Rep chairman petitioning Ron Paul from debate 3 HELP

[ProsperousOne]

sorry if this has already been covered, but has anyone contacted Ron Pauls campaign to address online gambling/poker? I'm wondering if he publicly addresses this, he'll get lots of media attention, as well as find more supporters.

I think a lot of Republicans are getting really sick of the Far right impeding too far on personal freedoms....

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Monday, make a call and tell the Michigan GOP that according to the Fox poll McCain was only running at 2% and Paul at 29% so perhaps we should just ban McCain.


[/ QUOTE ]

Should we really quote the post-debate text-phone results as if they represent the electorate? Perhaps we should reference the results in terms of the preference of the viewers, then discuss the need for a true limited-government conservative's participation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was being flippant.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant I was being flippant in my first draft. Yours is better.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
sorry if this has already been covered, but has anyone contacted Ron Pauls campaign to address online gambling/poker? I'm wondering if he publicly addresses this, he'll get lots of media attention, as well as find more supporters.

I think a lot of Republicans are getting really sick of the Far right impeding too far on personal freedoms....

[/ QUOTE ]

Been there, done that. Still waiting. I think right now he is busy with other things. Plus, they already think he is a nut, this issue may just lose him supporters. We in the gambling world all know he rocks. He did say in the first debate that he would be against any regulations of the Internet. So that kinda included online poker. But if you want to know what he said in response to the bill being discussed:

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.

[ProsperousOne]

thanks for the update and post Jeff! Awesome quote. I esp. like the part about him personally disliking gambling, but opposing requlation for the principle.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Monday, make a call and tell the Michigan GOP that according to the Fox poll McCain was only running at 2% and Paul at 29% so perhaps we should just ban McCain.


[/ QUOTE ]

Should we really quote the post-debate text-phone results as if they represent the electorate? Perhaps we should reference the results in terms of the preference of the viewers, then discuss the need for a true limited-government conservative's participation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was being flippant.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant I was being flippant in my first draft. Yours is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be hard to contact the Michigan GOP since they seem to have taken down their contact info. But I found it here:

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=2132
Here is the article if you don't want to click through:
The Michigan GOP has removed their contact information from their web site, no doubt due to an angry response stemming from the head of the Michigan GOP Saul Anuzis saying that he would try and bar Ron Paul from participating in future GOP debates. This just shows how cowardly these people are.

It is disgraceful that the Michigan GOP is run by Saul Anuzis an establishment hack who doesn't care about the will of the people or free speech.

Michigan GOP Leader Wants Ron Paul Banned From Debates

Visit the web site here and click on their contact link and you'll see the page is missing.

We were able to get the Michigan GOP contact information off of Google. Call the Michigan GOP at 517-487-5413 or fax them at 517-487-0090 and let them know how pissed off you are at these anti-American trash that have infiltrated the GOP.

Also call the RNC at 202-863-8500 or fax the RNC at 202-863-8820. This is serious business and it is time to take action.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Monday, make a call and tell the Michigan GOP that according to the Fox poll McCain was only running at 2% and Paul at 29% so perhaps we should just ban McCain.


[/ QUOTE ]

Should we really quote the post-debate text-phone results as if they represent the electorate? Perhaps we should reference the results in terms of the preference of the viewers, then discuss the need for a true limited-government conservative's participation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was being flippant.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's wrong with it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant I was being flippant in my first draft. Yours is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, thanks. I appreciate the clarification. I was scratching my head on that one. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[TomVeil]

Just a new news story that I read on LJ:

May 22, 2007

ARLINGTON, VA – The United Republicans of California (UROC) have unanimously endorsed Congressman Ron Paul for president of the United States. UROC, formed in 1963 to support Barry Goldwater, represents the traditional conservative wing of the California Republican Party.

"The unanimous endorsement from the United Republicans of California proves what the campaign has been saying all along," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Ron Paul is the only true conservative and real Republican in the race."

In their official statement endorsing Dr. Paul, UROC called him "the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital" and recognized that:

Ron Paul's voting record demonstrates that he has voted against:

· raising taxes;
· unbalanced budgets;
· a federal restriction on gun ownership;
· raising congressional pay; or
· increasing the power of the executive branch.

His voting record demonstrates further that he voted against:

· the USA Patriot Act;
· regulating the Internet; and
· the war in Iraq.

Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a record that matches the UROC’s platform.

"Whether the issue is life, the Second Amendment, foreign policy, spending or taxes, Ron Paul is the only traditional conservative candidate," continued Snyder. "Traditional conservatives across the country should support Ron Paul for president."

http://www.ronpaul2008.com
---------------------------------

I still stand by my view that anybody who is counting Paul out of the race already is making a mistake.

[ProsperousOne]

FWIW, I just donated and forwarded his site to all my libertarian friends.

In my contribution comments, I stated that I support his position on not regulating the internet, and expect him to continue to support efforts to over turn the ULIGEA.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I just donated and forwarded his site to all my libertarian friends.

In my contribution comments, I stated that I support his position on not regulating the internet, and expect him to continue to support efforts to over turn the ULIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Way to go! Now that is doing something! I too have donated. Money talks. It is starting to look like he may have a small chance. The Internet sure loves him. I have never tried to raise money for a candidate before. Anyone know some good specifics? I wish we could put on a tournament for him or something. Throw a Vegas charity night for him? Hell, I don't even know how to do that.

[Jeffiner99]

Great Ron Paul video here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...91565012624048