***Official Ron Paul video thread***

[dlv54]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, this isn't a video, but this is the most active Ron Paul thread, and I didn't want to start another one.

Somebody with FOX NEWS actually sided with Paul over Giuliani.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274174,00.html

[/ QUOTE ]

from the article: "No one knows precisely what morbid formula inspired the Sept. 11 attacks." - this is wrong - bin laden stated why he hated us in his dec. of war according to scheuer (who Dr. Paul quoted earlier in one of his interviews post-debate) in imperial hubris.

finally somebody in the mainstream media/political world is saying why they did it - which is why the poster in the other paul thread is wrong when he says that paul is good for a republican. imo, if you think our nat. security is a major issue in the election, he is the only choice.

[kidpokeher]

Here is a huge archive of articles Ron Paul has written:

http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

(Not videos but I dunno if I can post anywhere else without getting censored.)

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a huge archive of articles Ron Paul has written:

http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

(Not videos but I dunno if I can post anywhere else without getting censored.)

[/ QUOTE ]

What an excellent collection! Thanks for posting.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't worry about this anymore. Word from the legislation forum is that the Michigan guy gave up on removing Paul. On top of this, the interviews Paul has been getting recently show that the press, which actually makes the decision, are interested in Paul. Don't worry about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, he gave up on excluding only Ron Paul. That was too obvious; now he wants to exclude everyone but Rudy McRomney.

[Brainwalter]

May 22, 2007

Congressman Ron Paul will speak on foreign policy tonight on the U.S. House floor around 9:00 p.m. ET. The schedule for special-order speeches can change with little notice, but the schedule now shows around 9:00 p.m. ET. Floor speeches are broadcast as part of C-SPAN's regular coverage of the House floor.

[mark_foley]

[ QUOTE ]
May 22, 2007

Congressman Ron Paul will speak on foreign policy tonight on the U.S. House floor around 9:00 p.m. ET. The schedule for special-order speeches can change with little notice, but the schedule now shows around 9:00 p.m. ET. Floor speeches are broadcast as part of C-SPAN's regular coverage of the House floor.

[/ QUOTE ]

very good speech about a half hour long, hope its on you tube for those who missed

[Borodog]

Someone I know posted this. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Brainwalter]

heh I missed it.

[Ron Paul]

[ QUOTE ]
heh I missed it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ok. I'll have it up on YouTube soon.

[Jeffiner99]

Ok, so this isn't a video at all, but here are the remarks made by Ron Paul when the first draft of the UIGEA came up for passage in the House. I am adding it here to show what a friend he is to poker.

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]