Ron Paul being ousted by Fox - Needs your help NOW

[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.