View Full Version : Bush's Big Bluff by Marc Cooper
Petomane
10-20-2006, 03:24 PM
Bush's Big Bluff
The end of Internet gambling
By MARC COOPER
Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 6:00 pm
Saturday nights are frantic at the world’s biggest card club, the Commerce Casino just east of downtown L.A. But last weekend, this football field–size mecca of 250 tables couldn’t contain the crowd, with lines snaking out to the parking lot by 8 p.m. Hundreds of poker fanatics had been forced out of their bedrooms, out of their pajamas and into their cars because of one of the stupidest — and most hypocritical — laws yet to be passed by the Republican Congress and signed into law by You-Know-Who.
Almost completely under the media radar last week, George W. Bush pushed ahead with a prohibition on Internet gambling, including online poker, by blocking American banks and credit-card companies from making payments to offshore wagering sites. Who cares, you might ask? Well, something like 23 million Americans who, on a daily basis, play online for real money. Maybe the only other thing more people do every day is take a leak. And it’s probably twice the number of people who would vote for Dubya nowadays if, God forbid, he could run a third time. “[censored] Bush,” said a disgusted 25-year-old UCLA grad student from behind his smoke-gray Ray-Bans sitting next to me at the $200 buy-in Texas hold ’em table. “He’s the first president who I voted for. Now I’m never going to vote Republican again. Never.” A few moments later, this young man busted out on a dominated pair of jacks. Reading the hands of online opponents is one thing, but sussing out the live human being sitting across from you holding aces is, apparently, quite another. “I hate having to come to this damn place,” he said, storming toward the ATM.
What’s ticked off a lot of online card players is the devious way in which the Bushies slid the ban by the American people. With no public debate whatsoever, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist attached the bill as a rider on the much-belated SAFE Port Act, and the president signed it last Friday. The veritable Godfather of Poker, Doyle “Texas Dolly” Brunson, publicly fumed: “I can’t believe the underhanded way this new bill restricting online poker was passed through Congress. What does Internet poker have to do with the safe-port bill? We Texans don’t like this kind of trickery.” Neither do more than 100,000 others who quickly rushed to join the newly formed prolegalization Poker Players Alliance, the PPA.
The White House defends the prohibition by arguing that almost 3 million tender-aged Americans, ranging from 14 to 22, admit to playing online poker at least once a week. I don’t find this a comforting statistic, and there’s nothing to be said in favor of a gambling addiction for teens — or adults. But I ask parents: Would you rather have your 16-year-old at home throwing away his bar mitzvah money on a pair of sevens or in Washington playing IM grab-ass with Bill Frist’s friends?
Personally, I don’t like Internet poker. Tried it once and, like Bill Clinton, I didn’t inhale. But what’s the difference between logging on to Partypoker.com or Merrill Lynch’s Web site, other than that you’re likely to risk, and lose, a lot more at the latter site? And who in their right mind believes you can deny an indulgence that already attracts tens of millions? Did we learn nothing from Al Capone?
Looked at coldly, you have to interpret last week’s prohibition as just one massive and rather transparent bluff. The Republicans (and a lot of Democrats) are swimming in gambling-industry cash. That’s what the entire Abramoff scandal was about. Palm Springs–area Republican state Senator Jim Battin, just to cite one egregious example, has sucked up a whopping $1.3 million in casino-related campaign contributions since coming to office in 1994. Just last week the gambling Agua Caliente tribe dished out $450,000 to the Riverside County Republican Party to defend the candidacies of two pro-casino GOP lackeys, and I haven’t heard of them refunding the loot on moral grounds. And, as I’ve pointed out before in this space, America’s casino-lobbying group is presided over by former RNC chair and Bush family intimate Frank Fahrenkopf Jr.
The Republicans are, in practice, about as opposed to gambling as they are to running budget deficits. The only glitch with Internet poker is that by already existing law, online gambling sites were all offshore operations that didn’t need to pay out campaign tributes to our elected defenders of youth. The smart money says that the White House ban was but a ruse. Shortly after the election, expect a rowback from the administration that will exempt poker from other types of prohibited online wagering. In the name of decency and defense of morality, the Congress — controlled by either party — will announce a strict regulation of newly legalized online poker. This time around, however, the gambling sites will be required to be onshore and taxed. And in return, the gambling entrepreneurs — most likely the same conglomerates that now own most casinos — will repay their congressional benefactors with a healthy campaign rake. As they say at the tables, “That’s poker.”
breaktwister
10-20-2006, 04:02 PM
The problem with this scenario - if the US turns round somewhere down the line and says "hey - online poker is OK now - as long as its AMERICAN BASED poker"
The WTO will have a field day. And it wont be just Antiga. The EU will [censored] create havoc if this scenario occurs.
The US destroys a global gaming economy by making deposits illegal then turns round and legalises it for US-based businesses! Even the monkeys that run the US couldn't be as stupid as to think they would get away with this blatent protectionism.
NapoleonDolemite
10-20-2006, 06:28 PM
I like it. Is this the guy that writes for Time?
HumanACtor
10-20-2006, 06:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The US destroys a global gaming economy by making deposits illegal then turns round and legalises it for US-based businesses! Even the monkeys that run the US couldn't be as stupid as to think they would get away with this blatent protectionism.
[/ QUOTE ]
This has pretty much been going on for centuries. Adam Smith's book was dedicated to exposing its "stupidity." Its not that politicians "just dont get it." Its simply the fundamental nature of government.
Megenoita
10-20-2006, 06:48 PM
And by Bush he means Frist. No president would veto a bill based on that addendum; he has much greater things to worry about, and has to hope Congress is capable of doing their job. It's not about Bush. It's about Frist, Congress, etc.
SoBeDude
10-20-2006, 07:02 PM
The WTO will have a field day. And it wont be just Antiga. The EU will [censored] create havoc if this scenario occurs.
This means nothing.
The US already completely ignores everything the WTO says.
-Scott
People say that a lot, but it's just not true. When push comes to shove (i.e. with serious retaliation in effect), the US will comply. Remember the steel tariffs of 2002?
candyman718
10-20-2006, 10:07 PM
[ QUOTE ]
And by Bush he means Frist. No president would veto a bill based on that addendum; he has much greater things to worry about, and has to hope Congress is capable of doing their job. It's not about Bush. It's about Frist, Congress, etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
nothing this congress does id without bushes approval. plus, if he wanted, he could have added on one of his stupid sogning statements saying that the justice dept, etc. would make a distinction for poker.
Guthrie
10-20-2006, 10:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this scenario - if the US turns round somewhere down the line and says "hey - online poker is OK now - as long as its AMERICAN BASED poker"
The WTO will have a field day. And it wont be just Antiga. The EU will [censored] create havoc if this scenario occurs.
The US destroys a global gaming economy by making deposits illegal then turns round and legalises it for US-based businesses! Even the monkeys that run the US couldn't be as stupid as to think they would get away with this blatent protectionism.
[/ QUOTE ]
If online poker is legalized in the U.S. there is absolutely no reason to restrict it to only U.S. companies. The marketplace will take care of that. Where would U.S. players rather risk their money, with shady operators on a barge somewhere, the utterly incompetent morons at Party, or a U.S. company licensed and regulated by federal or state governments, with EFTs handled through federally-insured banks?
A reputable offshore company like Stars would instantly open a U.S. subsidiary and U.S. bank accounts, if not just move here altogether.
BlackRain
10-20-2006, 10:35 PM
"But what’s the difference between logging on to Partypoker.com or Merrill Lynch’s Web site, other than that you’re likely to risk, and lose, a lot more at the latter site?"
nh
edit: OP, please include the link to this article.
Lottery Larry
10-20-2006, 10:36 PM
Who is Marc Cooper, since you quoted him?
And blaming Bush for this seems silly- it's on the legislators.
bottomset
10-20-2006, 10:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
And by Bush he means Frist. No president would veto a bill based on that addendum; he has much greater things to worry about, and has to hope Congress is capable of doing their job. It's not about Bush. It's about Frist, Congress, etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
I thought the president was able to send a bill back to congress unsigned with suggestions
if he sent it back saying get the Igaming crap out, they could remove it and send it back clean
[ QUOTE ]
I thought the president was able to send a bill back to congress unsigned with suggestions
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course he can. Even if there's not an offical procedure in place for this, what's to stop him from offically vetoing the bill, then informally saying "Hey guys in congress, I'll sign this if you send it back without the igaming stuff."
I have no doubt that Bush was perfectly happy to sign this bill as is. Why would he care? And he surely can't veto the port security act!
[ QUOTE ]
And by Bush he means Frist. No president would veto a bill based on that addendum; he has much greater things to worry about, and has to hope Congress is capable of doing their job. It's not about Bush. It's about Frist, Congress, etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you, jesus why does every one try to pin everything him. It was obviously one person who had an agenda to push this through and our [censored] up system that allowed it. It's been going on for years before Bush was in office.
jrbick
10-21-2006, 04:56 AM
No way was bush going to send this bill back. Didn't they work on this for something like, 4 years or so?
And M is right here in that this is not about Bush/President; it's totally about Frist/congress.
Listen to "The Circuit" with Shelley Berkley. She talks about some sick sick hypocrisy that went on here. They would not allow any language to be added that would protect the rail system and busses, etc BECAUSE THIS IS A "PORTS ONLY" BILL. So, obviously UIGEA was 100% political slobber.
[ QUOTE ]
And by Bush he means Frist.
[/ QUOTE ]No- Bush said months ago that he'd sign a bill banning internet gambling.
Megenoita
10-21-2006, 05:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And by Bush he means Frist.
[/ QUOTE ]No- Bush said months ago that he'd sign a bill banning internet gambling.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course he would sign it, lol. What, you think any president would NOT sign it? Take a stand with...internet gambling? LOL. That he said he would sign it (like basically every member of Congress) doesn't mean he pushed it, or had anything whatever to do with pushing it through. In fact, he didn't, and I'm sure would care less if it got done, like most of our nation. There was a small, select few who wanted this done, and it wasn't the "religious right", and it wasn't Bush. You posters' penchant for warrantless babble is irresponsible.
MyTurn2Raise
10-21-2006, 05:35 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this scenario - if the US turns round somewhere down the line and says "hey - online poker is OK now - as long as its AMERICAN BASED poker"
The WTO will have a field day. And it wont be just Antiga. The EU will [censored] create havoc if this scenario occurs.
The US destroys a global gaming economy by making deposits illegal then turns round and legalises it for US-based businesses! Even the monkeys that run the US couldn't be as stupid as to think they would get away with this blatent protectionism.
[/ QUOTE ]
If online poker is legalized in the U.S. there is absolutely no reason to restrict it to only U.S. companies. The marketplace will take care of that. Where would U.S. players rather risk their money, with shady operators on a barge somewhere, the utterly incompetent morons at Party, or a U.S. company licensed and regulated by federal or state governments, with EFTs handled through federally-insured banks?
A reputable offshore company like Stars would instantly open a U.S. subsidiary and U.S. bank accounts, if not just move here altogether.
[/ QUOTE ]
it's just my opinion, but if online poker were officially recognized by the US gov't, it wouldn't come with competition.
Thos gambling industry campaign contributions count for something.
It will be an official monopoly approved by the US Gov't that would make you long for Party's Monster rake structure.
Harv72b
10-21-2006, 06:22 AM
I find it misleading at best that he ties this legislation to George W. Bush as if it were his own personal baby. But I'm more than willing to use the anti-Bush sentiment of a lot of people if it will help the case against the UIGEA.
I also find his example of a 25 year-old busting out at a NL table and rushing off to the ATM to get more money to be more than a little counterproductive.
I wish that I could Cooper's final analysis, too, but I tend to think that ranks right up there with the legalization of marijuana in the "likely to happen soon" category.
Cooder
10-21-2006, 06:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I like it. Is this the guy that writes for Time?
[/ QUOTE ]
He's a newsie way out on the left edge of the envelope.
Click here for a Marc Cooper Bio (http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/marc_cooper)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And by Bush he means Frist.
[/ QUOTE ]No- Bush said months ago that he'd sign a bill banning internet gambling.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course he would sign it, lol. What, you think any president would NOT sign it? Take a stand with...internet gambling? LOL. That he said he would sign it (like basically every member of Congress) doesn't mean he pushed it, or had anything whatever to do with pushing it through. In fact, he didn't, and I'm sure would care less if it got done, like most of our nation. There was a small, select few who wanted this done, and it wasn't the "religious right", and it wasn't Bush. You posters' penchant for warrantless babble is irresponsible.
[/ QUOTE ]You don't have even the first beginning of an understanding of American politics. A President has a huge amount of influence over what reaches his desk when his own party controls both houses. When a President comes out saying he wants to sign something, it means he wants to friggin sign it. Otherwise he does not bring the topic up. Frist is trying to get the Bush team (the conservatives) to join him to try to get the '08 nomination (also part of why he snuck the amendment in). This is because McCain has the moderate part of the party locked up. Right now Frist will do absolutely anything Bush tells him.
candyman718
10-21-2006, 10:14 AM
"Frist is trying to get the Bush team (the conservatives) to join him to try to get the '08 nomination"
Not conservatives. The Religious Right.
Stipe_fan
10-21-2006, 10:23 AM
Conservatives = Religious Right these days.
You are either far left, C=RR or independent. Years ago I was a tad right of center, nearly a moderate, but now I am an independent.
....and I like Cooper (who ever he is) and his optimism. But, if Bush permits internet gambling on poker, his whole voter base might string him up. I really doubt he does anything after the mid-terms.
Stipe
[ QUOTE ]
Not conservatives. The Religious Right.
[/ QUOTE ]In the U.S. ideologies are defined by their social (not economic) stances. 'Conservatives' = 'social conservatives' here. Otherwise known as reactionaries; always fearful of change. Otherwise known as what's wrong with humanity.
Our House
10-21-2006, 01:34 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this scenario - if the US turns round somewhere down the line and says "hey - online poker is OK now - as long as its AMERICAN BASED poker"
The WTO will have a field day. And it wont be just Antiga. The EU will [censored] create havoc if this scenario occurs.
[/ QUOTE ]
The scenario has already occurred. It's in the form of horse racing and lotteries.
Why is poker so special?
Our government is going to do whatever the [censored] it wants to do regardless of consequences. They don't care what the rest of the world thinks. For some reason, they believe America owns the universe.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this scenario - if the US turns round somewhere down the line and says "hey - online poker is OK now - as long as its AMERICAN BASED poker"
The WTO will have a field day. And it wont be just Antiga. The EU will [censored] create havoc if this scenario occurs.
[/ QUOTE ]
The scenario has already occurred. It's in the form of horse racing and lotteries.
Why is poker so special?
Our government is going to do whatever the [censored] it wants to do regardless of consequences. They don't care what the rest of the world thinks. For some reason, they believe America owns the universe.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's what happens when the world has but one superpower. There needs to be a system of checks and balances on an international level, or our world is doomed.
JOHNY CA$H
10-21-2006, 08:52 PM
"Shortly after the election, expect a rowback from the administration that will exempt poker from other types of prohibited online wagering. In the name of decency and defense of morality, the Congress — controlled by either party — will announce a strict regulation of newly legalized online poker. This time around, however, the gambling sites will be required to be onshore and taxed. And in return, the gambling entrepreneurs — most likely the same conglomerates that now own most casinos — will repay their congressional benefactors with a healthy campaign rake."
WOOOOOOOOOOWWWWW.
As a Canadian, I'm still gonna play on the offshore sites and beat up on the Euros, though. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
JOHNY CA$H
10-21-2006, 08:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Even the monkeys that run the US couldn't be as stupid as to think they would get away with this blatent protectionism.
[/ QUOTE ]
The US HAS gotten away with more blatent protectionism than this in the past. Your operating on the flase assumption that the US gives a [censored] what the WTO thinks.
Copernicus
10-21-2006, 08:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this scenario - if the US turns round somewhere down the line and says "hey - online poker is OK now - as long as its AMERICAN BASED poker"
The WTO will have a field day. And it wont be just Antiga. The EU will [censored] create havoc if this scenario occurs.
The US destroys a global gaming economy by making deposits illegal then turns round and legalises it for US-based businesses! Even the monkeys that run the US couldn't be as stupid as to think they would get away with this blatent protectionism.
[/ QUOTE ]
They wouldnt need "protectionism". Fish would flock to a US legal site and the sharks would follow. They would dominate the industry before you can say "fossilman"
JOHNY CA$H
10-21-2006, 08:57 PM
Yeah, but how? the two super power thing led to the cold war. the 5 super power thing led to a series of intricate alliances that made the first World War inevitable.
What is the best way to do it? Therin lies the rub.
JOHNY CA$H
10-21-2006, 09:02 PM
That being said, Bush is still a donkey's ass, and should be ridiculed at every turn.
JOHNY CA$H
10-21-2006, 09:06 PM
Bush doesn't need a voter base anymore.
TomVeil
10-21-2006, 09:15 PM
The two people who mentioned this before were right, but I wanted to chime in to agree with them. The first day that harrahs.com opens, it instantly has more players than Party. Americans will trust American companies with their money more than offshore companies. Add to that the media rush that you'd see, and everybody would know that it was fine to play on Harrahs.com! (They wouldn't mention the offshore sites at all)
Megenoita
10-21-2006, 09:49 PM
Sorry, Bush was not behind the bill. A journalist can say what he likes, but he stated no warrants. Neither did you. It's all baseless assumptions. And if you think Republicans are going to run Frist, you're crazy. He's done as far as that goes.
Cooper says to "expect" a carve-out for online poker. Although that would be phenomenal, it's crazy to expect that. He's a little too pro-gambling to be trusted as an unbiased source, being a devout blackjack player and reporting in Vegas the past couple of years. Just like Cardplayer, things are going to sound slanted coming from him.
jrbick
10-21-2006, 10:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And by Bush he means Frist.
[/ QUOTE ]No- Bush said months ago that he'd sign a bill banning internet gambling.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course he would sign it, lol. What, you think any president would NOT sign it? Take a stand with...internet gambling? LOL. That he said he would sign it (like basically every member of Congress) doesn't mean he pushed it, or had anything whatever to do with pushing it through. In fact, he didn't, and I'm sure would care less if it got done, like most of our nation. There was a small, select few who wanted this done, and it wasn't the "religious right", and it wasn't Bush. You posters' penchant for warrantless babble is irresponsible.
[/ QUOTE ]You don't have even the first beginning of an understanding of American politics. A President has a huge amount of influence over what reaches his desk when his own party controls both houses. When a President comes out saying he wants to sign something, it means he wants to friggin sign it. Otherwise he does not bring the topic up. Frist is trying to get the Bush team (the conservatives) to join him to try to get the '08 nomination (also part of why he snuck the amendment in). This is because McCain has the moderate part of the party locked up. Right now Frist will do absolutely anything Bush tells him.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is a reason Bush didn't refuse the bill, two words - "PORT SECURITY" -- I'm not disagreeing w/ you that he WOULDN'T have refused a solo bill at all. But he most assuredly was not behind the passage of this.
Here's a better slant to be taking: "Frist et al legalized online gambling for horse racing, lotteries, and fantasy sports. And Bush obviously had no problem with it."
At the same time this happened, protection for the rail system and other modes of transportation were denied being added to the same bill UIGEA was included on the basis that "THIS IS A BILL FOR PORT SECURITY ONLY." O RLY?
Beavis68
10-21-2006, 11:20 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The WTO will have a field day. And it wont be just Antiga. The EU will [censored] create havoc if this scenario occurs.
This means nothing.
The US already completely ignores everything the WTO says.
-Scott
[/ QUOTE ]
As does the rest of the world.
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but how? the two super power thing led to the cold war. the 5 super power thing led to a series of intricate alliances that made the first World War inevitable.
What is the best way to do it? Therin lies the rub.
[/ QUOTE ]
you make a very good point, but the one place where I will argue is with the two super power thing leading to a cold war. I believe that The Cold War led to the two super power thing. However, that being said, I also believe that the world was a much better place during the Cold War than it is today. At least we knew that the Soviets were rational people dispite their many shortcomings, and even though they weren't really a force for good in any sense of the word, they did provide a system of checks and balances for the United States.
Tilt-a-Whirl
10-22-2006, 01:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
you make a very good point, but the one place where I will argue is with the two super power thing leading to a cold war. I believe that The Cold War led to the two super power thing. However, that being said, I also believe that the world was a much better place during the Cold War than it is today. At least we knew that the Soviets were rational people dispite their many shortcomings, and even though they weren't really a force for good in any sense of the word, they did provide a system of checks and balances for the United States.
[/ QUOTE ]
I find this quite revolting
AlexM
10-22-2006, 05:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
And by Bush he means Frist. No president would veto a bill based on that addendum; he has much greater things to worry about,
[/ QUOTE ]
He has greater thigns to worry about than the corruption and destruction of democracy through irrelevant riders? I really don't think so. Democracy > Terrorists. When we start putting terrorism before democracy, the terrorists win.
[ QUOTE ]
There is a reason Bush didn't refuse the bill, two words - "PORT SECURITY"
[/ QUOTE ]Again, government noobs- everyone knows that nothing is put before the White House by the White House's Party without the White House's approval. Not unless it's a huge campaign issue like stem cell research and that only happens like once a decade.
The White House and the Republican Leadership work in concert on legislation. Frist does not put anything into bills that the White House doesn't want, and he and the committee chairs take out anything they don't want.
The rudeness of putting something in that Bush didn't want is not worth it unless, again, it's a huge issue that the public overwhelmingly supports like stem cells. Even then, Frist had to be dragged kicking and screaming to go against the White House.
Megenoita
10-23-2006, 02:28 PM
"nothing is put before the White House by the White House's Party without the White House's approval"
"PORT SECURITY"
"The White House and the Republican Leadership work in concert on legislation. Frist does not put anything into bills that the White House doesn't want, and he and the committee chairs take out anything they don't want."
This doesn't prove your point. This works with what I and others have said in this thread, that Bush wouldn't have a problem with the gambling law, so he'd be okay with it. That doesn't mean he wanted it (pursued it) or pushed for it. It means he didn't resist it. If he says he wants to sign it, it can be b/c it pleases Republican conservatives, b/c it shows unity, etc. I've not seen one piece of evidence that Bush pushed to get this passed. Do you have any evidence to this effect, other than the argument that anything any Republican Congressman pushes, Bush pushes b/c he's the same party? B/c that's simply not true, and for someone calling other people government newbs, in a demeaning, condescending tone, repeatedly, you should know this best.
"The rudeness of putting something in that Bush didn't want..."
It's not that Bush didn't want it. I'm sure he could basically care less. It's that he didn't push it, he wasn't behind its getting attention or getting steam or getting passed. You have shown no evidence to the contrary.
Lawman007
10-23-2006, 02:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
And by Bush he means Frist. No president would veto a bill based on that addendum; he has much greater things to worry about, and has to hope Congress is capable of doing their job. It's not about Bush. It's about Frist, Congress, etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, you're really clueless, aren't you? Frist and his fascist minions don't take a leak without checking with their Fuhrer in the White House.
Megenoita
10-23-2006, 03:01 PM
Yeah, so Frist checks and sees if it's okay. It's okay, so he gets what he wants. This is about what Frist wanted, not Bush. Just b/c Bush didn't say "no" doesn't mean he was the one pushing it. Of course Frist is going to "check with" Bush, to know if he can get it passed.
You're taking Bush's approval and making it his initiative. You're making it seem like Bush wanted the I-Gaming legislation passed, and that he pushed it. I would like to see evidence of this accusation, other than blanket "dictator" statements.
CallYNotRaise06
10-23-2006, 03:21 PM
OP, nice article.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you make a very good point, but the one place where I will argue is with the two super power thing leading to a cold war. I believe that The Cold War led to the two super power thing. However, that being said, I also believe that the world was a much better place during the Cold War than it is today. At least we knew that the Soviets were rational people dispite their many shortcomings, and even though they weren't really a force for good in any sense of the word, they did provide a system of checks and balances for the United States.
[/ QUOTE ]
I find this quite revolting
[/ QUOTE ]
Imagine that. A person with Catholic Ukrainian ancestry saying good things about the former Soviet Union. That's kind of like a person with Jewish ancestry saying good things about the former Nazi Germany. I can only hope that such a statement would get people to think a little.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.