I also think that 9/11 had some proximate causes.

What I *definitely* agree with is that it's fair game to discuss this sort of thing on the public stage. It's extraordinarily relevant to determining our future actions in the Middle East and should deserve better than to be drowned into a Rudy Giuliani applause line. And I suspect that a lot of people who voted for Paul in the Fox poll feel the same way, and are sort of tipping their hat to him. But voting for Paul in a poll is very different than voting for him in the ballot box, and he probably hurt his slim chances of winning the nomination tonight, even though he will get more attention as a gadfly/contrarian.

[BIG NIGE]

As far as getting rid of "second tier" candidates, get rid of boring people like Tancredo, Gilmore, Thompson, and Hunter, who don't have any interesting views and speak in monotones.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
He said that may have HELPED motivate the attack. He is not listing that as the sole reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

To me (again, my persnal opinion), it sounded like he was suggesting we were attacked BECAUSE of our actions in the Middle East. He clarified it well to Sean Hannity, which was good.

I happen to agree with what he MEANT to say 100%, and I've used the same analogy (would Americans like to be occupied?) that he used to explain to folks why Middle Eastern folks may not welcome Western interference. In fact, their anger goes further back, to the Crusades and to colonization. So, if I believe that, yet was still taken aback by the way Paul misspoke his opinion, I can only imagine how the sheeple took it.

As a fringe candidate, any attention is good attention. I think he can explain his position very well, so it may be good overall. I guess we'll see.

[nineinchal]

At the debate he said that us attacking Iraq caused the September 11 attacks.

I'll just let him fall by the wayside thank you.

Sometimes poker just isn't important.

[mshalen]

I was just waiting for Ron to say something that would knock himself out. So he decides to do it during a televised debate.

[Chimera]

I think a lot of the people on this forum tend to miss the forest for the trees. The prohibition of online poker is just one (very minor) symptom of a much larger disease. It saddens me to see people suggesting that we should have to justify the right to engage in a purely voluntary recreational activity. As long as people accept the idea that freedom is nothing more than a privilege granted by the state, they will continue to be duped by greedy demagogues who tell them what they want to hear.

Does anyone really believe that guys like Giuliani or Romney would hesitate for a second to flip-flop their position on internet poker (or virtually any other issue, for that matter) for the sake of political expediency? The most impressive thing about Ron Paul is that he stands for what he believes in, whether it helps him in the polls or not. That's a hell of a lot more than I can say for any of the "Tier 1" candidates.

[wax42]

Paul's position on 9/11 is not something totally new, Harry Browne said the same thing in this article (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24444) he wrote on 9/12/2001.

[Skallagrim]

Mr. Paul is hardly perfect.

But the real lesson here for a poker forum concerns the sad state of INTELLIGENCE in the good ole USA.

Anyone who truly wants to understand the world and how it operates must be aware that human events always have multiple and complex causes. Yet explaining multiple causes and how they interact (like evil, fanatacal muslims PLUS US support for secular, authoritarian, arab regimes and Israel put together lead to attacks on US) requires speaking in more than a sound bite. It also does not mean that the US should stop supporting Israel, nor stay completely out of a region that controls most of the world's oil....but boy, that thought is just reaching a paragraph and it is already "tl;dr" for most of you isnt it?

Rudy is smart enough to know that what goes around comes around and anyone who doesnt think that what the US does in the middle east has consequences is a fool. He is also smart enough to know that the republican base is far happier hearing "Al-queda: BAD; US of A: GOOD." He is also intellectually dishonest enough to go for that cheap sound bite at someone else's expense in order to get elected.

Makes it all the more obvious why "gambling: BAD; Laws against gambling: GOOD" carries as much political sway it does.

I am beginning to believe the enlightenment was a failure.

Skallagrim

[nineinchal]

[ QUOTE ]
Check out that poll on Fox! Paul in the lead BEEYOTCH!

[/ QUOTE ]

So was Sanjaya, Big Focking Deal!

[Anders]

[ QUOTE ]
At the debate he said that us attacking Iraq caused the September 11 attacks.

I'll just let him fall by the wayside thank you.

Sometimes poker just isn't important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad he's right, huh?

[kidpokeher]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who truly wants to understand the world and how it operates must be aware that human events always have multiple and complex causes. Yet explaining multiple causes and how they interact (like evil, fanatacal muslims PLUS US support for secular, authoritarian, arab regimes and Israel put together lead to attacks on US) requires speaking in more than a sound bite. It also does not mean that the US should stop supporting Israel, nor stay completely out of a region that controls most of the world's oil....but boy, that thought is just reaching a paragraph and it is already "tl;dr" for most of you isnt it?


[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad Paul didn't explain it like this after Rudy's rant. He might have got an ovation from everyone except the grannies in the front wondering what tl:dr means.

[illeagle]

This article has some vids from the debate
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/150507_ron_paul_debate.html

[Cumulonimbus]

i love this guy.

[ThreeBeers]

I agree with you. From what I heard last night (he could retract his comments regarding 9/11 and provide me with new insight of his political philosophy)Ron Paul is not an option.

ThreeBeers

[bsheck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At the debate he said that us attacking Iraq caused the September 11 attacks.

I'll just let him fall by the wayside thank you.

Sometimes poker just isn't important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad he's right, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. The only thing he said last night that people could possibly take issue with was "I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it". But he didn't mean we should be sympathetic towards their cause but that we need to look at our foreign policy.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
At the debate he said that us attacking Iraq caused the September 11 attacks.

I'll just let him fall by the wayside thank you.

Sometimes poker just isn't important.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wierd.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a sociopolitical relativist

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this another way of saying you believe everything we do is good and anyone who opposes things we do (because it [censored] them up) is evil?

[surftheiop]

Ron Paul on Wolf Blitzer show

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SenO1PelHvo

does very good job of defending statements made

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
Paul's position on 9/11 is not something totally new, Harry Browne said the same thing in this article (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24444) he wrote on 9/12/2001.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the idea is certainly important, relevant and arguable. A Harry Browne could have articulated it intelligently, and with the dignified demeanor of a serious presidential candidate. He would have conveyed an appropriate appreciation for the gravity of the situation, and shown respect for the lives that were lost.

Unfortunately, we libertarians are all too familiar with many of our candidates coming across as buffoons. The best libertarian thinkers haven't generally been the candidates out front; they're the guys who putting together substantive policy papers.

Oh well, narrow the field and move on. We've seen enough of half of these guys.

[Coy_Roy]

Ron Paul is looking better and better to me with every passing day.

He's got my vote and I happen to know for a fact that he's got some other's votes too, here in traditionally democratic DC.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
At the debate he said that us attacking Iraq caused the September 11 attacks.

I'll just let him fall by the wayside thank you.

Sometimes poker just isn't important.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, poker isn't as important. Luckily, he's right about both. (what he actually said anyway, not your misinterpretation)

It's worth noting that the reasons Ron Paul listed for 9/11 are the exact same ones Osama listed for why he did 9/11. At least someone in Washington's actually listening to what our enemies are saying about why they don't like us.

[fleece_me]

[ QUOTE ]
Rudy NAILED him. Great moment for Rudy who may also be sympathetic to our cause. I doubt he'll care enough to do anything pro-actively but he may sign a bill if the dems pass it.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

He is a former federal proseuctor. These guys are as bad as it gets when it comes to depriving people of their freedom.

Ron Paul is our only chance, as pitiful and pathetic as that is. Hard to believe how naive people are.

Rudy sympathetic to online gamblers? LOL

[fleece_me]

[ QUOTE ]
At the debate he said that us attacking Iraq caused the September 11 attacks.

I'll just let him fall by the wayside thank you.

Sometimes poker just isn't important.

[/ QUOTE ]

His thesis is a little more complex than this, and probably shared by half of America. Doesn't make it right, but to dismiss it so casually can't be right either.

[Coy_Roy]

One of the things the nazi-like mob dictator Giuliani is known for, is shutting down the well known poker clubs in NYC.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]

It's worth noting that the reasons Ron Paul listed for 9/11 are the exact same ones Osama listed for why he did 9/11. At least someone in Washington's actually listening to what our enemies are saying about why they don't like us.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with Paul's argument (at least as I have heard it in sound bites...I haven't read any longer articles), is that is fails to acknowledge the the evil and irrationality of the terrorists, such that while US policy may be in some sense a cause of the 9/11 attacks, it has such a remote logical connection to the attacks that it cannot be said to share any moral responsibility for them.

In legal terms, it may be a cause-in-fact, but it is not a proximate cause. It would be like saying that the assassination attempt on Reagan was caused by Jodie Foster.

[Borodog]

The despicable bastards are at it again. Members of the RNC are circulating a petition to exclude Dr. Paul from future Republican Presidential Candidate debates. A counter petition, also by members of the RNC, has been started to ensure that Dr. Paul is allowed to participate. Sign here:

http://www.petitiononline.com/RPRNC08/petition.html

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's worth noting that the reasons Ron Paul listed for 9/11 are the exact same ones Osama listed for why he did 9/11. At least someone in Washington's actually listening to what our enemies are saying about why they don't like us.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with Paul's argument (at least as I have heard it in sound bites...I haven't read any longer articles), is that is fails to acknowledge the the evil and irrationality of the terrorists,

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, no? He explicitly mentioned it, twice, in his exchange with Guliani. In fact he is the only one to do so.

[ QUOTE ]
such that while US policy may be in some sense a cause of the 9/11 attacks, it has such a remote logical connection to the attacks that it cannot be said to share any moral responsibility for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Remote logical connection"? The people who attacked us came right out and said it was because of our meddling in the region, building bases in their holy lands, deposing of democratically elected leaders, installation and support of tyrannical regimes, taking of sides, etc, etc, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
In legal terms, it may be a cause-in-fact, but it is not a proximate cause. It would be like saying that the assassination attempt on Reagan was caused by Jodie Foster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. No, it's like your neighbor wanting to kill you because you let your dog [censored] on his lawn, keyed his car, set fire to his toolshed, and beat him up.

[BruinEric]

Man, this thread is almost ALL politics with tiny wisps of "Poker Legislation" content.

IMHO, take the "RNC, please include Ron Paul!" and "DNC, please include Lyndon LaRouche" (blast from the past for those of you not in their 20s here) type topics there.

[Chimera]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with Paul's argument (at least as I have heard it in sound bites...I haven't read any longer articles), is that is fails to acknowledge the the evil and irrationality of the terrorists, such that while US policy may be in some sense a cause of the 9/11 attacks, it has such a remote logical connection to the attacks that it cannot be said to share any moral responsibility for them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Far from being a "remote" cause, I would argue that it is the primary cause. At a minimum, it's a much more logical explanation than the "evil, crazy terrorists hate us because we're free" garbage. The last time I checked, many other countries (Australia, Canada, etc.) had freedom of religion, freedom of speech, democratically elected governments, etc. So why do the "evil, crazy terrorists" single out the U.S. as the object of their "evil, irrational hatred of freedom"? Could it be because Australia, Canada, etc. don't go around acting as international bully (or "policeman", if you prefer)?

[Grasshopp3r]

Here is some more Ron Paul info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

The more I read about Ron Paul, the more that I like him. He may not be electable or be a contender in this election, but he moves the Republican party away from the religious whackos, which is a great thing.

I love his stance on granting the President authority to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which would allow war to be carried out against individuals rather than foreign countries. Dog the Bounty Hunter > Osama.

[Chimera]

[ QUOTE ]
Man, this thread is almost ALL politics with tiny wisps of "Poker Legislation" content. IMHO, take the "RNC, please include Ron Paul!" and "DNC, please include Lyndon LaRouche" (blast from the past for those of you not in their 20s here) type topics there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, anyone who wants to support online poker should have a vested interest in seeing Ron Paul get as much media exposure as possible, since he's the only presidential candidate who's truly committed to supporting Americans' right to play online poker.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with Paul's argument (at least as I have heard it in sound bites...I haven't read any longer articles), is that is fails to acknowledge the the evil and irrationality of the terrorists, such that while US policy may be in some sense a cause of the 9/11 attacks, it has such a remote logical connection to the attacks that it cannot be said to share any moral responsibility for them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Far from being a "remote" cause, I would argue that it is the primary cause. At a minimum, it's a much more logical explanation than the "evil, crazy terrorists hate us because we're free" garbage. The last time I checked, many other countries (Australia, Canada, etc.) had freedom of religion, freedom of speech, democratically elected governments, etc. So why do the "evil, crazy terrorists" single out the U.S. as the object of their "evil, irrational hatred of freedom"? Could it be because Australia, Canada, etc. don't go around acting as international bully (or "policeman", if you prefer)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not claiming the causation is remote in terms of not being a cause-in-fact. But it is remote in terms of moral responsibility (proximate cause).

The cause may not be "evil, crazy terrorists hate us because we are free", but indeed "evil, crazy terrorists hate us because we maintain military bases in their country" or whatever. But the important part here is "evil, crazy terrorists", not their reasoning. Their means of accomplishing their objective are so out of the ordinary and so irrationally mistargeted to actually accomplish that objective that it shouldn't matter what that objective is.

Even people who have completely rational and just arguments to make should not be listened to if they choose such a vehicle to publicize those arguments. We cannot allow terrorists to influence the course of US policy.

[Kraize]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272493,00.html

— 29% Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney
— 25% Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas
— 19% Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani
— 8% Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee
— 5% Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. Hunter
— 4% Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
— 3% Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
— 1% Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
— 0% Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore
— 0% Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson

[BruinEric]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Man, this thread is almost ALL politics with tiny wisps of "Poker Legislation" content. IMHO, take the "RNC, please include Ron Paul!" and "DNC, please include Lyndon LaRouche" (blast from the past for those of you not in their 20s here) type topics there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, anyone who wants to support online poker should have a vested interest in seeing Ron Paul get as much media exposure as possible, since he's the only presidential candidate who's truly committed to supporting Americans' right to play online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't see all of the two recent debates, can you let me know what he said about online poker? Thanks!

[Chimera]

[ QUOTE ]
Even people who have completely rational and just arguments to make should not be listened to if they choose such a vehicle to publicize those arguments. We cannot allow terrorists to influence the course of US policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misunderstand my argument. I'm certainly not defending the actions of the terrorists (which are obviously reprehensible), nor am I suggesting that we should change our policies because of what the terrorists did. Rather, we should change our policies because they're wrong.

To use an analogy, if I slash your tires every day for a week, and you finally get tired of it and respond by burning my house down, your action is obviously "more wrong" than mine. But that doesn't mean that I was justified in slashing your tires, nor does it mean that I should continue to slash your tires every day, in order to avoid "giving in to you".

[Chimera]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Man, this thread is almost ALL politics with tiny wisps of "Poker Legislation" content. IMHO, take the "RNC, please include Ron Paul!" and "DNC, please include Lyndon LaRouche" (blast from the past for those of you not in their 20s here) type topics there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, anyone who wants to support online poker should have a vested interest in seeing Ron Paul get as much media exposure as possible, since he's the only presidential candidate who's truly committed to supporting Americans' right to play online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't see all of the two recent debates, can you let me know what he said about online poker? Thanks!

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, no problem. He said on several occasions that it was not government's job to control people's personal decisions, and dictate to them how to spend their money. You're welcome!

[BruinEric]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I didn't see all of the two recent debates, can you let me know what he said about online poker? Thanks!

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, no problem. He said on several occasions that it was not government's job to control people's personal decisions, and dictate to them how to spend their money. You're welcome!

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh. You got my hopes up that he raised the profile of the poker issue, but instead this is just the standard "less government / no government" libertarian line, with which I am occasionally sympathetic.

So then I am back to my opinion that this seems like good fodder for the "Politics" forum and not for the "Poker Legislation" forum. Threads about who should be in what debate and root causes of 9/11 don't seem directly related to poker legislation.

Further -- you suggested Ron Paul is "the only presidential candidate who's truly committed to supporting Americans' right to play online poker." But Dennis Kucinich (a candidate for President as a Democrat) is on record voting against the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in its HR4411 form (different than the one which was actually passed into law). So when (not if) the Democrats bump him from the debate circuit, please pressure the DNC as well.

IMHO, if publicly aligning our cause with Kucinich & Paul are the best hope we have for improvements in the legal climate for online poker, then our hopes are slim indeed. I don't believe either is a credible spokesperson to take our message to voters and legislators who are open to changing their minds on this issue.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's worth noting that the reasons Ron Paul listed for 9/11 are the exact same ones Osama listed for why he did 9/11. At least someone in Washington's actually listening to what our enemies are saying about why they don't like us.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with Paul's argument (at least as I have heard it in sound bites...I haven't read any longer articles), is that is fails to acknowledge the the evil and irrationality of the terrorists, such that while US policy may be in some sense a cause of the 9/11 attacks, it has such a remote logical connection to the attacks that it cannot be said to share any moral responsibility for them.

In legal terms, it may be a cause-in-fact, but it is not a proximate cause. It would be like saying that the assassination attempt on Reagan was caused by Jodie Foster.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's more like saying a person sticking a fork into an electric socket is the reason they got electrocuted. The current attitude is to blame the electricity for hating us.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Man, this thread is almost ALL politics with tiny wisps of "Poker Legislation" content. IMHO, take the "RNC, please include Ron Paul!" and "DNC, please include Lyndon LaRouche" (blast from the past for those of you not in their 20s here) type topics there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, anyone who wants to support online poker should have a vested interest in seeing Ron Paul get as much media exposure as possible, since he's the only presidential candidate who's truly committed to supporting Americans' right to play online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't see all of the two recent debates, can you let me know what he said about online poker? Thanks!

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b7_h_OyTI0

Not the man's best speech, but it certainly shows he's firmly against regulating online gambling.

[Chimera]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh. You got my hopes up that he raised the profile of the poker issue, but instead this is just the standard "less government / no government" libertarian line, with which I am occasionally sympathetic.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I pointed out in my initial post in this thread, the prohibition of online poker is just one symptom of a much larger disease. Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate who is interested in treating the disease, rather than just the symptoms.


[ QUOTE ]
Further -- you suggested Ron Paul is "the only presidential candidate who's truly committed to supporting Americans' right to play online poker." But Dennis Kucinich (a candidate for President as a Democrat) is on record voting against the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in its HR4411 form (different than the one which was actually passed into law). So when (not if) the Democrats bump him from the debate circuit, please pressure the DNC as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I would never vote for Kucinich, I would be more than happy to sign a petition supporting his inclusion in any and all Democratic primary debates. I have never believed in censorship, regardless of whether I agree with the message.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, if publicly aligning our cause with Kucinich & Paul are the best hope we have for improvements in the legal climate for online poker, then our hopes are slim indeed. I don't believe either is a credible spokesperson to take our message to voters and legislators who are open to changing their minds on this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. Our hopes are slim indeed.

[Skallagrim]

"We cannot allow terrorists to influence the course of US policy."

Is this an indictment of the Bush Administration or have you been asleep since 9/11? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Further -- you suggested Ron Paul is "the only presidential candidate who's truly committed to supporting Americans' right to play online poker." But Dennis Kucinich (a candidate for President as a Democrat) is on record voting against the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in its HR4411 form (different than the one which was actually passed into law). So when (not if) the Democrats bump him from the debate circuit, please pressure the DNC as well.

IMHO, if publicly aligning our cause with Kucinich & Paul are the best hope we have for improvements in the legal climate for online poker, then our hopes are slim indeed. I don't believe either is a credible spokesperson to take our message to voters and legislators who are open to changing their minds on this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Richardson has come out against banning Internet gaming as well.

Many candidates have come out for a ban, and a few have no recorded opinion.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Man, this thread is almost ALL politics with tiny wisps of "Poker Legislation" content. IMHO, take the "RNC, please include Ron Paul!" and "DNC, please include Lyndon LaRouche" (blast from the past for those of you not in their 20s here) type topics there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, anyone who wants to support online poker should have a vested interest in seeing Ron Paul get as much media exposure as possible, since he's the only presidential candidate who's truly committed to supporting Americans' right to play online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't see all of the two recent debates, can you let me know what he said about online poker? Thanks!

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't say anything in the debates because it didn't come up, but here is what he said on the house floor when the original bill came up for a vote:

(Note: Dr. Paul was one of 17 Republicans who voted against the bill. He is the only Republican who voted against it now serving
on the House Financial Services Committee.)

Congressional Record, House of Representatives, July 11, 2006



Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. It is not easy to oppose this legislation because it is assumed
that proponents of the bill are on the side of the moral high ground. But there is a higher moral high ground in the sense that
protecting liberty is more important than passing a bill that regulates something on the Internet.

The Interstate Commerce Clause originally was intended to make sure there were no barriers between interstate trade. In this
case, we are putting barriers up.

I want to make the point that prohibition, as a general principle, is a bad principle because it doesn't work. It doesn't solve
the problem because it can't decrease the demand. As a matter of fact, the only thing it does is increase the price. And there are
some people who see prohibitions as an enticement, and that it actually increases the demand.

But once you make something illegal, whether it is alcohol or whether it is cigarettes or whether it is gambling on the Internet,
it doesn't disappear because of this increased demand. All that happens is, it is turned over to the criminal element. So you won't
get rid of it.

Sometimes people say that this prohibition that is proposed is designed to protect other interests because we certainly aren't
going to get rid of gambling, so we might get rid of one type of gambling, but actually enhance the other.

But one of the basic principles, a basic reason why I strongly oppose this is, I see this as a regulation of the Internet, which
is a very, very dangerous precedent to set.

To start with, I can see some things that are much more dangerous than gambling. I happen to personally strongly oppose gambling.
I think it is pretty stupid, to tell you the truth.

But what about political ideas? What about religious fanaticism? Are we going to get rid of those? I can think of 1,000 things
worse coming from those bad ideas. But who will come down here and say, Just think of the evil of these bad ideas and distorted
religions, and therefore we have to regulate the Internet?

* [Begin Insert]

H.R. 4411 , the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, should be rejected by Congress since the Federal Government
has no constitutional authority to ban or even discourage any form of gambling.

In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 4411 is likely to prove ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill
will ensure that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the failed experiment of prohibition to today's futile
``war on drugs,'' shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like Internet gambling simply by passing a law.
Instead, H.R. 4411 will force those who wish to gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers willing to flaunt the ban. In many
cases, providers of services banned by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if organized crime does not
operate Internet gambling enterprises their competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, since the owners
and patrons of Internet gambling cannot rely on the police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they will be
forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling will flow into
organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the
profits flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will
actually increase organized crime's ability to control and profit from Internet gambling.

In conclusion, H.R. 4411 violates the constitutional limits on Federal power. Furthermore, laws such as H.R. 4411 are ineffective
in eliminating the demand for vices such as Internet gambling; instead, they ensure that these enterprises will be controlled by
organized crime. Therefore I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 4411 , the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act.

* [End Insert]

[Jeffiner99]

If you want to know more about him on a host of topics go here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

They have a ton of his past articles on numerous topics. Just reading the titles gives you a good idea where he stands.

I think he did a great job. It is unwise to ignore the fact that the gov't's actions in foreign lands have consequences. Someone said it best when they wrote: It is not giving in to the bees to stop poking a stick into their hive.

I think this thread should also remain in this forum because this guy is the most friendly to online poker and the REASON for it of all the candidates. Not only would he not prevent poker from being played but he would never regulate it all. He even wants to abolish the income tax for all, including poker players. He is the best of all worlds for us.

I don't think he did as poorly as all the mainstream media seems to think. If you do a search on Google news, he is actually coming across quite will in the general Internet population. At least they are talking about him.

We might as well all sign the petition, and does anyone know where the next debate will be held? What network? Might as well start emailing them too.

[Jeffiner99]

For those of you that DO like Ron Paul and want a guy in the White House who will give poker a chance, please take a second and go here and find the poll on the right column. It will only let you vote once so that should shut up that Ron Paul supporters are spamming the internet crowd.

http://azgop.typepad.com/

Takes two seconds. They don't even ask your name or anything. Just click on the name. It will be up for a few days says the people from Ron's party.

[BIG NIGE]

He won Fox's post-debate text poll /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[BIG NIGE]

It's not true that you can only vote once. I just voted for him three times and it went up by one vote each time. All you have to do is close the browser and reclick the link.

[wacki]

somebody needs to get this news up on digg