Like Online Poker?

[Footballguru 0]

look at this speech he gavehttp://www.macpokeronline.com/video/legal/...ul-vs-congress/for online poker fans like me, this HAS to be our guy we are supporting!

[Flushgarden 0]

Yes...Ron Paul in 2008.

[checkymcfold 0]

electability, anyone?

[scram 1]

electability, anyone?

Sadly, the reason he isn't "electable" is because of an unfortunate (albeit fast changing) dynamic of the human condition (and the American one in particular).90% of the population are "associative thinkers". They don't form opinions based on actual thought or cogent analysis, but rather, use little factual associations as a surrogate for their own lack of critical thinking skills. They exist in equal numbers on the left and right alike. In politics, this culminates itself on our "two party system". Since the populace is unable to think for themselves and choose candidates on merit, we brand our political parties like fast food franchises; whenever they see the golden arches, they know they're going to get a big mac. Whenever they see the burger king sign, they know they're going to get a whopper. Whenever they see an (R), they know they're going to get less taxes, harsher sentencing guidelines in courts.... Whenever they see a (D), they know there's going to be more wealth redistribution and social programs, etc, etc, etc. This allows for less significant issues (like online poker) to lose substantial consideration and as such, the precepts that go into governing a successful Republic are traded in for a more pure form of "Democracy". It allows for either party to crap on any interest or issue that isn't "front page"= not because they're right to do it, but because they know they can get away with it. It also marginalizes maverick candidates who may have the absolute best ideas, but since they don't closely conform to the block of association that the public uses to make up their minds, they're discarded in favor of the lesser but "more popular" candidates.If people actually thought when they elected politicians, we would have a huge base of candidates to choose from. The upside is- we would have a huge base of candidates to choose from. The downside is that you would have presidents elected by 34% of the vote. You would have lots of straight NRA candidates, straight green-party presidents; it's basically a system that serves to elect the most motivated extremes.Is this a bad thing? **** no. Our present system of political apathy gets nothing done. Of course, the less the government "gets done" , the better, I say, so maybe we are actually better off with a top-heavy bureaucracy full of career power seekers, cubicle zombies and affirmative action hires. Yes, Ron Paul in 2008 for me.Not because I think he's going to win, but because I vote for leaders who most closely represent my own beliefs, not leaders who are "most electable".

[Balloon guy 158]

I think the English election system shows the problems that can occur when you have too many 'choices' in an election. They have 5-6 mostly ineffective, inept parties that usaully screw up their country more than help.We on the other hand have 2 mostly ineffective, inept parties that usually screw up the country more than help.Which saves us the need to ignore our hatred of party C in order to thwart party D while keeping our eye out for party E that is in bed with party B.Oh and if you were thinking of voting democrat, than I cannot applaud you enough for showing your independance and voting for Ron Paul instead.Republicans get back in line, you aint going nowhere.

[silkyjonson 1]

Sadly, the reason he isn't "electable" is because of an unfortunate (albeit fast changing) dynamic of the human condition (and the American one in particular).90% of the population are "associative thinkers". They don't form opinions based on actual thought or cogent analysis, but rather, use little factual associations as a surrogate for their own lack of critical thinking skills. They exist in equal numbers on the left and right alike. In politics, this culminates itself on our "two party system". Since the populace is unable to think for themselves and choose candidates on merit, we brand our political parties like fast food franchises; whenever they see the golden arches, they know they're going to get a big mac. Whenever they see the burger king sign, they know they're going to get a whopper. Whenever they see an (R), they know they're going to get less taxes, harsher sentencing guidelines in courts.... Whenever they see a (D), they know there's going to be more wealth redistribution and social programs, etc, etc, etc. This allows for less significant issues (like online poker) to lose substantial consideration and as such, the precepts that go into governing a successful Republic are traded in for a more pure form of "Democracy". It allows for either party to crap on any interest or issue that isn't "front page"= not because they're right to do it, but because they know they can get away with it. It also marginalizes maverick candidates who may have the absolute best ideas, but since they don't closely conform to the block of association that the public uses to make up their minds, they're discarded in favor of the lesser but "more popular" candidates.If people actually thought when they elected politicians, we would have a huge base of candidates to choose from. The upside is- we would have a huge base of candidates to choose from. The downside is that you would have presidents elected by 34% of the vote. You would have lots of straight NRA candidates, straight green-party presidents; it's basically a system that serves to elect the most motivated extremes.Is this a bad thing? **** no. Our present system of political apathy gets nothing done. Of course, the less the government "gets done" , the better, I say, so maybe we are actually better off with a top-heavy bureaucracy full of career power seekers, cubicle zombies and affirmative action hires. Yes, Ron Paul in 2008 for me.Not because I think he's going to win, but because I vote for leaders who most closely represent my own beliefs, not leaders who are "most electable".

Some great points here.Hahahah jk I did'nt even read a word of this.

[Footballguru 0]

Sadly, the reason he isn't "electable" is because of an unfortunate (albeit fast changing) dynamic of the human condition (and the American one in particular).90% of the population are "associative thinkers". They don't form opinions based on actual thought or cogent analysis, but rather, use little factual associations as a surrogate for their own lack of critical thinking skills. They exist in equal numbers on the left and right alike. In politics, this culminates itself on our "two party system". Since the populace is unable to think for themselves and choose candidates on merit, we brand our political parties like fast food franchises; whenever they see the golden arches, they know they're going to get a big mac. Whenever they see the burger king sign, they know they're going to get a whopper. Whenever they see an (R), they know they're going to get less taxes, harsher sentencing guidelines in courts.... Whenever they see a (D), they know there's going to be more wealth redistribution and social programs, etc, etc, etc. This allows for less significant issues (like online poker) to lose substantial consideration and as such, the precepts that go into governing a successful Republic are traded in for a more pure form of "Democracy". It allows for either party to crap on any interest or issue that isn't "front page"= not because they're right to do it, but because they know they can get away with it. It also marginalizes maverick candidates who may have the absolute best ideas, but since they don't closely conform to the block of association that the public uses to make up their minds, they're discarded in favor of the lesser but "more popular" candidates.If people actually thought when they elected politicians, we would have a huge base of candidates to choose from. The upside is- we would have a huge base of candidates to choose from. The downside is that you would have presidents elected by 34% of the vote. You would have lots of straight NRA candidates, straight green-party presidents; it's basically a system that serves to elect the most motivated extremes.Is this a bad thing? **** no. Our present system of political apathy gets nothing done. Of course, the less the government "gets done" , the better, I say, so maybe we are actually better off with a top-heavy bureaucracy full of career power seekers, cubicle zombies and affirmative action hires. Yes, Ron Paul in 2008 for me.Not because I think he's going to win, but because I vote for leaders who most closely represent my own beliefs, not leaders who are "most electable".

great point for real. Hopefully we can make a push for him. I donated some Big blinds.

[scram 1]

Even if a 3rd party candidate makes a 15% showing, that would be absolutely huge.Libertarians are particularly viable, as they draw from the left and the right. Unlike Perot or Nader who were strictly "spoilers" that stole their votes from one party, a Libertarian candidate has core issues that strongly appeal to the liberty minded people on either side. They capture that strange confluence of intellectual consistency that joins a certain type of liberal and a certain type of conservative. Yes, they (Libertarians) do tend to siphon from Republicans more than they do Democrats, but this is an important part of the growing process, and necessary to get conservatives and Republicans away from the most disgusting Bush model and back towards the 'liberty' concept.

[HijackedAffairs 0]

He's an ok candidate but I'm not voting for him. Not a libertarian. I need more liberal economic policies.

[scram 1]

He's an ok candidate but I'm not voting for him. Not a libertarian. I need more liberal economic policies.

You wanna know how I know what tax bracket you're in?

[whatgreatis 0]

If I was going to vote for somebody who isn't Edwards or Kuch I'd vote Ron Paul. Although I disagree on his thoughts on the role of federal government I like many things he says. If I was a conservative he'd be my man.

[gmanshade 0]

ummmmmmmmmmmmmm.........yeah. first of all, there is 0.00000000% chance he will be elected.want to know why? read belowbtw, his political platform includes abolishing all social programs in the U.S., including social security, unemployment, welfare, etc etc LexisNexis™ AcademicCopyright 1996 The Houston Chronicle Publishing CompanyThe Houston ChronicleMay 23, 1996, Thursday, 3 STAR EditionSECTION: a; Pg. 33LENGTH: 695 wordsHEADLINE: CAMPAIGN '96;U.S. HOUSE;Newsletter excerpts offer ammunition to Paul's opponent;GOP hopeful quoted on race, crimeBYLINE: ALAN BERNSTEIN, Houston Chronicle Political Writer; StaffBODY:Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 politicalnewsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined towardcrime and lacking sense about top political issues.Under the headline of ""Terrorist Update,'' for instance, Paulreported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, ""If youhave ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know howunbelievably fleet-footed they can be. ''Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesdayhe opposes racism and that his written commentaries aboutblacks came in the context of ""current events and statisticalreports of the time. ''Selected writings by Paul were distributed Wednesday by thecampaign of his Democratic opponent, Austin lawyer Charles""Lefty'' Morris.Morris said many of Paul's views are ""out there on the fringe''and that his commentaries will be judged by voters in theNovember general elections.Paul said allegations about his writings amounted toname-calling by the Democrats and that his opponents shouldfocus instead on how to shrink government spending and reformwelfare.Morris and Paul are seeking the 14th Congressional Districtseat held by Greg Laughlin of West Columbia. Laughlin lost theRepublican primary to Paul, a former congressman and theLibertarian Party's 1988 presidential candidate.Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992,reported about unspecified surveys of blacks.""Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent ofblacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the freemarket, individual liberty and the end of welfare andaffirmative action,'' Paul wrote.Paul continued that politically sensible blacks areoutnumbered ""as decent people. '' Citing reports that 85 percentof 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 that95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminalor entirely criminal,'' Paul said.Paul also wrote that although ""we are constantly told that itis evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings andburglaries all out of proportion to their numbers. ''A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fearof black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such asthe Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urbancrime.Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosednumber of subscribers, the spokesman said.Writing in the same 1992 edition, Paul expressed the popularidea that government should lower the age at which accusedjuvenile criminals can be prosecuted as adults.He added, ""We don't think a child of 13 should be heldresponsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, butblack males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and whohave joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scaryand culpable as any adult and should be treated as such. ''Paul also asserted that ""complex embezzling'' is conductedexclusively by non-blacks.""What else do we need to know about the politicalestablishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes thatterrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Whyisn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percentwhite and Asian? '' he wrote.In later newsletters, Paul aimed criticism at the Israeligovernment's U.S. lobbying efforts and reported allegationsthat President Clinton used cocaine and fathered illegitimatechildren.Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors andhandouts are evil, Paul wrote, ""By far the most powerful lobbyin Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government'' andthat the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.Relaying a rumor that Clinton was a longtime cocaine user,Paul wrote in 1994 that the speculation ""would explain certainmysteries'' about the president's scratchy voice and insomnia.""None of this is conclusive, of course, but it sure isinteresting,'' he said.

[scram 1]

So, you're basically saying that Ron Paul is unelectable because he says things that are true?

[gmanshade 0]

So, you're basically saying that Ron Paul is unelectable because he says things that are true?

no, because these comments are racist and inaccurate

[scram 1]

I can certainly see how they might be construed as "racist" (after all, about 90% of the facts concerning certain races have been tagged as "racist" so we won't talk about them) but I fail to see how they are inaccurate.Yes, maybe there was a bit of hyperbole on Pauls part (there usually will be anytime you use the word "all" or cite percentages in the high nineties), but the general sentiment he expressed is absolutely correct whether you happen to like it or not. Just because we live in a culture where we are expected to ignore certain truisms in favor of some universal concept of delusional idealism doesn't mean that everyone is going to 'play along'. Paul is a breath of fresh air. He speaks the truth without any regard to the broader 'social order' consequences that might come from it.

[BellaireDrew 2]

no, because these comments are racist and inaccurate

FYP

[uncooper 1]

You wanna know how I know what tax bracket you're in?

Because he listens to Coldplay?

[silkyjonson 1]

So, you're basically saying that Ron Paul is unelectable because he says things that are true?

Cuz your in his mindz stealin his thoughts?

[vbnautilus 48]

Meh, I watched the linked video and was not impressed. Obviously I agree with him, but I didn't think his argument was very persuasive or eloquent. Doesn't give me the vibe of being the right man for the job.

[scram 1]

Cuz your in his mindz stealin his thoughts?

I'm sure there's a parallel universe out there where this post made sense and I'm sure the people in that universe must've LOL'd.

[HijackedAffairs 0]

You wanna know how I know what tax bracket you're in?

Whoa, you got me there! Genius, you are! What tax bracket is DN in? Warren Buffet? My parents who are also very liberal? Some people realize that paying higher taxes means you get more in return and do not see it as giving money away. Some people recognize it as necessary. If less taxes are paid, then there is less money for governmental services. It's a zero sum game.

[HijackedAffairs 0]

Because he listens to Coldplay?

I would never listen to Coldplay.

[Footballguru 0]

Whoa, you got me there! Genius, you are! What tax bracket is DN in? Warren Buffet? My parents who are also very liberal? Some people realize that paying higher taxes means you get more in return and do not see it as giving money away. Some people recognize it as necessary. If less taxes are paid, then there is less money for governmental services. It's a zero sum game.

you could buy those same things with the money instead of having the gov't buy it for you. And what if I dont want to buy it but i am forced to through taxes? (obv not talkign about things like police, etc.) Like for univ. healthcare. what if i dont want my money going to my own health care, let alone someone elses? What if i would rather buy vodka, or books, or live in a more expensive apartment, etc. all. Who are you to force me to pay for healthcare for myself or anyone? There are many examples of this, but healthcare is currently being debated very intensly

[scram 1]

Whoa, you got me there! Genius, you are! What tax bracket is DN in? Warren Buffet? My parents who are also very liberal? Some people realize that paying higher taxes means you get more in return and do not see it as giving money away. Some people recognize it as necessary. If less taxes are paid, then there is less money for governmental services. It's a zero sum game.

GG logic.(PS- LOL @ people who think the best way to manage a country is with more "government services".

[whatgreatis 0]

you could buy those same things with the money instead of having the gov't buy it for you. And what if I dont want to buy it but i am forced to through taxes? (obv not talkign about things like police, etc.)

The government doesn't buy you anything. You buy things for yourself. They provide welfare for the poor, police, firefighters, department of transportation, ect. But they do not buy you any goods.If you want to talk health care go to Daniels Blog and see the topic "Daniel is a fiscal conservative." We had a real long discussion on that.