Ron Paul being ousted by Fox - Needs your help NOW

[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? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

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 [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]