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

[TheEngineer]

Also, one wonders how his article "Martin Luther King is No Hero", at www.greaterthings.com/Conspiracy/RewritingHistory/martin_luther_king_is_no_hero.htm, will be reported by the MSM.

 

[familydog]

He's running under that banner.

And? Barr is running under the LP party banner, but yet does not follow its platform completely. It is possible to be an individual and have your own opinions, even running under a specific banner. What's your point?

 

[TheEngineer]

And? Barr is running under the LP party banner, but yet does not follow its platform completely. It is possible to be an individual and have your own opinions, even running under a specific banner. What's your point?

I just did the full-up research on his gaming positions. I have no dog in the pornography fight (I'm sure not going to write a guide on that!), so I'll leave that research to you.

 

[familydog]

I just did the full-up research on his gaming positions. I have no dog in the pornography fight (I'm sure not going to write a guide on that!), so I'll leave that research to you.

I get to do research on porn? Sweet

I'm just wondering why you took the time to tell me he is pretty concerned about porn, when that is obviously not the case.

 

[MMolloy]

Also, one wonders how his article "Martin Luther King is No Hero", at www.greaterthings.com/Conspiracy/RewritingHistory/martin_luther_king_is_no_hero.htm, will be reported by the MSM.

Are we to judge his words by how it "will be reported by the MSM"???

Since there is no false statements in his article... what exactly are you trying to say or infer???

It seems from your previous posts that you like to infer alot without much to back it up but your personal bias.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

"It is Ron Paul's vision that sorting out personal liberty issues should be handled locally, and the different positions reached should be respected."

While I believe that is Baldwin's position, I don't believe that's Ron Paul's position. Can you provide a quote or a citation?

Paul has specifically said this about decriminalizing prostitution in interviews over the years, with implications for other moral issues. but I don't have a quote source offhand.

 

[Justin4RonPaul]

I'm voting for Chuck Baldwin, but I will also be doing work for Bob Barr (ie: putting out signs, literature, etc). I'm already telling people about BOTH of them. I think it will be much easier to get Huckabee/Tancredo/Hunter/Keyes supporters to now vote for Chuck Baldwin b/c he's a preacher and because he's very strong against illegal immigration and he's pro-life. And it'll probably be good to get other unsatisfied GOP-ers (Thompson/Romney/Giuliani supporters) to vote for Bob Barr.
Just my thoughts...

 

[WRellim]

Also, one wonders how his article "Martin Luther King is No Hero", at www.greaterthings.com/Conspiracy/RewritingHistory/martin_luther_king_is_no_hero.htm, will be reported by the MSM.

Perhaps you can let us know after you alert them to it.

 

[TheEngineer]

Perhaps you can let us know after you alert them to it.

It wouldn't be me. I like most of what Baldwin has to say. I think I agree with just about everything in his speech at www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=224424 .

Again, I came here to discuss a specific freedom that Dr. Paul has championed and spoken eloquently about. Maybe we're all just so battle-scarred after defending Dr. Paul from the lies of the MSM that we all immediately get defensive when something negative is said about Barr or Baldwin that we cannot have this discussion, which I think is a shame. Neither Barr nor Baldwin agree with Dr. Paul 100% of the time. I don't think it's wrong to examine these difference.

 

[TheEngineer]

Paul has specifically said this about decriminalizing prostitution in interviews over the years, with implications for other moral issues. but I don't have a quote source offhand.

True, but it seems Ron Paul separates prostitution from other "moral issues". He's never suggested that poker is a moral issue. His speeches on online poker are all about freedom to participate.

 

[MMolloy]

It wouldn't be me. I like most of what Baldwin has to say. I think I agree with just about everything in his speech at www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=224424 .

Again, I came here to discuss a specific freedom that Dr. Paul has championed and spoken eloquently about. Maybe we're all just so battle-scarred after defending Dr. Paul from the lies of the MSM that we all immediately get defensive when something negative is said about Barr or Baldwin that we cannot have this discussion, which I think is a shame. Neither Barr nor Baldwin agree with Dr. Paul 100% of the time. I don't think it's wrong to examine these difference.

I agree, we may all be a little punchy. This fight will wear on our nerves as well as our resolve.

I also think we can and should look at the differences between the candidates.

My main problem with your posts has not been with pointing out things but with overstating them. As a Poker Player myself I have NO fear that Baldwin will eliminate internet poker... and therefore disagree strongly with your rating. I won't claim impartiality since I voted for Peroutka/Baldwin in 2004. But I'm also not talking out of ignorance, nor unfamiliarity with internet poker (as I took down a Sunday $215 on PokerStars back in 2004).

 

[TheEngineer]

Are we to judge his words by how it "will be reported by the MSM"???

Since there is no false statements in his article... what exactly are you trying to say or infer???

It seems from your previous posts that you like to infer alot without much to back it up but your personal bias.

No, I have no personal biases. I like a lot of what Baldwin stands for. If I were rating the candidates for my personal preference, it would be roughly:

Ron Paul: A+
Barr/Root: A
Baldwin/Castle: A-
McCain: D-
Obama: F
Clinton: F-

Again, it's a shame that we cannot discuss positions without supporters of one candidate or the other assuming it's some sort of attack and reflexively acting in a defensive manner.

I've backed up my conclusions on his stand on online poker. If I took Baldwin's quotes and the party platform (and the fact that they've not replied to my inquiry) and substituted "abortion" for "gambling", such that his quotes were "imagine there were no legalized abortion in America", with advocacy for ending federal enabling of abortion, one would rightly conclude that he's pro-life. Likewise, no one would be surprised if NARAL gave him an F. Likewise, if a candidate said similar things about gun rights, he's be considered anti-Second Amendment and would obviously receive a low grade from the NRA.

Anyway, I came here to share my data for an open discussion on the issue. It's obvious the second won't happen, but at least the data is there for people to use in making their decisions.

 

[MMolloy]

No, I have no personal biases. I like a lot of what Baldwin stands for. If I were rating the candidates for my personal preference, it would be roughly:

Ron Paul: A+
Barr/Root: A
Baldwin/Castle: A-
McCain: D-
Obama: F
Clinton: F-

Again, it's a shame that we cannot discuss positions without supporters of one candidate or the other assuming it's some sort of attack and reflexively acting in a defensive manner.

I've backed up my conclusions on his stand on online poker. If I took Baldwin's quotes and the party platform (and the fact that they've not replied to my inquiry) and substituted "abortion" for "gambling", such that his quotes were "imagine there were no legalized abortion in America", with advocacy for ending federal enabling of abortion, one would rightly conclude that he's pro-life. Likewise, no one would be surprised if NARAL gave him an F. Likewise, if a candidate said similar things about gun rights, he's be considered anti-Second Amendment and would obviously receive a low grade from the NRA.

Anyway, I came here to share my data for an open discussion on the issue. It's obvious the second won't happen, but at least the data is there for people to use in making their decisions.

I can see your point but the terminology is much more mainstream for the other debates... that's why I'd really hammer away at making a distinction between games of chance and games of skill and between government run gambling and private.

 

[familydog]

Again, it's a shame that we cannot discuss positions without supporters of one candidate or the other assuming it's some sort of attack and reflexively acting in a defensive manner.

Ah, the irony

 

[TheEngineer]

I agree, we may all be a little punchy. This fight will wear on our nerves as well as our resolve.

I also think we can and should look at the differences between the candidates.

My main problem with your posts has not been with pointing out things but with overstating them. As a Poker Player myself I have NO fear that Baldwin will eliminate internet poker... and therefore disagree strongly with your rating. I won't claim impartiality since I voted for Peroutka/Baldwin in 2004. But I'm also not talking out of ignorance, nor unfamiliarity with internet poker (as I took down a Sunday $215 on PokerStars back in 2004).

Fair enough. However, for me the concern is that Internet poker is interstate by definition. Based on his statements on gaming, he wants to ensure that states have the ability to stop all gaming if they so choose. I believe he'd see a ban on interstate poker as an affirmation of states' rights. The CP party platform handles the interstate issue in exactly that manner.

When I phoned the campaign, I asked the question in precisely that manner. The person with whom I spoke indicated that he wasn't a campaign spokesman, but that he is placed highly enough in the campaign to know what's going on. He indicated that he could see the concern that an absence of any federal legislation would result in a condition where states would be unable to control online gaming.

I've seen nothing in Baldwin's writings that would indicate that he'd champion something that would effectively override the ability of states to control online gaming within their own borders. In fact, Baldwin has been quite clear on his dislike for all of this. One more:

www.renewamerica.us/columns/baldwin/060117

In our once great America, virginity and chastity were popular virtues, and one could live to old age and never be exposed to the abominations of homosexuality and adultery.

There was a time in this great country when, except for a few certain morally corrupt large cities, the most egregious gamblers hung out in bingo parlors, and anyone who even whispered his or her support for state-sponsored gambling would be run out of town on a rail.

Also, while I don't mind Ron Paul saying participation in gaming is dumb (for most people it may be....it depends on the entertainment utility they get for their money...I'm a winning player so it's not dumb for me ), getting blamed for all sorts of social ills and being compared to criminals and degenerates does bother us. We poker players are getting tired of being called immoral, also.

Finally, Baldwin was crystal clear when he asked "Can you imagine a country without legalized gambling?".

Based on Baldwin's statements and the CP platform, I do think he has the burden of proof in the matter. I waited as long as I could. People are making up their minds now, so it's perfectly reasonable to share info, IMO.

 

[MMolloy]

Fair enough. However, for me the concern is that Internet poker is interstate by definition. Based on his statements on gaming, he wants to ensure that states have the ability to stop all gaming if they so choose. I believe he'd see a ban on interstate poker as an affirmation of states' rights. The CP party platform handles the interstate issue in exactly that manner.

Well if you want to be exact it is also international. I think this issue needs a lot of clarifying... sorry for being a broken record but...

We need to distinguish between games of chance and games of skill and between Government Sponsored and Private.

I still think you're assuming a lot about internet poker in particular. I personally am more comfortable with how Dr. Paul handles the whole issue of gambling but I don't believe Dr. Baldwin is any threat to Internet Poker.

And as regards to his getting back to you on the issue, I wouldn't be so quick to assume he's dismissing your concers. He may be rethinking the whole issue (I'm not assigning any probability to that statement but IF you beleive that Barr can do a 180 on numerous larger issues... I think you'll have to concede that Baldwin is capable of rethinking this, especially in light of his respect for Dr. Paul).

As an aside... I believe that this revolution as a whole and those arguing about CP vs LP in particular should raise their sites. No matter who wins the Presidential race... we have a lot of educating to do and once we've accomplished that the whole dynamics may be changed... it could be that one of the major parties goes out of existence or becomes incorporated into another or it could be CP & LP as the major parties or one of the major parties may return to it's roots etc.

But none of this is going to happen without a more informed electorate... that is the key to a Peaceful Revolution.

 

[TheEngineer]

Well if you want to be exact it is also international. I think this issue needs a lot of clarifying... sorry for being a broken record but...

We need to distinguish between games of chance and games of skill and between Government Sponsored and Private.

I've been pushing the distinction between games of skill and games of chance a lot. So, far our opponents have not made a distinction between the two. I hope Baldwin will.

As for government sponsorship, does any regulation constitute government sponsorship? Does any taxation of poker sites constitute government sponsorship?

Baldwin considers Indian gaming to be government sponsored, so that does give one pause.

I still think you're assuming a lot about internet poker in particular. I personally am more comfortable with how Dr. Paul handles the whole issue of gambling but I don't believe Dr. Baldwin is any threat to Internet Poker.

And as regards to his getting back to you on the issue, I wouldn't be so quick to assume he's dismissing your concers. He may be rethinking the whole issue (I'm not assigning any probability to that statement but IF you beleive that Barr can do a 180 on numerous larger issues... I think you'll have to concede that Baldwin is capable of rethinking this, especially in light of his respect for Dr. Paul).

As an aside... I believe that this revolution as a whole and those arguing about CP vs LP in particular should raise their sites. No matter who wins the Presidential race... we have a lot of educating to do and once we've accomplished that the whole dynamics may be changed... it could be that one of the major parties goes out of existence or becomes incorporated into another or it could be CP & LP as the major parties or one of the major parties may return to it's roots etc.

But none of this is going to happen without a more informed electorate... that is the key to a Peaceful Revolution.

I guess I'm surprised that you're not concerned about Baldwin's hostility to gaming (again, anti-gaming people typically include poker, and there's no doubt that Baldwin is personally anti-gaming). It seems deep-seated to me. That quote I posted above wasn't from the early '80s...it was from 2008.

However, I really hope Baldwin has a change of heart. We can use all the allies we can get. If I receive any indication that he's changed his mind, I'll gladly update his rating and will publicize it as best I can.

 

[TheEngineer]

I get to do research on porn? Sweet

I'm just wondering why you took the time to tell me he is pretty concerned about porn, when that is obviously not the case.

I took the time to share the CP platform on the issue to show their willingness to use the power of the federal government to control things on the Internet that the don't like.

As for Baldwin, I don't know if he "obviously" supports the First Amendment in the matter of online porn. I've seen nothing from him refuting the party platform. However, he doesn't have much of a personal record against porn, either. This actually concerns me. As he's said a lot against gaming but little against porn, it reinforces the idea that he has real issues with gaming.

 

[familydog]

As for Baldwin, I don't know if he "obviously" supports the First Amendment in the matter of online porn. I've seen nothing from him refuting the party platform. I simply chose to not research it because I'm not interested in debating every minor detail of the issue while parsing the minutiae of his statements.

You certainly took the time to say porn is a big issue to him, yet didn't take the time to actually back up that statement. So you can't turn this around on me

You say you don't want to debate every minor detail so you aren't going to research his stance on certain issues. Fine. Yet you criticize him for not spending time making statements regarding those minor details. Huh.

 

[kombayn]

http://www.independentpoliticalrepo...e-anti-gambling-quotes-from-baldwin/#comments

Another reason for me not to support Chuck Baldwin. Well, I actually never had interest in a theocratic party anyways. It would be like an Obama hater voting for him after accusing him of being Mr. Communist.

P.S. I have no problem with the State running a gambling ring, it's a lot of extra money for the state to use for their budget.