Ron Paul being excluded again!!

[Nairb]

For those that care and are on the Ron Paul bandwagon he needs your help. This is an e-mail I recieved from Dr. Pauls campaign manager describing how Dr Paul is being excluded from an Iowa Republican event. It includes contact information for those responsible. If you do not care then disregard my post but for those that believe in Dr.Paul and his ideals now is another time to respond. The e-mail is as follows:


June 19, 2007


Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance will host a presidential candidates forum on Saturday, June 30th in Des Moines. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, and Tom Tancredo will participate.

Ron Paul, however, will not participate. Why? Because he wasn’t invited.

We heard about this forum from numerous supporters in Iowa who asked why Dr. Paul was not going to participate. Those supporters assumed that Dr. Paul was invited.

The campaign office had not received an invitation so we called this morning; thinking we might have misplaced the invitation or simply overlooked it. Lew Moore, our campaign manager, called Mr. Edward Failor, an officer of Iowans for Tax Relief, to ask about it. To our shock, Mr. Failor told us Dr. Paul was not invited; he was not going to be invited; and he would not be allowed to participate. And when asked why, Mr. Failor refused to explain. The call ended.

Lew then called Mr. Steve Sheffler, president of the Iowa Christian Alliance, to talk with him. Mr. Sheffler did not answer so Lew left a message. He has yet to respond.

Why are the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance excluding the one Republican candidate who scored at the top of every online poll taken after the MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN debates? Why are they denying Iowans the opportunity to hear from the Republican presidential candidate whose popularity is growing by the day?

We couldn’t get answers to these questions from Messrs. Failor and Sheffler. Maybe you’ll have better luck. Their contact information is below.

It's ironic that on the same day we learned the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance excluded Dr. Paul from their candidates forum, we received a call from ABC News confirming Dr. Paul’s participation in its nationally broadcast August 5th debate to be held in Des Moines.

Kent Snyder, Chairman
Ron Paul 2008


Contact Information

Edward Failor
Iowans for Tax Relief
2610 Park Avenue
Muscatine, Iowa 52761
Phone: 563-288-3600 or 877-913-3600
Fax: 563-264-2413
E-mail: itr@taxrelief.org

Steve Sheffler, President
Iowa Christian Alliance
939 Office Park Road, Suite 115
West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
Phone: 515-225-1515
Fax: 515-225-1826
E-mail: slscheffler@iowachristian.com

[BluffTHIS!]

politard forum not leg forum stuff

[Nairb]

Mods if this should be somewhere else please move it there but I have seen several threads about this exact sort of thing in this forum, some several pages long. Ron Paul would be great for Poker Legislation and that is why I posted it here. It seems like Leg. forum people actually care and take action.

[BluffTHIS!]

the politard forum is where there is the greatest concentration of those posters caring about Ron Paul

this is pure politics not legislation

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

You guys are getting all frothy at the mouth over Ron Paul and he's not even anything pro poker past that he's a "former" libertarian. Let it go.

[Scary_Tiger]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys are getting all frothy at the mouth over Ron Paul and he's not even anything pro poker past that he's a "former" libertarian. Let it go.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not even anything pro poker, except that he's pro poker.

You slow or something?

edit: Obviously this post doesn't belong here.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys are getting all frothy at the mouth over Ron Paul and he's not even anything pro poker past that he's a "former" libertarian. Let it go.

[/ QUOTE ]


He was the only candidate to actually attend the hearing on internet gambling. He also spoke and and confirmed his support for the Barney Frank legislation.

Your comment is asinine.

[Tuff_Fish]

Cross post this to the Political Forum.

And guys, we need all the help we can get. If we help out Ron Paul, someday Ron Paul may be able to help us.

Keep the post here.

Tuff

[The Bandit Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You guys are getting all frothy at the mouth over Ron Paul and he's not even anything pro poker past that he's a "former" libertarian. Let it go.

[/ QUOTE ]


He was the only candidate to actually attend the hearing on internet gambling. He also spoke and and confirmed his support for the Barney Frank legislation.

Your comment is asinine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well Ron Paul is NOT pro-poker or pro-gambling at all. He's stated he thinks gambling is stupid, but he thinks that the government telling people they can't do something like gamble is worse than gambling itself, so while he's not pro-poker, he's pro-freedom and very much on our side.

[TrainHardDieHard]

We're trillions of dollars in debt and lagging behind growing nations. Ten years from now China and India will be the most powerful country in the world. In fact, we would get our asses handed to us if we ever went to war with China (never would happen though).

Ron Paul would get this country's economy back on track and in the black.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You guys are getting all frothy at the mouth over Ron Paul and he's not even anything pro poker past that he's a "former" libertarian. Let it go.

[/ QUOTE ]


He was the only candidate to actually attend the hearing on internet gambling. He also spoke and and confirmed his support for the Barney Frank legislation.

Your comment is asinine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well Ron Paul is NOT pro-poker or pro-gambling at all. He's stated he thinks gambling is stupid, but he thinks that the government telling people they can't do something like gamble is worse than gambling itself, so while he's not pro-poker, he's pro-freedom and very much on our side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are his actual words on the floor of the House:

(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]