Paul moving on up

[Bilgefisher]

Nate,
Pardon the dumb question, but whats his stance on poker?

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Nate,
Pardon the dumb question, but whats his stance on poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

He voted against the UIGEA and spoke out against it on the floor of the House. Strict libertarian and states' rights/federalism guy. Basically, he's a home run from a poker standpoint.

[ekdikeo]

and this guy's identifying as a republican?

What's his down side? Wants to deport all the gays?

[Vern]

[ QUOTE ]
and this guy's identifying as a republican?

What's his down side? Wants to deport all the gays?

[/ QUOTE ]
He started as a libertarian but says he had to pick one of the two major parties to get anywhere in politics and the Republicans at least sounded more like libertarians. I like him too as he has never changed his stance on anything. He might vote for/against a package while not agree with it all, but at least he says so. He also requires that new Federal laws be defendable within the Constitution, even if he likes the law. I think he may be too genuine for most Americans.

Vern

Edit: I almost forgot, he serves on the House Financial Services Committee so unless he is busy campaigning, we may hear from him during Friday's hearing.

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
and this guy's identifying as a republican?

What's his down side?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, aren't you answering your own question here?

That's analogous to saying: "and this guy identifies as a segregationist? What's his down side?"

[mattnxtc]

As posted above, Paul realized that to be able to get an sort of message out in our two party political system, he would have to join a side. He is still very much Libertarian in his views and now able to express them on to the country

[ekdikeo]

It seems like it would make more sense for a Libertarian to identify a bit closer to the Democrats, particularly if he actually wanted to win something, after this country has been utterly raped and pillaged by the Repubs for this long. Unless the R's have managed to completely screw up the voting system.

[GoodCallYouWin]

Ron Paul's 'downside' is that he's pro-life (well he thinks states should decide) and pro 'don't ask don't tell' (well he's against disruptive behaviour in the military).

Not much of a downside compared with :

Ending America's interventionist foreign policy
Ending Income Tax
Bitchslapping big government back to Russia, where it came from.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nate,
Pardon the dumb question, but whats his stance on poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

He voted against the UIGEA and spoke out against it on the floor of the House. Strict libertarian and states' rights/federalism guy. Basically, he's a home run from a poker standpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

For accuracy. the UIGEA was a rider attached to a Senate bill, thus Paul did not vote on. (Had he had the opportunity, he would have voted against it.) He has voted against every single piece of legislation in the House directed at regulating the internet. It's safe to say that he opposes ALL governmental regulation of business and private behavior.

He was the Libertarian Party Candidate for President in 1988.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nate,
Pardon the dumb question, but whats his stance on poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

He voted against the UIGEA and spoke out against it on the floor of the House. Strict libertarian and states' rights/federalism guy. Basically, he's a home run from a poker standpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

For accuracy. the UIGEA was a rider attached to a Senate bill, thus Paul did not vote on. (Had he had the opportunity, he would have voted against it.) He has voted against every single piece of legislation in the House directed at regulating the internet. It's safe to say that he opposes ALL governmental regulation of business and private behavior.

He was the Libertarian Party Candidate for President in 1988.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a common misconception. For accuracy, UIGEA started as HR 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act. It was tougher than UIGEA and it passed 317-93. Rep. Paul voted against it. In the Senate, this bill was weakened a bit and added to the SAFE Port Act., a piece of unrelated, must-pass legislation.

Ron Paul is on our side, 100%.