Baldwin Or Barr - Poll
- Thread starter Razmear
- Start date
TheEngineer
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 434
Thanks for checking that. It sounds like they're opposed mainly to federal laws that permit gaming. I imagine they want states to have the right to stop Indian casinos. Regardless, it certainly doesn't sound Internet poker-friendly.
I did send Baldwin an email with a request for his position. I've received no reply as of yet. Contrast that with Barr's office, which replied with a personalized, quick response. And, contrast that with Root -- Root himself sent me a short reply.
TheEngineer
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 434
I updated my guide, at Presidential Candidates and Internet Poker Rights. I initiated Barr/Root at A+. This is partly because Root has been strongly outspoken in favor of right to play poker. Baldwin really isn't about freedom. I like a lot of his ideas. His ideas on poker, however, are not among them, so he's an F for poker.
The guide got some coverage at http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/06/01/poker-players-alliance-rates-ron-paul-and-barrroot-with-an-a/ .
The guide got some coverage at http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/06/01/poker-players-alliance-rates-ron-paul-and-barrroot-with-an-a/ .
scandinaviany3
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,976
amazing splits on the poll
truly amazing split on the poll.
truly amazing split on the poll.
Is that Baldwin's position too? or just the CP platform?
TheEngineer
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 434
He was the '04 VP nominee, and he's been active in the party since. As such, it seems the party platform couldn't differ from his position on an issue like this, as he'd have just had the platform changed. Also, as a Baptist minister and former Moral Majority state chairman, it fits perfectly. Again, I'm sure he's a fine person, but he doesn't appear to be the man for online poker rights.
When someone supports us, we know. For example, Ron Paul supports our freedom. We know that because he loudly advocates for this freedom. Same for Barr/Root.
So in other words, you don't know. Maybe you ought to put that in as a side note rather than misleading people. With all do respect.
Kludge
Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2007
- Messages
- 21,719
F- to you for propaganda-hating.
We're entitled to it! You know, we're always ignored or misrepresented by the media.
It's our turn.
TheEngineer
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 434
Did you read my guide? I stated that I'm going by the platform, which states: "Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states."
As for verification, his refusal to answer my question speaks volumes. He's clearly no Ron Paul on this issue. Here's more that shows he's fully on board with the CP platform:
From www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin239.htm , by Baldwin: "George Barna summarized his findings by saying, "Faith makes very little difference in their [Christians] lives: believers do not train their children to think or act differently [from the world]. It's no wonder that they [Christian children] grow up to be just as involved in gambling, excessive drinking, and any other unbiblical behavior as everyone else."
From www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin380.htm : "Can you imagine a nation without an A.C.L.U. or a N.E.A.? Can you imagine a country that did not legally murder its own unborn children and that would not pander to sexual deviants or criminals? Can you imagine a country that did not glorify, much less sponsor, gambling? Can you imagine a nation with strong state governments and a limited federal government?"
From www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=12718 : "Beyond that, our nation has become addicted, yes, even obsessed, with sports, leisure, and gambling! Sports celebrities are more than icons, they are gods! Leisure is more than a pastime, it is the greatest motivation for living. It seems that all people dream about is having the financial ability to retire. By retirement they mean living a life without responsibility, duty, or obligation. In other words, a life of total self-absorption. And since most are unwilling or even incapable of earning such a life, gambling is the preferred method of obtaining this ultimate life of irresponsibility."
Yes I did read your blog. You try to show that Baldwin's position is the same as the Constitution Party. It may be, but I have seen no evidence to suggest it. All those quotes prove is that Baldwin hates gambling. So what? I hate gambling too, so are you going to give me an F for my position on what the government should or shouldn't do? I can't speak for why he didn't answer your question, but what your doing is called a hit job. If Baldwin stated that what you cite is his position, it would be different. Your refusal to admit that you don't know his position speaks volumes.
TheEngineer
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 434
Would I give you an F? Well, let's say I wouldn't expect you to go all out for my freedom to play online, given your opinion. If you signed off on that platform (and there's no way Baldwin didn't....again, he was their VP candidate in '04, so he surely had the influence he needed) and stated what you stated, then I'd give you an F.
For Baldwin, it's not one single thing. Rather, it's the sum total, and it's not even close. I have video of Ron Paul adamantly arguing for my right to play, along with cosponsorship of several pieces of legislation for this freedom. I have video and articles from Root advocating for my right to play (and, he responded personally to my email, as I mentioned). Barr responded to my email with proof of his support. Baldwin has a trail of opposition, including comparing poker players to excessive drinkers, criminals, sexual deviants, etc. while running under an anti-gaming platform. No....he's clearly an F on this issue.
TheEngineer
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 434
Proven (it was proven before, but this is unequivocal):
http://www.constitutionparty.net/news_print.php?aid=36
Can You Imagine Such a Nation?
Chuck Baldwin
Can you imagine a nation without an A.C.L.U. or a N.E.A.? Can you imagine a country that did not legally murder its own unborn children and that would not pander to sexual deviants and criminals? Can you imagine a country without legalized gambling? Can you imagine a nation with strong state governments and an unobtrusive federal government?
http://www.constitutionparty.net/news_print.php?aid=36
Can You Imagine Such a Nation?
Chuck Baldwin
Can you imagine a nation without an A.C.L.U. or a N.E.A.? Can you imagine a country that did not legally murder its own unborn children and that would not pander to sexual deviants and criminals? Can you imagine a country without legalized gambling? Can you imagine a nation with strong state governments and an unobtrusive federal government?
Ah ha. Ron Paul has said many times that he hates drugs and the doctor in him would advise people to stay away from them. He has a track record of saying that. Yet he fights all out for my right to use them. You believe him in this, yes? Why can't you afford me, and Baldwin the same about gambling? Why is it you don't think Ron Paul would not fight hard for my right to do drugs, given that he personally hates them? I'm sensing a double standard here.
Baldwin had a trail of opposition? To what? Opposition to allowing people the freedom to gamble if they choose? I certainly don't see that. Can you provide me a link to prove me wrong?
What does that have to do with anything? Again, your trying to link his personal dislike for gambling, to what he would do as far as policy. They are two seperate issue. You are really gasping at strraws with this smear. I like to imagine a world without junk food (being a health nut) yet I obviously must want to ban them so no one else can enjoy such treats
Alex Libman
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,423
... Baldwin ... theocrat ... outlaw ... pornography ... gambling ... satanism ...
TheEngineer
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 434
What does that have to do with anything? Again, your trying to link his personal dislike for gambling, to what he would do as far as policy. They are two seperate issue. You are really gasping at straws with this smear. I like to imagine a world without junk food (being a health nut) yet I obviously must want to ban them so no one else can enjoy such treats
Baldwin didn't say, "Can you imagine a country where individuals each chose of their free will to not gamble". Rather, he said, "Can you imagine a country without legalized gambling". That's the key. He's imaging (and advocating) a country where the majority collectively assert rights over individuals in the area of all gaming. So long as this is at the state level and not the federal, Baldwin is happy.
Yeah, but Ron Paul ALWAYS follows up these statements with a statement of the right of the individual to make this decision. Every time. That's why I think Ron Paul would fight hard for this right -- because he says he will and because he does.
Seriously, if Baldwin said all this against guns while running as the nominee of a party with an anti-gun party platform, what do you think the NRA would rate him?
Imagine if the platform stated "Guns promote an increase in crime and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of the gun industry, such as shooting events, or subsidization of the gun industry in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of gun possession." Wouldn't you expect a candidate running under such a platform who disagreed with it to state so clearly and emphatically? I would. If, rather, he said, "Can you imagine a country without legalized guns?", what conclusions would you draw? I realize you like the guy, but his record to date is quite clear.
I'm glad we had this conversation. Going in, I had questions about Baldwin. Now, I'm 100% convinced of where he stands, based on the strong evidence.
Last edited:
TheEngineer
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 434
Also, what is "legalized" gambling? This term implies that gaming is naturally illegal unless authorized by a government. That is a unique philosophy -- one to which very few libertarians would subscribe. I think most libertarians (small "L" as well capital "L") think of government sanctioned gaming as "regulated" gambling.
It is problematic that Baldwin thinks gaming is naturally illegal, requiring permission by a collective authority.
So, Familydog, since you don't like the "F", what would you rate him? And, he can't be a "?", both because he's on the record and because he's running on a platform that's on the record.
It is problematic that Baldwin thinks gaming is naturally illegal, requiring permission by a collective authority.
So, Familydog, since you don't like the "F", what would you rate him? And, he can't be a "?", both because he's on the record and because he's running on a platform that's on the record.
Similar threads
