Since Ron Paul will not run in Nov. can we support Chuck Baldwin on the grassroots?

[TheEngineer]

Perhaps because to The Engineer anyway, Poker is much more important.

He has said it is NOT his SOLE issue -- but it IS his PRIMARY issue.

I cared a lot when the government tried to take this right from me. Ron Paul did, too. I have other issues, but they all tie together, it seems, as the candidates who support my right to play poker support my other freedoms as well. It seems to be an excellent litmus test on the overall respect for personal freedom, and it has a great correlation so far.

 

[TheEngineer]

Ah ok. Cause I never seen Chuck Baldwin "urge" state governments to ban gambling.

And I agree with you that I don't want anyone legislating my behavior. I'm just not sure why there is selective outrage by some on this board.

He gave the speeches and wrote the articles I quoted in the prior thread. He asked, "Can you imagine a country without legalized gambling?", which is posted right on the CP website.

Have you ever heard Ron Paul hope every state will make all gaming illegal (which is what it would take to have no "legalized gambling" in America? Do you think thoughts like that even enter his mind?

And, I don't think this is selective. Baldwin and the CP seem to have similar attitudes for regulating all sorts of behaviors. Surely you don't expect Libertarians to buy into this.

On Internet pornography, due to its interstate nature, the CP platform does call for federal legislation to stop it. So, I suspect Baldwin could do the same for Internet poker and for other things on the Internet he doesn't like.

So, you see, it's not selective. It gets into Internet censorship, freedom to spend our own money in our own homes as we choose, and legislation of behaviors. It gets right down to principles. Either people believe in liberty or they don't.

 

[TheEngineer]

Perhaps because to The Engineer anyway, Poker is much more important.

He has said it is NOT his SOLE issue -- but it IS his PRIMARY issue.

WOW! I never thought I'd have to defend wanting liberty on the RON PAUL FORUM!!!

If I wanted to compromise my liberties, I'd vote for McCain.

 

[TheEngineer]

Anyway, Bob Barr is the same, just on different issues. Yet you don't attack him for being a statist...quite interesting indeed.

I'll gladly admit where Barr is weak on Libertarian principles.

Seems some Baldwin supporters here are so attached to him that they argue against liberty in making their case!

 

[MMolloy]

Lying is going to hurt any candidate... whether the lies are from the candidates mouth or from their supporters.

EVERYONE please keep to the facts and define our terms.

Engineer, As a Poker Player myself, I want to hear a clarification from Chuck on this position. But gambling consists of more than poker and we should make the distinction between games of chance and games of skill and between government sponsored and private... this thread is not remaining very focused.

 

[Fyretrohl]

So, Chuck Baldwin things gambling is wrong. Ron Paul thinks Prostitution is wrong. He recognizes it as a STATES right issue. I believe he also mentioned that the pimp that was supporting him for President likely wouldn't if he was running for a state office. I believe Dr Paul does think the states have the right. It is where the people have the most voice. And, I believe he would vote against gambling at the state level if he is against it.

 

[familydog]

So, you see, it's not selective. It gets into Internet censorship, freedom to spend our own money in our own homes as we choose, and legislation of behaviors. It gets right down to principles. Either people believe in liberty or they don't.

When you call Barr a statist, and crusade against his statist behavior, then I'll agree with you.

 

[TheEngineer]

When you call Barr a statist, and crusade against his statist behavior, then I'll agree with you.

Cite issues and quotes, as I did.

 

[TheEngineer]

So, Chuck Baldwin things gambling is wrong. Ron Paul thinks Prostitution is wrong. He recognizes it as a STATES right issue. I believe he also mentioned that the pimp that was supporting him for President likely wouldn't if he was running for a state office. I believe Dr Paul does think the states have the right. It is where the people have the most voice. And, I believe he would vote against gambling at the state level if he is against it.

Yeah, but Ron Paul didn't say he's against gambling. He simply said he'd choose to not participate in it. He then stated that he strongly supported the right of people to spend their own money as they choose. He also stated his opposition to censorship of the Internet. These are interstate issues that really cannot be controlled at the state level without federal enabling legislation. Dr. Paul is not on record as stating that he wants this decided at the state level. Rather, he's on record as supporting this freedom.

 

[familydog]

Cite issues and quotes, as I did.

As was already pointed out, Barr is big on the war on drugs as long as its at the state level. See 3:00 in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVSk4ZftD1Q

Bob Barr is against the feds having anything to do with marriage. Yet, Bob Barr does not support gay marriage at the state level. He hides behind the issue of states rights, rather than coming out directly and saying he is for or against it or anything else.
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12110leg20040330.html
"To be clear, I oppose any marriage save that between one man and one woman. And, I would do all in my power to ensure that such a formulation is the only one operative in my home state of Georgia"

Bob Barr voted to ban gay adoption in Washington D.C. Would Bob Barr be in favor of banning gay adoption in his home state? Going by your logic that you use with Baldwin and gambling, one has to assume yes. Has he said he would allow gay adoptions since he cast that vote?
http://www.ontheissues.org/Bob_Barr.htm

Shall I keep going? There are plenty more at the federal level as well.

 

[TheEngineer]

As was already pointed out, Barr is big on the war on drugs as long as its at the state level. See 3:00 in.

Bob Barr is against the feds having anything to do with marriage. Yet, Bob Barr does not support gay marriage at the state level. He hides behind the issue of states rights, rather than coming out directly and saying he is for or against it or anything else.
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/12110leg20040330.html
"To be clear, I oppose any marriage save that between one man and one woman. And, I would do all in my power to ensure that such a formulation is the only one operative in my home state of Georgia"

Bob Barr voted to ban gay adoption in Washington D.C. Would Bob Barr be in favor of banning gay adoption in his home state? Going by your logic that you use with Baldwin and gambling, one has to assume yes. Has he said he would allow gay adoptions since he cast that vote?
http://www.ontheissues.org/Bob_Barr.htm

Shall I keep going? There are plenty more at the federal level as well.

Barr and Baldwin are pretty much the same on all of those issues. Baldwin is big on the war on drugs at the state level (at least the CP is), along with issues of marriage and gays. If I were rating them, I'd give them the same rating. Neither would get an A, though.

Anita Andrews hasn't replied yet, nor has anyone else in the campaign.

 

[familydog]

Barr and Baldwin are pretty much the same on all of those issues. Baldwin is big on the war on drugs at the state level (at least the CP is), along with issues of marriage and gays. If I were rating them, I'd give them the same rating. Neither would get an A, though.

Anita Andrews hasn't replied yet, nor has anyone else in the campaign.

So that makes Barr a statist, yes?

 

[TheEngineer]

So that makes Barr a statist, yes?

He has statist leanings in some areas, sure. I said as much earlier.

 

[familydog]

He has statist leanings in some areas, sure. I said as much earlier.

I have shown that Barr is just as socially conservative as Baldwin, maybe even more so. This is at the state and federal level. Yet Barr only has a couple statist leanings while Baldwin is a statist?

You dance well my friend

 

[TheEngineer]

I have shown that Barr is just as socially conservative as Baldwin, maybe even more so. This is at the state and federal level. Yet Barr only has a couple statist leanings while Baldwin is a statist?

You dance well my friend

I don't think Baldwin is a statist either, though you've not shown him to be less statist than Barr.

 

[familydog]

I don't think Baldwin is a statist either, though you've not shown him to be less statist than Barr.

I haven't tried to. I don't really think it is important. I was simply wondering why you'd make a post saying that Baldwin is a statist, yet not say the same for Barr when he clearly would push his morals on others as well

 

[TheEngineer]

I haven't tried to. I don't really think it is important. I was simply wondering why you'd make a post saying that Baldwin is a statist, yet not say the same for Barr when he clearly would push his morals on others as well

Baldwin isn't a statist. He's certainly not a statist when compared to Obama or McCain. I do think he has statist leanings, especially at the state level.

On gaming, I think it's important to note that Ron Paul spoke of the fact that he'd not personally participate in gaming, while Baldwin was quite passionate in explaining his belief that gaming harms society. That's a big difference, and it's a red flag to me (one of many).

To clarify, I don't "have it out" for Baldwin. I've been writing my guide since long before Baldwin declared his candidacy. I was able to rate Barr/Root rather easily (Root writes articles and makes videos in support of us, and Barr is clearly with us on this issue), and I didn't think it was fair to leave Baldwin out.

When I started researching Baldwin, I didn't know what I'd find (though I was aware of the leanings of the Constitution Party, of course), and I was quite surprised at what I found. Once I found what I found, I considered simply leaving him off. After all, I do like him better than McCain or Obama. However, that wouldn't be right. I had already decided to add him. Omitting him would show bias, and I refuse to bias my guide (as evidenced by Clinton's "B"). I also have an obligation to the membership to write my guide with no insertion of personal bias. I also wanted to put it out in a timely fashion, so people would have data for making their decisions.

So, it is what it is. The Baldwin campaign knows it's there. As they've not replied, they're not too concerned. Judging from his writings, he's probably proud to have this grade from a poker group (like how Sen. Schumer is proud of his NRA "F"). Again, I'll immediately update it if his campaign indicates a change of heart.

 

[No1ButPaul08]

I cared a lot when the government tried to take this right from me. Ron Paul did, too. I have other issues, but they all tie together, it seems, as the candidates who support my right to play poker support my other freedoms as well. It seems to be an excellent litmus test on the overall respect for personal freedom, and it has a great correlation so far.

+1, but just for personal freedom as you mentioned, as many supporters of poker are dems, and obviously are clueless on economic issues

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I think a lot of people disagree on the details as to what constitutes 'consensual' or victimless behavior, and the lack of an acknowledgement of that colors the debate on personal liberty and moral issues. In abortion debates, I bring up the pro-life point that whatever you think about whether the unborn is human, every abortion begins with a live fetus and ends with a dead fetus, so all abortions involve killing. The pro-choicers respond by not even acknowledging abortion involves killing, and going back to the bloodless "choice' rhetoric. This kind of denial is common across the personal issues.

As Christians, do we really believe God's law gives consent to porn an gambling, or that God is not victimized by the violation of His law, or misuse of creation for purposes contrary to His will? If we deny a role for Him and propose to operate a secular (or humanist) government confined only to dealing with 'consensual' issues at the human level, are we not defacto just presuming God doesn't exist for governing purposes, and functioning as athiests? Do the people of a community have any personal consent rights or 'victim' status, to resist establishments (for porn or gambling) that have been documented to degrade the neighborhood's quality of life and property values?

Paul has emphasized localism, letting local municipalites or states sort out and reach their different conclusions as to what is truly protecting personal freedom, vs what is imposing acceptance of social liberalism on everybody else. The CP is representative of the pro-liberty constituency that wants a more decentralized (vs one-size-fits-all) solution to these issues, so it is inaccurate to use the 'statist' or 'against personal freedom' labels on them.

 

[TheEngineer]

I think a lot of people disagree on the details as to what constitutes 'consensual' or victimless behavior, and the lack of an acknowledgement of that colors the debate on personal liberty and moral issues. In abortion debates, I bring up the pro-life point that whatever you think about whether the unborn is human, every abortion begins with a live fetus and ends with a dead fetus, so all abortions involve killing. The pro-choicers respond by not even acknowledging abortion involves killing, and going back to the bloodless "choice' rhetoric. This kind of denial is common across the personal issues.

As Christians, do we really believe God's law gives consent to porn an gambling, or that God is not victimized by the violation of His law, or misuse of creation for purposes contrary to His will? If we deny a role for Him and propose to operate a secular (or humanist) government confined only to dealing with 'consensual' issues at the human level, are we not defacto just presuming God doesn't exist for governing purposes, and functioning as athiests? Do the people of a community have any personal consent rights or 'victim' status, to resist establishments (for porn or gambling) that have been documented to degrade the neighborhood's quality of life and property values?

Paul has emphasized localism, letting local municipalites or states sort out and reach their different conclusions as to what is truly protecting personal freedom, vs what is imposing acceptance of social liberalism on everybody else. The CP is representative of the pro-liberty constituency that wants a more decentralized (vs one-size-fits-all) solution to these issues, so it is inaccurate to use the 'statist' or 'against personal freedom' labels on them.

If God were concerned about gambling (and, for the record, I don't think of poker as gambling -- poker is a game of skill where the house doesn't have a stake in the outcome), wouldn't He have said something about it in the Bible? It seems He didn't because He doesn't consider it to be a sin. Rather, it's a leisure activity. I think this is a man-made "sin" invented by people who decided such a restriction "seems Christian" to some.

The issue with interstate poker (i.e., all online poker) is that it cannot really be regulated at the state level. It's a federal issue by definition.

Someone posted the following to my guide:

Phil W

This is a joke. A "B" for Clinton and an "F" for Baldwin???? Great job at utilizing some Orwellian doublethink.
Immoral is moral and moralists are immoral. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said that a republic is only meant for a moral people. One does not have to look very far to see how much our nation has deteriorated from the principles of the founders. Situational ethics and moral relativism have destroyed our concepts of right and wrong.

Here's are my replies:

TheEngineer

Phil,

This isn't a guide on morality. It's a single-issue guide on the presidential candidates' respect for our rights regarding online poker (B&M as well, though there's not much they can do at the federal level regarding that).

Also, I object to you hinting that poker is immoral. The Bible does not oppose even games of chance, much less games of skill. Just because you've adopted extrabiblical beliefs on morality based on things that "sound Christian" doesn't mean you can force these ideas on the rest of us.

Don't fear freedom. Freedom and liberty are good for all of us.

Cheers!

TE

and

TheEngineer

Phil,

Also, I do think it's immoral to take my freedoms from me.

TE