Parexemple poker texas holdem kostenlos download apprendre le poker gratuites play free keno online jouer video poker free online texas hold em

Ron Paul also takes libertarian positions on cutting spending, taxes and regulations (far more so than any other major party presidential candidate, at least among those in the debates, or any other member of congress).

He’s the only one, as far as I know, who would do whatever he can to completely end the war on drugs at the federal level.

Unlike other candidates who want to end the war and restore civil liberties which have been destroyed in its name, he supports Second Amendment rights.

Unlike George Phillies, he would even get rid of the Federal Reserve, which many libertarians consider to be a libertarian issue.

What other party candidate is George Phillies talking about, and what are that candidate’s views on taxes, spending, regulation, gun control, the drug war, etc?

Yes, those are critical issues. Combine Ron Paul’s support of those key issues, with his past Libertarian history, and with his overwhelming support from the public, and I think the best the LP can do to advance liberty is to run Paul on its ticket.

Look at all the support and publicity Paul gets, much of it from young people. Those supporters will have to go somewhere after Paul loses the GOP race; the LNC’s action encourages those supporters to come to us.

My issue with the LNC is (i) they are spending party money to support a candidate of another party, and (ii) they are acting as an organization to affect the Party’s Presidential nomination.

With respect to whether (i) is appropriate, suppose the LNC had decided to support a different other-party candidate who has lots of support, and takes the Libertarian position on critical issues like ending the war and restoring civil liberties. Of course, the candidate is not a Real Libertarian, so he takes some stands that some libertarians disagree with. He has even taken an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, which in meaning is fairly close to David Nolan’s interpretation of the party pledge that Nolan personally wrote (pace, Knapp, who has one of the alternative interpretations)

Would you object?

Why or why not?

Oh, he has tons of cash and vast numbers of supporters.

My issue with the LNC is (i) they are spending party money to support a candidate of another party, and (ii) they are acting as an organization to affect the Party’s Presidential nomination.

With respect to whether (i) is appropriate, suppose the LNC had decided to support a different other-party candidate who has lots of support, and takes the Libertarian position on critical issues like ending the war and restoring civil liberties. Of course, the candidate is not a Real Libertarian, so he takes some stands that some libertarians disagree with. He has even taken an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, which in meaning is fairly close to David Nolan’s interpretation of the party pledge that Nolan personally wrote (pace, Knapp, who has one of the alternative interpretations)

Would you object?

Why or why not?

It’s nice that Smith promoted Ron Paul on the radio. (Paul is my first choice for president, followed by Karen Kwiatkowski.)

But that Smith would send this out on the internet (it was in my email box, pasted into one of the many listserves I get) smacks of “Look at ME! Look at ME! I talked about Ron Paul. I did that! Remember that in Denver, in case Paul doesn’t run.

I’m also disappointed by Phillies’s complaints about the LNC’s reaching out to Paul. I guess Phillies is lobbying for the anti-Paul block of delegates.

http://www.spoxtalk.com/listen_to_spox_talk/p13_sectionid/1/p13_fileid