[fearless]

Any Americans who care about freedom should be voting for Ron Paul. He is the pro-internet gambling candidate.

Presidential candidate Ron Paul has stated in no uncertain terms that he is thoroughly against internet regulation and has spoken out against federal rubric of the web in the week after a bill was passed by the Senate Commerce Committee as a pretext towards implementation of universal filtering on the Internet.

Speaking after another victorious Republican nominee debate, Dr Paul told Gambling911.com's Kira Wissman:

“I believe strongly that the internet should not be regulated by the federal government and believes even more strongly that people should be free to engage in the activities they wish, as long as they are willing to take responsibility for their actions.”

The Texas Congressman is co-sponsoring a bill to legalize online gambling along with Democrat Barney Frank.

“The majority of people in Washington were afraid to support the internet for fear it would label them ‘pro-porn’ or ‘pro-gambling’.” Paul continued.

Paul's comments come in the wake of the passing of another bill that represents a greater step towards federal regulation of the internet.

The United States Senate Commerce Committee passed a bill last Friday that would require a review, within one year of enactment, technology that can help parents manage the vast volume of video and other content on television or the Internet, just a week after Senators made a bipartisan call to implement universal filtering on the net.

Free speech groups including the Center for Democracy and Technology have expressed concern that the Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007 (S. 602) may represent a step toward expanding the FCC's censorship authority to include Internet content.

Other recent bipartisan proposals in the Congress have taken huge swipes at internet freedom by aiming to impose multiple different forms of crippling taxation and restriction on its users. Both Republican and Democrat representatives have joined a chorus of others in demonizing the Internet in attempts to further lead it down a path of strict control.

In previous debates Ron Paul has come out in strong support of internet freedom while all other candidates are in favour of regulation.

During the first Republican presidential debate, MSNBC's debate back in May, the Congressman stated that he trusted the internet "a lot more" than the mainstream media. Paul went on to state:

And I trust the freedom of expression, and that’s why we should never interfere with the Internet, that’s why I’ve never voted to regulate the Internet, even when there’s the temptation to put bad things on the Internet. Regulation of bad and good on the Internet should be done differently.

When compared with other leading candidates on the issue of internet freedom, Ron Paul stands alone. For example, John McCain, on the Republican side, has previously tabled legislation that would fine blogs up to $300,000 for offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards. It is well known that McCain has a severe distaste for his blogosphere critics, causing a definite conflict of interest where any proposal to restrict blogs on his part is concerned.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, for the Democrats, has voiced her support for the so called "Fairness Doctrine" which would effectively suffocate the independent media.

The Congressman has once again proven that where the upholding of liberty and the defence of free speech in the 21st century are concerned, he is the only candidate who can seriously be considered.

Ron Paul emphatically won the post debate polls once again for the fourth time running, yet this still was not enough to prevent Fox News attempting to smear him once again by using Infowars as fodder in a carefully scripted attempt to ensnare the Congressman and insinuate his appearances on the Alex Jones show somehow make him un-American.

http://infowars.net/articles/august2...807_b_Paul.htm

[fearless]

Ron Paul is the pro-internet gambling, pro-freedom presidential candidate. Let's support him!

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

[Scorpion]

Is Ron Paul a democrat or a republican?

[Scorpion]

Dont waste your time, the republicans have no chance in the next election!

Ron Paul is just wasting peoples time and money!

[fearless]

Originally Posted by Scorpion

Dont waste your time, the republicans have no chance in the next election!

Ron Paul is just wasting peoples time and money!

His campaign is gaining momentum. He's the choice for internet gambling, freedom, stopping the war, etc.:

Following this weekend's Republican debate in Iowa and some extensive mainstream coverage and sound bytes., 2008 US Presidential candidate Ron Paul's odds to become the next Commander-in-Chief have been slashed further from 15 to 1 to 8 to 1.

The Presidential betting odds for most candidates have barely moved in recent weeks at Sportsbook.com and Ron Paul's odds have remained steadfast at 15 to 1 for the past two months after heavy action forced the online bookmaker to slash his odds from 100 to 1.

There are usually very little fluctuations this early in the campaign as most of the betting takes place the few months leading up to Election Day while in 2004, several million dollars were bet on Election Day alone.

Sportsbook.com is heavily referenced by Gambling911.com for its political betting odds menu. Sportsbook.com is the largest North American-facing sports betting website in terms of overall volume of customers.

2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul sat down with Gambling911.com's Kira Wissman for a few moments Friday night following his speech at a rally in Mars, Pennsylvania, just outside Pittsburgh. The time spent was brief since Paul had to rush out on his way to Iowa the next morning.

Paul was very adamant regarding Internet gambling prohibition and Internet prohibition across the board.

Dr. Paul is co-sponsoring with Barney Frank (a Democrat). He said that Congressman Frank had approached him about co-sponsoring the bill to legalize online gambling and he had agreed.

“I believe strongly that the internet should not be regulated by the federal government and believes even more strongly that people should be free to engage in the activities they wish, as long as they are willing to take responsibility for their actions.”

I also asked about the likelihood of such a bill passing. He agreed its chances were remote because of the stigma attached to the internet.

“The majority of people in Washington were afraid to support the internet for fear it would label them ‘pro-porn’ or ‘pro-gambling’.”

Paul voted against anti-Internet gambling and poker legislation attached to an unrelated port security bill last October (The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, also known as UIGEA).

Heavy fluctuations in betting odds is typically caused by the amounts of money coming in (public betting action). For sporting events, news related to injuries and weather could play a role in line changes without relying first on public response (betting volume on a particular side).

At press time, Ron Paul's payout potential sat at $800 for every $100 bet. Amazingly, he was listed with the same odds (8 to 1) as Mitt Romney, who is widely considered to be among the front runners in the Republican party.

John McCain's odds remained at 5 to 1. Rudy Giuliani remained at 3 to 1 odds.

"The old taunt reflects a deep economic principle: Talk is cheap, but if someone is willing to risk money, it means they're serious," writes Tim Harford of Slate.com, a general-interest publication offering analysis and commentary about politics. "Put the principle into action and you realize that electoral forecasters should pay as much attention to the betting odds as to the opinion polls.

"When money is on the line, informed people, perhaps including insiders, have an incentive to turn their knowledge into cash by making big bets. In the process they make the odds more accurate. And of course, there are several reasons to lie to pollsters, but no reasons to make a money-losing bet."

http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-Odds-080707.html

[Arilou]

8 to 1? I'll give out WAY better odds than that.

And pay with a smile on my face if I'm wrong, but there's no danger of that.

[David]

WSEX is paying 32 to 1 for him to be the Republican Nominee.

[ritehook]

His odds should be 32,000 to one. He's the favored candidate of the Netizens, but their bark is fiercer than their ballot power.

Even though Paul is the candidate that best exemplifies the traditions and concepts that guided the nation from its founding until the mid or late 20th century.

If George Washington would somehow miraculously re-incarnate into early 21st century America his odds to win the presidency or even a major party nomination would be something like 32 million to one.

It's called devolution . . .