The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Poker Players Alliance scores Ron Paul and Barr/Root with A+
thirdpartywatch.com — From http://theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org/presidential- candidates-and-internet-poker-rights: Ron Paul, A+. Texas congressman. Big proponent of our rights. Libertarian Presidential Nominee: Bob Barr, A+. Former Republican congressman from Georgia. Wayne Allyn Root, A+. Strong supporter of our right to play.
TheEngineer2008- 57 diggs
- digg it
- JDenigma, on 06/02/2008, -3/+12Bob Barr may get an A+ on this single issue, but unlike Ron Paul, he would get plenty of poor grades on quite a few other issues. I support the right to gamble without any government interference at all, but is this the sole, single issue you care about TheEngineer that you'd be willing to sell out on all the other issues by supporting someone like Bob Barr who has been awful on quite a few other issues?
I tell you what, if Bob Barr starts talking a principled message against foreign interventionism like Ron Paul did and if he talks about eliminating the income tax and not replacing it with any fair tax sales tax much like Ron Paul and if he addresses the Federal Reserve issue much like Ron Paul and if he takes a stand against the drug war altogether in principle much like Ron Paul, then maybe just maybe I'd consider him at that point, but those are some of the issues in which he has failed miserably. Bob Barr is just a republican lite much like what the libertarian party is becoming.- TheEngineer2008, on 06/02/2008, -1/+6My guide is, in fact, single issue. The NRA has a single-issue guide like this as well. I certainly wouldn't bias this guide by adding my personal opinions to it on areas outside of online poker. I'm not sure how that's a "sell-out", nor does this guide imply my support. Rather, I hope the other candidates will join Paul and Barr/Root in supporting this liberty.
- TheEngineer2008, on 06/02/2008, -1/+8Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "selling out". I hope Paul pulls out the GOP nomination. However, if he doesn't and the race turns out to be Obama vs. McCain vs. Barr, I think the choice is very clear.
- JDenigma, on 06/02/2008, -2/+1Yeah, your message has a populist appeal to those digging you there, but Bob Barr is pretty bad on enough issues that there isn't enough justification to support him compared to the other candidates in my opinion. I've pointed out the bad issues about Bob Barr before and it is enough to create a very blurry difference between him and the other candidates. He is not different in principle the way Ron Paul is or the way Mary Ruwart for that matter is. I think it is disgusting if any of you hypocrites support him considering his inconsistent stance on foreign policy particularly considering how big of an issue that is right now. Don't try to kid yourself and tell me that there is a real difference between Barr and the rest of them. He's buddy buddy with the establishment in Washington. This controversy with the libertarian party is really separating the wheat from the chaff. You bandwagoners on the libertarian party now and the phonies.
Don't use your single issue as a cop out with me either. I wasn't aware of you promoting some "guide", but nevertheless regardless of all of that, if you're going to endorse a candidate just because of a single issue under the guise of promoting some guide, at the expense of the rest of the philosophy and the other issues, then you're not caring about the whole liberty message as a whole and you damaging it more with your tunnel vision over your single issue. Yeah, I guess Hitler made the trains run on time so that is good enough to ignore the rest huh? Not that I'm comparing Barr to Hitler obviously, but you get the point. It's a matter of degrees. I'm allying myself with the real liberty fighters.- kemp34, on 06/02/2008, -0/+3So who would you vote for over Barr? Abstain? Baldwin?
- JDenigma, on 06/02/2008, -2/+1I'll either be writing in Ron Paul's name or not vote at all. I'm not of the belief anymore that voting is the be all end all. Just because I don't vote doesn't mean that I'm part of the problem and it doesn't mean that I'm giving up.
- TheEngineer2008, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2I'm not endorsing any candidate. I'm evaluating them on their respect for my right to participate in online poker. The hint should have been in the title: "Poker Players Alliance scores Ron Paul and Barr/Root with A+".
- JDenigma, on 06/03/2008, -2/+1I understand that, but it hasn't just been this thread, but elsewhere that I seem to have seen you endorse Barr in the name of the "lesser of two evils" rationale because you've said you pretty much believe in getting behind him as an alternative to Obama, McCain or Hillary. I've seen you pretty much state that in other threads as well as other people.
I don't mind you promoting your single issue there. It's just that I've seen you endorse Barr is what has bothered me. - TheEngineer2008, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2The guide is independent of my personal beliefs. If you can show me that Barr and Root don't support poker rights, I'll lower the grade. Can you do that?
If McCain decided to champion this liberty (LOL), I'd move him to A+ as well. Same for Obama and Clinton. The NRA, Conservative Coalition, NARAL, and other organizations all have guides. It's fairly standard.
As for me personally (separate from the guide), I do plan to vote for Barr, but I never said anything about him being the lesser of the two (three, in this case) evils. While I do prefer Ron Paul, I actually like Barr and I like what he stands for. More importantly, I believe this election will help libertarianism (small "L") reestablish itself. However, we cannot get that with a candidate who gets 0.3% of the popular vote and who can't get into any debates. IMO, the cause of liberty is served by having a mainstream candidate who can actually get votes and press coverage.
I'm not sure what you mean by "hypocrites" and "bandwagoners". I have no idea why I'd be a hypocrite for voting for Barr. And, as Badnarik received less than 0.5% in 2004 (and I was one of them), the LP could use some "bandwagoners".
I respect that you wish to stick to purity, but I'm getting damned tired of losing my liberties. I will vote for my liberties this year, and many small government, small "L" libertarians will certainly be joining. Barr is that man. - JDenigma, on 06/03/2008, -2/+2Again, your personal guide isn't the issue here. I don't have a problem with that. You can separate your grades on single issues from the candidates as a whole and not have to endorse them while pointing out there individual grades on particular issues. Given this rationale, I guess I should endorse Gravel too because he was talking a good game on foreign policy much like Ron Paul although he would be a big time socialist? That's your same reasoning here. Pick a favorite pet here of ours and get behind that candidate even if the rest of their platform stinks.
There are some issues Barr has been good about, but at the same time he doesn't even hold a candle to Ron Paul as he's been a big government supporters on too many issues. It's not like just a handful of smaller, ancillary issues he's been a government supporter of but rather quite a few big issues that he's been on the side of government and has been too buddy buddy with the conservative establishment inside the beltway. I don't understand how anyone could ignore his unprincipled stand on foreign policy. I have yet to get anyone to explain that one for me.
You believe the election will help small l libertarianism, whatever in the hell that means. Depends upon how you define small l libertarianism. That's a loaded, vague term there. To me, libertarianism includes both the minarchists and the anarchist types. Broadening the definition beyond that makes the word meaningless and it becomes too big of a tent of a party which is what hurt the hother parties and is what is wrong with party politics to begin with. You apparently have yet to learn the problem with party politics. See if you ever wake up there. It just dilutes the philosophy and the movement and it sends an unprincipled message to the public and sends a confusing, mixed message. Now is the time that we needed to send a real principled message to the American public with someone like Ron Paul or Mary Ruwart. The American public wont' get that with someone like Bob Barr who is more identified with the republican establishment in the perception of the public. You're not going to further the message and help the movement. You're only going to cause further harm and tarnish it. People need to hear a real principle message of liberty in the spirit of the old common law of do no harm and natural rights. That's what people need to be educated upon and that does not emanate from Barr. Why couldn't you people have gotten behind Mary. She had a very positive influence and a positive message that could have drawn people in and brought them together. The libertarian party disgraced iself and sold itself short by not nominating her. You're playing the same political game with your rationale of supporting supposedly "viable" candidates in place of so-called "fringe" candidates. Sorry, fringe is what people need to hear like it or not and even if it means we go down in flames. That rationale is what is also the same poison of party politics with the democrats and republicans. YOu're making the same mistake as them. W hen are you people going to learn?
I don't want so-called small l libertarianism. I don't even watn libertarianism. I just want the message of liberty as preached by Ayn Rand, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, Harry Browne, Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, Barry Goldwater, you name it. Not any inconsistent, watered down message in the name of geetting along. Oh yeah, Harrry Browne would be ashamed. - TheEngineer2008, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2You act like you can convince people to agree with you via arguing. Sorry, but the real world doesn't work that way. We want freedom and liberty, and many of us will vote for Barr as the best way to get that. I'm glad you think voting for the pure candidate who gets 0.4% in the general is the best way for that. You can still write in Mary Ruwart if you want. I, along with the Libertarian Party, would rather have a qualified candidate who can actually bring change.
Your "pure or nothing" argument is weak, as it does NOTHING to bring change. If you wish for purity, start a think tank. Our goal is to succeed in electoral politics. That's what political parties do. The two major parties are in a race to see who can expand government the fastest. Now is not the time to obsess over purity. Rather, it's the time to put the best candidate forward to get our message out. Of the candidates for the Libertarian nomination, that person was Bob Barr.
www.bobbarr2008.com
- JDenigma, on 06/02/2008, -2/+1Yeah, your message has a populist appeal to those digging you there, but Bob Barr is pretty bad on enough issues that there isn't enough justification to support him compared to the other candidates in my opinion. I've pointed out the bad issues about Bob Barr before and it is enough to create a very blurry difference between him and the other candidates. He is not different in principle the way Ron Paul is or the way Mary Ruwart for that matter is. I think it is disgusting if any of you hypocrites support him considering his inconsistent stance on foreign policy particularly considering how big of an issue that is right now. Don't try to kid yourself and tell me that there is a real difference between Barr and the rest of them. He's buddy buddy with the establishment in Washington. This controversy with the libertarian party is really separating the wheat from the chaff. You bandwagoners on the libertarian party now and the phonies.
- TheEngineer2008, on 06/02/2008, -1/+6My guide is, in fact, single issue. The NRA has a single-issue guide like this as well. I certainly wouldn't bias this guide by adding my personal opinions to it on areas outside of online poker. I'm not sure how that's a "sell-out", nor does this guide imply my support. Rather, I hope the other candidates will join Paul and Barr/Root in supporting this liberty.
- TruthExposed, on 06/02/2008, -1/+2As if Americans can trust each other with online poker playing rights.....
- JDenigma, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2Are you kidding?
- TruthExposed, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Sarcasm intended.
- JDenigma, on 06/02/2008, -0/+2Are you kidding?
- kelleydfp, on 06/03/2008, -0/+3dugg..thanks for sharing your shout
- TheEngineer2008, on 06/03/2008, -0/+2Thanks! :-)
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is