44 replies to this topic

[Scanner313]

for every poker player here who was pissed off at the US government for their actions regarding the unlawful internet gambling bill, you have to learn what Ron Paul is all about.I'm a Libertarian, but I'm also a realist. I know that the Libertarian party is NOT going to present a candidate for President who will have a chance of winning, so I'm puting my support behind Ron Paul. While I don't agree with him on every issue, he's the only candidate who honestly believes the government is way too big and has their hand in way too many of our personal issues. He's a Libertarian in most areas and is probably our last real hope of taking back this country from the corporations who control everything our elected leaders do.Now, I'm not naive, I know that candidates promise things then do the exact opposite, but I believe Ron Paul is a man who sticks to his word, and would do his best to make this country a better place.If you're an independent then there should be no other option in your mind. Liberals won't like him because of his fiscal conservativism, but socially they would have to love most (not all) of his positions.I would hope that everyone here would check out what he's about. If you like his views, support him in any way you can. I don't know if he has a legitimate shot at the GOP nomination (the party leaders decide who suits them best, and I'm sure Ron's not their top choice), but if enough people support him there is a chance he could run as an independent who might have a legit shot at winning. If we support him there is always hope.Anyway, he's actually appearing tonight on the Daily Show with John Stewart at 11PM. Check him out and make up your own mind. He's also going to be part of the Presidential debates tomorrow night (June 5th) on CNN from 7-9PM.

[sholden]

He does stick to his work, of course his words are those of a racist prick, who also happens to have much much better economic and international relations views than the Republicans and Democrats.Not sure the later makes up for the former though.

[Scanner313]

sholden, on Monday, June 4th, 2007, 9:18 AM, said:

He does stick to his work, of course his words are those of a racist prick, who also happens to have much much better economic and international relations views than the Republicans and Democrats.Not sure the later makes up for the former though.

What evidence do you have that he's a racist? That's a pretty bold statement to make and not back it up.

[No_Neck]

i am going to vote for a third party candidate, possibly Barrack Obama. My state will be a blue state no matter what I vote, so might as well throw some support behind a party that actually believes in smaller government.

[suicideking]

Scanner313, on Monday, June 4th, 2007, 10:09 AM, said:

for every poker player here who was pissed off at the US government for their actions regarding the unlawful internet gambling bill, you have to learn what Ron Paul is all about.I'm a Libertarian, but I'm also a realist. I know that the Libertarian party is NOT going to present a candidate for President who will have a chance of winning, so I'm puting my support behind Ron Paul. While I don't agree with him on every issue, he's the only candidate who honestly believes the government is way too big and has their hand in way too many of our personal issues. He's a Libertarian in most areas and is probably our last real hope of taking back this country from the corporations who control everything our elected leaders do.Now, I'm not naive, I know that candidates promise things then do the exact opposite, but I believe Ron Paul is a man who sticks to his word, and would do his best to make this country a better place.If you're an independent then there should be no other option in your mind. Liberals won't like him because of his fiscal conservativism, but socially they would have to love most (not all) of his positions.I would hope that everyone here would check out what he's about. If you like his views, support him in any way you can. I don't know if he has a legitimate shot at the GOP nomination (the party leaders decide who suits them best, and I'm sure Ron's not their top choice), but if enough people support him there is a chance he could run as an independent who might have a legit shot at winning. If we support him there is always hope.Anyway, he's actually appearing tonight on the Daily Show with John Stewart at 11PM. Check him out and make up your own mind. He's also going to be part of the Presidential debates tomorrow night (June 5th) on CNN from 7-9PM.

Here's a video of him giving a speech outside a high school:

[chrozzo]

politicalspamaments

[Scanner313]

chrozzo, on Monday, June 4th, 2007, 9:22 AM, said:

politicalspamaments

You got it, chris! But if we can't discuss poiltics on a general poker forum, then where else?

[Scanner313]

No_Neck, on Monday, June 4th, 2007, 9:22 AM, said:

i am going to vote for a third party candidate, possibly Barrack Obama. My state will be a blue state no matter what I vote, so might as well throw some support behind a party that actually believes in smaller government.

You're exactly the kind of person who Ron Paul SHOULD appeal to. He's the only candidate (with a real chance to win) in the race who truly believes in small government.

[Jam-Fly]

sholden, on Monday, June 4th, 2007, 9:18 AM, said:

He does stick to his work, of course his words are those of a racist prick, who also happens to have much much better economic and international relations views than the Republicans and Democrats.Not sure the later makes up for the former though.

lol

Scanner313, on Monday, June 4th, 2007, 9:21 AM, said:

What evidence do you have that he's a racist? That's a pretty bold statement to make and not back it up.

So your admitting that he's a prick, just not a racist prick?

[Miguel McHarris]

I'm a registered Independent and I agree with most of the Libertarian philosophy. Gay marriage, abortion, gun control, taxes, but I'm pretty hawkish on The War on Terror.The strange thing about Democrats and Republicans is that in the last 10-15 yrs they've pretty much swapped places. Republicans used to be known as the non interventionist party no nation building and focusing on domestic policy. From WW1 to Viet Nam every war had commenced under a President that was a Democrat. So yeah I'm still undecided. At first I liked O'Bama, but he hasn't shown me anything. I'll be undecided until the last minute. Thanks for the Jon Stewart mention, I'll be watching.

[psujohn]

He was on Bill Maher. Seems like a decent enough guy. Has about as much of a chance to get the GOP nod as Hillary does.

[Scanner313]

psujohn, on Monday, June 4th, 2007, 9:38 AM, said:

He was on Bill Maher. Seems like a decent enough guy. Has about as much of a chance to get the GOP nod as Hillary does.

I agree 100%. But if he gets enough support in the primaries he may consider an independent bid.All I know is that the same crappy choices we've had for way too many years haven't done anything to make this country a better place. Somebody needs to step up to the plate, and so far he's the only one I see who gives a crap what us peons think.

[sholden]

Scanner313, on Monday, June 4th, 2007, 9:21 AM, said:

What evidence do you have that he's a racist? That's a pretty bold statement to make and not back it up.

"I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, talking about Washington DC in a 1992 newsletter.The original quote is from a print only newsletter (1992 after all) but googling that string (with the quotes) will turn up a million references to it.

[FourFlusher]

Depends on the city...he may be correct.

[H_Factor73]

The only thing that is attractive about Ron Paul is the fact that this guy is not a politician. He says what he believes and sticks to it. Listen to him on ITunes in the Real Time with Bill Maher podcast from 3/30/07. His interview is about 30 minutes in after the first panel discussion. Unfortunately he has some views that are a little on the odd side (i.e. we don't need the CIA, we should not have fought the American Civil War) and there is no way he will ever get elected. How he got elected in Texas is amazing. The only reason was the R behind his name I'm sure. Support for Paul is a wasted vote. I like his moxie, but I'm sure this guy believes in Vulcan mind melds and little green men.The only candidates to vote for who won't get their party's nomination is Joe Biden or Mitt Romney. Both could turn the country around with their stances on Iraq and Government, respectively. Unfortunately we can't merge all the candidates into one super candidate because all those who have stood up to the challenge are very deficient in one way or another.

[Mikey Ravioli]

If I am going to waste a vote, I will write in Heywood Jablome.At least it will give me a chuckle.

[hblask]

sholden, on Monday, June 4th, 2007, 1:39 PM, said:

"I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, talking about Washington DC in a 1992 newsletter.The original quote is from a print only newsletter (1992 after all) but googling that string (with the quotes) will turn up a million references to it.

How about in context? Still sound as racist?

Quote

Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.

In other words, it was more a commentary on the inefficiency of the criminal justice system. A poorly chosen statement either way, but hardly evidence of racism. I've read some of the other comments from him, they seem harder to defend, but again, context is everything, unless you are a 30 minute news program.I like Ron Paul. There are several major things I disagree with him on, and it's possible I would not like him as a person. But given a choice between someone who is unlikeable but will run a principled government, or someone who is likeable but would promote socialized medicine (no names mentioned, but his initials are Barrack Obama), my choice of who to vote for is easy.EDIT: By the way, MODS, are you asleep? Why isn't this moved to OT yet?

[hblask]

H_Factor73, on Monday, June 4th, 2007, 1:52 PM, said:

The only candidates to vote for who won't get their party's nomination is Joe Biden or Mitt Romney. Both could turn the country around with their stances on Iraq and Government, respectively. Unfortunately we can't merge all the candidates into one super candidate because all those who have stood up to the challenge are very deficient in one way or another.

Biden and Romney both believe in massive gov't intervention in the economy. How is that turning the country around? That's "more of the same". And in Iraq, Ron Paul is the only candidate who has consistently held a principled stance against the current quagmire (even before it was politically popular to do so.)

[sdc12303]

Yeah I like him a lot. I think he has some interesting views on things and would be good for the Country. Unfortunately I dont think he will even come close to getting the Republican Nomination. It was funny though on Real Time how Bill Maher said it was the first time ever on his show that a Republican got so much applause.

[sholden]

hblask, on Monday, June 4th, 2007, 11:11 AM, said:

How about in context? Still sound as racist?In other words, it was more a commentary on the inefficiency of the criminal justice system. A poorly chosen statement either way, but hardly evidence of racism. I've read some of the other comments from him, they seem harder to defend, but again, context is everything, unless you are a 30 minute news program.I like Ron Paul. There are several major things I disagree with him on, and it's possible I would not like him as a person. But given a choice between someone who is unlikeable but will run a principled government, or someone who is likeable but would promote socialized medicine (no names mentioned, but his initials are Barrack Obama), my choice of who to vote for is easy.EDIT: By the way, MODS, are you asleep? Why isn't this moved to OT yet?

In context it sounds just as bad, yes.And it sinks his campaign. If he manages to get close it'll all come up in the big spotlight and he goes down in flames, so the fact that he has reasonable views on government size is pretty much irrelevant.America needs a president with views like that, but I don't think Ron Paul will be the one, given his other views.