President Obama, Poker Player??

[carlgraham]

Lost in the flurry of publicity surrounding Sen. Barack Obama's potential 2008 presidential bid is the fact that he's a poker player who had a regular game with his fellow Illinois legislators. (See this story for more information: Obama Article (http://tinyurl.com/yxtq35))

Perhaps a president with this background would be less of a killjoy, and more receptive to allowing consenting adults to play against each other for money, even online.

Cheers, Carl.

[demon102]

Thats what Im talking bout!!!!

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
Lost in the flurry of publicity surrounding Sen. Barack Obama's potential 2008 presidential bid is the fact that he's a poker player who had a regular game with his fellow Illinois legislators. (See this story for more information: Obama Article (http://tinyurl.com/yxtq35))

Perhaps a president with this background would be less of a killjoy, and more receptive to allowing consenting adults to play against each other for money, even online.

Cheers, Carl.

[/ QUOTE ]Not to rain on that thought.But the truth is,this country is not going to elect a black president with a muslim sounded name to boot.Not now,probably not in our life time.The underlining racism in this country is far to great for that.I hope this statement will someday prove to be wrong,but im not holding my breath.

[Greg Miller]

Obama would have to beat Hillary Clinton and then beat Giuliani in order to become president. Besides, I've always heard Bush was a solid stud player, and he wasn't willing to veto this bill. What makes you think Obama would be different?

Anybody know what Rudy thinks of poker? Since he's currently the frontrunner?

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
Obama would have to beat Hillary Clinton and then beat Giuliani in order to become president. Besides, I've always heard Bush was a solid stud player, and he wasn't willing to veto this bill. What makes you think Obama would be different?

Anybody know what Rudy thinks of poker? Since he's currently the frontrunner?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's ahead of McCain as the GOP frontrunner?

And didn't Rudy cripple underground poker in NYC?

[JDalla]

Is Bush really a solid stud player? I find this hard to believe, he doesn't seem to think logically enough. (it was probably a joke)

[LesJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obama would have to beat Hillary Clinton and then beat Giuliani in order to become president. Besides, I've always heard Bush was a solid stud player, and he wasn't willing to veto this bill. What makes you think Obama would be different?

Anybody know what Rudy thinks of poker? Since he's currently the frontrunner?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's ahead of McCain as the GOP frontrunner?

And didn't Rudy cripple underground poker in NYC?

[/ QUOTE ]

Incredibly irrelevant. There is no way Rudy wins a Republican primary. Red states in the sounth will not vote for a pro-choice moderate from New York in the Republican primary.

Strangely enough, I guess I am stupid enough to believe the electorate as a whole would be open enough to vote for Obama in the fall.

[Synergistic Explosions]

If Tiger Woods can do what he did, Obama should have an even easier path.

[Jerry D]

[ QUOTE ]


And didn't Rudy cripple underground poker in NYC?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really liked Rudy - BUT - as a poker player there is no way I could ever vote for him. He would attack and cripple online gaming even more than these current Republicans if that is even possible. You probably wouldn't even be able to buy a copy of Cardplayer at a bookstore when he was done. I'm serious.

[candyman718]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


And didn't Rudy cripple underground poker in NYC?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really liked Rudy - BUT - as a poker player there is no way I could ever vote for him. He would attack and cripple online gaming even more than these current Republicans if that is even possible. You probably wouldn't even be able to buy a copy of Cardplayer at a bookstore when he was done. I'm serious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you even imagine what the penalties would be for playing strip poker?

[JOHNY CA$H]

I'd vote for Obama without even hearing this. Unfortunately I don't like his chances of winning, half the south will confuse him with Osama.

[JOHNY CA$H]

Good point.

Except, Tiger was so good, old white guys didn't have a choice.

[candyman718]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd vote for Obama without even hearing this. Unfortunately I don't like his chances of winning, half the south will confuse him with Osama.

[/ QUOTE ]

Other than Florida, is there any Southern state a Democrat could win? Unless of course he was so conservative that he might as well be a Republican.

[WaimanaloSlim]

[ QUOTE ]
Is Bush really a solid stud player? I find this hard to believe, he doesn't seem to think logically enough. (it was probably a joke)

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

He actually said this at a press conference a couple weeks ago:

"...That is the best strategy to solve the problem. I mean, I – you – one has a stronger hand when there's more people playing your same cards."

I hope Texans are embarrassed.

[candyman718]

I have a feeling Bush was as successful of a poker player as he was a businessman and as he is a Commander-in-Chief.

[recondite7]

No way Obama would take his interest in playing poker with his friends and decide to make poker legal.

Plus why would we vote for the guy that was the mastermind of 9-11?

[jrbick]

personal life is almost never reflected in politics (except some things like lying, hypocrisy, and ignorance).

[PA32R]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


And didn't Rudy cripple underground poker in NYC?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really liked Rudy - BUT - as a poker player there is no way I could ever vote for him. He would attack and cripple online gaming even more than these current Republicans if that is even possible. You probably wouldn't even be able to buy a copy of Cardplayer at a bookstore when he was done. I'm serious.

[/ QUOTE ]

After the brouhaha about the Frist picture with the Swastika, I'm reluctant to characterize Rudy as a fascist. But all evidence indicates he has the same regard for Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights as people like John Ashcroft, Richard Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover, and Regan's Attorney General Edwin "if he wasn't guilty he wouldn't be a suspect" Meese. I agree - Rudy would try to outlaw sales of Cardplayer.

[PA32R]

[ QUOTE ]
personal life is almost never reflected in politics (except some things like lying, hypocrisy, and ignorance).

[/ QUOTE ]

Astute observation. I'd add greed and self-aggrandizement.

[Dire]

By this logic, shouldn't coke have been legalized?

Politicians are nothing more than that. If, and only if, he thinks legalizing online poker is a politically sound idea (doubtful) would he push to legalize/regulate it.

[crabclaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a feeling Bush was as successful of a poker player as he was a businessman and as he is a Commander-in-Chief.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is an article from someone who was doing his MBA at Havard at the same time as Bush http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3378

He says "By reputation, the President was a very avid and skillful poker player when he was an MBA student".

[scorer]

agreed with other poster, hes black and his name will be a huge problem for many to overcome. Its the reality of where we live

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
the truth is,this country is not going to elect a black president with a muslim sounded name

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. The type of person who will oppose a candidate based on skin color is highly unlikely to vote for a Democrat anyway.

[candyman718]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a feeling Bush was as successful of a poker player as he was a businessman and as he is a Commander-in-Chief.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is an article from someone who was doing his MBA at Havard at the same time as Bush http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3378

He says "By reputation, the President was a very avid and skillful poker player when he was an MBA student".

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the laugh. What a great article. It's a better ball washing than Monica gave Bill.

Anyway, he never played with Bush. He's probably as right about Bush's poker as he is about WMD, Finding Osama, and Bush's managing of the war on terror.

[Losing all]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a feeling Bush was as successful of a poker player as he was a businessman and as he is a Commander-in-Chief.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is an article from someone who was doing his MBA at Havard at the same time as Bush http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3378

He says "By reputation, the President was a very avid and skillful poker player when he was an MBA student".

[/ QUOTE ]

Finding Osama

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't you hear, he's running for president in 08.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
Politicians are nothing more than that. If, and only if, he thinks legalizing online poker is a politically sound idea (doubtful) would he push to legalize/regulate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. I think for the vast majority of politicians you are dead on, but my impression is that Obama is a principled leader and not your average pol.

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lost in the flurry of publicity surrounding Sen. Barack Obama's potential 2008 presidential bid is the fact that he's a poker player who had a regular game with his fellow Illinois legislators. (See this story for more information: Obama Article (http://tinyurl.com/yxtq35))

Perhaps a president with this background would be less of a killjoy, and more receptive to allowing consenting adults to play against each other for money, even online.

Cheers, Carl.

[/ QUOTE ]Not to rain on that thought.But the truth is,this country is not going to elect a black president with a muslim sounded name to boot.Not now,probably not in our life time.The underlining racism in this country is far to great for that.I hope this statement will someday prove to be wrong,but im not holding my breath.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are quite wrong about this.

Obama has my 30 something, Conservative Republican white boy vote.

He has gained enormous popularity amongst all races, and idealologies in the past few years. Obama will win the Presidency when he runs. It's not just popularity, it's because of how he is. He reminds me of a hard working, intelligent, open minded person that got where he got because of himself, and not blaming others. He doesn't make white people feel guilty. He doesn't think Republicans are evil. He doesn't think Conservatism is evil. His ideas are well articulated. He inspires people. Whomever he runs against won't stand a chance.

[Indiana]

If he doesn't win this election, we will know that we are a racist country. I mean, just watch this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2HVck0TV_g

My boy is uber-qualified.

Indy

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
Obama would have to beat Hillary Clinton and then beat Giuliani in order to become president.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, a reporter on Meet the Press this past Sunday said that a Clinton aide told him Obama would run in 2008 and Hillary would not. I'm hoping his source was informed.

[Brice]

[ QUOTE ]
If he doesn't win this election, we will know that we are a racist country. I mean, just watch this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2HVck0TV_g

My boy is uber-qualified.

Indy

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, America is a racist country. You don't say?

[Freerollin`]

I'm a cracker and in the past, tended to be a Repub-leaner, but there's probably no one out of the list of probable candidates that I'd vote for before Obama.

[fish2plus2]

seems like he could be another JFK. might as well give him a shot, but he still looks/sounds like everyother fake politition.

[wheatrich]

[ QUOTE ]


You are quite wrong about this.

Obama has my 30 something, Conservative Republican white boy vote.

He has gained enormous popularity amongst all races, and idealologies in the past few years. Obama will win the Presidency when he runs. It's not just popularity, it's because of how he is. He reminds me of a hard working, intelligent, open minded person that got where he got because of himself, and not blaming others. He doesn't make white people feel guilty. He doesn't think Republicans are evil. He doesn't think Conservatism is evil. His ideas are well articulated. He inspires people. Whomever he runs against won't stand a chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with everything said (except I'm not a 30 something conservative republican). Obama owns. Well not sure about president--it's so close it's impossible to guess which way the election will go.

In fact; republicans basically conceded when Obama's initial challenger dropped out (due to sex scandal) in the Senate race here.

[jackaaron]

Not sure why I was watching the Democratic Natl Convention many months ago (as I said, I never voted Dem) but I was, and when Obama came on, he stole the entire show. Completely. They put a camera on Hillary, and I swear to you that she was completely shocked, and almost scared looking. She was wide eyed with a little bit of WTF? added in, but slowly clapping at the same time. Every thing he said at that national convention was something I wanted to hear from a politician. Not just a Repub or Dem, but ANY politician. I'm telling you, the dude is special, and will cross any racial and ideaological boundaries when it comes time to run.

[dedmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd vote for Obama without even hearing this. Unfortunately I don't like his chances of winning, half the south will confuse him with Osama.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, Edward Kennedy (D-MA) already did this, if you google it I'm sure you can find the sound clip. Ahhh...Senator Chivas, one thing I miss about living in Mass.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a feeling Bush was as successful of a poker player as he was a businessman and as he is a Commander-in-Chief.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is an article from someone who was doing his MBA at Havard at the same time as Bush http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3378

He says "By reputation, the President was a very avid and skillful poker player when he was an MBA student".

[/ QUOTE ]

Reputation for being good in home poker games = lol meaninglessaments.

I want to see poker tracker stats or I'm unimpressed.

[OneTwoThreeROBOT]

[ QUOTE ]
seems like he could be another JFK. might as well give him a shot

[/ QUOTE ]

You sick son of a bitch.

[Local_Echo]

I am a member of the media in Illinois and I've actually had the pleasure to meet Barack Obama in person. He is an extremely intelligent person, practical, and willing to go to great lengths to research the issues. There's just something about him that's different than other politicians. I believe he has a legitimate shot at the presidential race if he decides to run.

[flytrap]

[ QUOTE ]
If he doesn't win this election, we will know that we are a racist country. I mean, just watch this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2HVck0TV_g

My boy is uber-qualified.

Indy

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, America IS a racist country. Not to mention sexist. I've believed for a while, and still believe, that the first female or minority president will be a repulican, since many repulican leaning voters would be turned off by a minority or female democratic canidate. The slightly racist (and there are many of these, the kind that wouldn't let their daughter date a black guy, but claim that they have black friends) might plug their nose and vote for a black guy if he were a republican. On the other side of the coin, however, is that many poor black people that otherwise wouldn't vote might come out in support for Obama.

[PokerintheI]

[ QUOTE ]
Obama would have to beat Hillary Clinton and then beat Giuliani in order to become president. Besides, I've always heard Bush was a solid stud player, and he wasn't willing to veto this bill. What makes you think Obama would be different?

Anybody know what Rudy thinks of poker? Since he's currently the frontrunner?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Democratic Party isn't even sure they want Hillary to run. Aparently they have some polling data showing that while she could win the Dems nomination, she would get absolutely crushed against pretty much any republican candidate. Aparently the therorists think that her name on the ballot would pretty much drag every living Republican out to the polls to vote against her. (and probably some of the dead ones too).

[S0meGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure why I was watching the Democratic Natl Convention many months ago (as I said, I never voted Dem) but I was, and when Obama came on, he stole the entire show. Completely. They put a camera on Hillary, and I swear to you that she was completely shocked, and almost scared looking. She was wide eyed with a little bit of WTF? added in, but slowly clapping at the same time. Every thing he said at that national convention was something I wanted to hear from a politician. Not just a Repub or Dem, but ANY politician. I'm telling you, the dude is special, and will cross any racial and ideaological boundaries when it comes time to run.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is a refreshingly likable person. As for a presidential run, it won't/can't realistically happen for several years since, as a second year Senator, he basically has no political accomplishments (of presidential magnitude) thus far to speak of.

Additionally, highly experienced and accomplished Multi-term Senators in recent history (last 60 years?) generally have not won Presidential elections. A political "kid" without one full term of service will not get close to a presidential bid any time soon, regardless of his likability.

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, highly experienced and accomplished Multi-term Senators in recent history (last 60 years?) generally have not won Presidential elections. A political "kid" without one full term of service will not get close to a presidential bid any time soon, regardless of his likability.

[/ QUOTE ]

Normally this may be a problem. In '08, there are a lot of different things coming together for Obama. One of them is the "sick of politics" vibe across the country. Some people see his lack of experience as a positive, because he hasn't fallen into the trap of DC. His bill requiring all government spending to be viewable by anybody online in a searchable database may have gotten killed, but it's something that a HUGE majority of people support. People may be upset he has no experience, but when they hear him speak, it doesn't matter. Remember, JFK was a junior senator too.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
He is a refreshingly likable person. As for a presidential run, it won't/can't realistically happen for several years since, as a second year Senator, he basically has no political accomplishments (of presidential magnitude) thus far to speak of.

Additionally, highly experienced and accomplished Multi-term Senators in recent history (last 60 years?) generally have not won Presidential elections. A political "kid" without one full term of service will not get close to a presidential bid any time soon, regardless of his likability.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Obama needs to run when he can't be attacked for lack of experience. There is cetainly a governor bias by Americans. That's not to say someone special couldn't break through. As someone who wants ANY Dem in the WH next term, I'd still overwhelmingly prefer Obama to Hillary. Republicans will sleep in tents like Stars Wars geeks over night to be the first persont to vote against her. Are there any Bill Clinton part deux governors laying around? I hope so.

[ADS]

This might have been mentioned before...did not read every post in the thread.

But...He has Oprah in his camp...that is half the battle.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[jah7_fsu1]

[ QUOTE ]
He says "By reputation, the President was a very avid and skillful poker player when he was an MBA student".

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course he's a remarkable poker player, just try getting a read on that idiot.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He says "By reputation, the President was a very avid and skillful poker player when he was an MBA student".

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course he's a remarkable poker player, just try getting a read on that idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, very very good observation. Don't discount his likely confusion of the rules. Hard to read someone who doesn't even know the strength of their own hand.

[maurile]

From the article, it seems like Obama is weak-tight.

[pifhluk]

This is going to sound bad but if Obama could get the minorities in this country to actually go out and vote then id say he has a shot in 08 mainly because of the overall political vibe right now. If this were any other year I believe he would get crushed.

[mikechops]

Condelezza Rice and Colin Powell have been very popular Republican figures. If Osama can avoid giving the impression he favors giving every other black person a special break on account of past injustices (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton), his skin color won't be a problem. It will be an advantage.

[elevationzero]

put away whatever you guys are smoking, the Republicans could run Bob Doles crusty old butt, and he could get caught giving oral to boyscouts, and would still beat anyone with a name like "Obama" "Barak", hell a name like "Saddam bin Laden" would hardly be worse.

Presiddent "Obama"
President "Barak"

please, no party could be foolish enough to run this one and expect to win

[Jeremy517]

[ QUOTE ]
and would still beat anyone with a name like "Obama" "Barak"

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, his middle name is Hussein. Seriously. He has just about the worst possible name for a politician in this era...

[cowboyzfan]

I am sick and tired of political Democrats on this site trying to use the poker issue in order to elect more Democrats.

There is simply NO proof whatsoever that Democrats are more pro poker than Republicans. States such as Illinois and Washington have made a concerted effort to ban online gambling, those are Democrat states. Furthermore, if you ignored Republican votes, the Democratic votes in the House and Senate would have passed the ban on online gambling.

The only people who have consistently supported online gambling are the libertarians (small L). Not the liberals (big government) nor the conservatives (moral values). The empirical facts are that the vast majority of libertarian minded people vote Republican. The reason is simple, the Republican party historically supports a smaller government.

Yes it is true some idiots like Frist sold themselves out to the the Christian Right. But the Republican party has been the traditional place for liberty minded people.

Why do you think the big government, we know better than you do, left wing Dems would help online gambling? At best they would tax away the ability of a skilled person to be +ev and then put all of us in a clinic for our "victimization" by "Big Poker"

I am pissed as hell at Frist and others that are beholden to the religious right. But the reality is that Democrats care nothing about poker players "rights". Don't be hoodwinked by the unusual majority of poker playing libs on this site.

btw, the President's who were most famous for playing poker were Nixon and Eisenhower, both Republicans.

[cowboyzfan]

[ QUOTE ]
No way Obama would take his interest in playing poker with his friends and decide to make poker legal.

Plus why would we vote for the guy that was the mastermind of 9-11?

[/ QUOTE ]


/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Jeremy517]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason is simple, the Republican party historically supports a smaller government.

[/ QUOTE ]

In words, maybe. In actions, it has been a long time since they were for a smaller government.

[cowboyzfan]

why? what has obama ever accomplished? He has been a Senator for two years, well............er..........uh........that is about it.

compare that to Giulliani or Mccain? Hell I would vote for Biden over osama obama /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[JOHNY CA$H]

Okay, so one Bostonian and half the South.

[JOHNY CA$H]

Sir, I hope you are right.

But c'mon, the CIA will kill him before that happens. That or the KKK.

[JOHNY CA$H]

IT IS A POLITICALLY SOUND IDEA.

Reduce the deficit by regulating and taxing online poker. The people who would vote for a black Democrat aren't the people backing the anti-gaming legislation.

[ericicecream]

[ QUOTE ]
There's just something about him that's different than other politicians. I believe he has a legitimate shot at the presidential race if he decides to run.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, this is probably why he won't win. It's not right, but it's most likely the truth.

But that still doesn't mean he shouldn't try.

And while it' good that he plays poker, online poker is and shouldn't be one of the more important issues facing this country, even to a poker professional.

[cowboyzfan]

[ QUOTE ]
Sir, I hope you are right.

But c'mon, the CIA will kill him before that happens. That or the KKK.

[/ QUOTE ]

you sound like one of those anti-American euro types on this site. You should be ashamed of spewing such vitriol at the United States. But i am pleased that you show who you are.

[DeliciousBass]

[ QUOTE ]
There is simply NO proof whatsoever that Democrats are more pro poker than Republicans.

[/ QUOTE ]

No Democratic president has ever signed a bill into law banning online poker.

[cowboyzfan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is simply NO proof whatsoever that Democrats are more pro poker than Republicans.

[/ QUOTE ]

No Democratic president has ever signed a bill into law banning online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

that is not proof. Don't you see why?

[KDawg]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there any Bill Clinton part deux governors laying around? I hope so.

[/ QUOTE ]


there was in the ex virginia gov. Mark Warner, but he dropped out because he didn't want his family to go under the pressure of a WH run

[cowboyzfan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are there any Bill Clinton part deux governors laying around? I hope so.

[/ QUOTE ]


there was in the ex virginia gov. Mark Warner, but he dropped out because he didn't want his family to go under the pressure of a WH run

[/ QUOTE ]

you insult warner by comparing him to clinton. Warner was a great governor, i think he had a few skeletons in the closet, makes no sense for politico to give up when so many want him to run. Not an attack on Warner, just the reality of our sick political environment.

[candyman718]

[ QUOTE ]

But the Republican party has been the traditional place for liberty minded people.


[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, that's a bold statement. I guess it depends on how you define liberty. Do you define it by a broad interpretation of The Bill of Rights? With the exception of the 2nd Ammendment, my vote goes to the Democrats.

Do you define economic liberty as marginal tax rates? Is an attempt to balance an unlevel economic playing field taking away wealthy peoples liberty or increasing the opportunities of those at the bottom? Is a college giving spots to children of alumni more or less pro-liberty than one than supports affirmative action?

What about issues like relaxation of Marijuana Laws? Do abortion rights mean more liberty for women or less 'liberty' for fetuses?
On issues that the ACLU (the L stands for Liberty) cares about, the usually agree with Democratic politicians more than Republicans. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, it seems to me Republicans are more likely to sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security.

But anyway, on this issue I don't care about McCaskill's stance on this issue. Or if a Democratic Senate would have done the same thing to us. (IMO, they wouldn't have. It wouldn't have even been brought up.) This is about making a statement. So, that next time around some politician thinks to himself, "do i really want to piss off 23 million poker players?". The same way they think to themselves the same thing about gun owners. or the pro-israeli lobby.

Let's make it happen.

[jah7_fsu1]

[ QUOTE ]
you insult warner by comparing him to clinton.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it an insult to be compared to the most successful president of our time? Get over the fact he got his dick sucked, he did an amazing amount for the country and we were much better off.

[cowboyzfan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But the Republican party has been the traditional place for liberty minded people.


[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, that's a bold statement. I guess it depends on how you define liberty. Do you define it by a broad interpretation of The Bill of Rights? With the exception of the 2nd Ammendment, my vote goes to the Democrats.

Do you define economic liberty as marginal tax rates? Is an attempt to balance an unlevel economic playing field taking away wealthy peoples liberty or increasing the opportunities of those at the bottom? Is a college giving spots to children of alumni more or less pro-liberty than one than supports affirmative action?

What about issues like relaxation of Marijuana Laws? Do abortion rights mean more liberty for women or less 'liberty' for fetuses?
On issues that the ACLU (the L stands for Liberty) cares about, the usually agree with Democratic politicians more than Republicans. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, it seems to me Republicans are more likely to sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security.

But anyway, on this issue I don't care about McCaskill's stance on this issue. Or if a Democratic Senate would have done the same thing to us. (IMO, they wouldn't have. It wouldn't have even been brought up.) This is about making a statement. So, that next time around some politician thinks to himself, "do i really want to piss off 23 million poker players?". The same way they think to themselves the same thing about gun owners. or the pro-israeli lobby.

Let's make it happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm, pro Israel lobby? well sir, you have made my case right there about political Democrats trying to use poker players to their own ends. This argument is about poker, not Anti-Semitism. The facts are Democrats are not making as issue about repealing this ban, period. Secondly, the Democrats are traditionally pro big government and traditionally think ivy leage millionaires (more Demo millionaires in Congress than Republican) know better than the average person how to spend money. The Democrats want to increase taxes and spend your money because they think they know better than you do. They think if you had more money you would waste it on booze and smokes, or gambling.

I am not here to support Republicans, those who sold themselves out to the religious right are spitting on the heritage of Reagan et al. But the facts are no one has made a convincing argument whatsoever as to how the Democrats woud be better to online poker.

[KDawg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are there any Bill Clinton part deux governors laying around? I hope so.

[/ QUOTE ]


there was in the ex virginia gov. Mark Warner, but he dropped out because he didn't want his family to go under the pressure of a WH run

[/ QUOTE ]

you insult warner by comparing him to clinton. Warner was a great governor, i think he had a few skeletons in the closet, makes no sense for politico to give up when so many want him to run. Not an attack on Warner, just the reality of our sick political environment.

[/ QUOTE ]


considering that Warner is a blue dog dem like clinton was, I think it wouldn't be an insult at all to warner

[cowboyzfan]

lol, if you honestly believe that then fine. i can only send you to Clinton's own comments, he has often railed against the fact that he had no great challenge to overcome in his presidency. To say he was great? hmm, i could ask you to give some examples but since i know you can not i will not do such as thing in public /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[candyman718]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But the Republican party has been the traditional place for liberty minded people.


[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, that's a bold statement. I guess it depends on how you define liberty. Do you define it by a broad interpretation of The Bill of Rights? With the exception of the 2nd Ammendment, my vote goes to the Democrats.

Do you define economic liberty as marginal tax rates? Is an attempt to balance an unlevel economic playing field taking away wealthy peoples liberty or increasing the opportunities of those at the bottom? Is a college giving spots to children of alumni more or less pro-liberty than one than supports affirmative action?

What about issues like relaxation of Marijuana Laws? Do abortion rights mean more liberty for women or less 'liberty' for fetuses?
On issues that the ACLU (the L stands for Liberty) cares about, the usually agree with Democratic politicians more than Republicans. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, it seems to me Republicans are more likely to sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security.

But anyway, on this issue I don't care about McCaskill's stance on this issue. Or if a Democratic Senate would have done the same thing to us. (IMO, they wouldn't have. It wouldn't have even been brought up.) This is about making a statement. So, that next time around some politician thinks to himself, "do i really want to piss off 23 million poker players?". The same way they think to themselves the same thing about gun owners. or the pro-israeli lobby.

Let's make it happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm, pro Israel lobby? well sir, you have made my case right there about political Democrats trying to use poker players to their own ends. This argument is about poker, not Anti-Semitism.

Huh??? Trying taking a course in reading comprehension.

The facts are Democrats are not making as issue about repealing this ban, period. Secondly, the Democrats are traditionally pro big government and traditionally think ivy leage millionaires (more Demo millionaires in Congress than Republican) know better than the average person how to spend money. The Democrats want to increase taxes and spend your money because they think they know better than you do. They think if you had more money you would waste it on booze and smokes, or gambling.

Yes. I know. Tax and Spend Liberals. Do you not see that there are other liberties other than economic liberties? I am not here to support Republicans, those who sold themselves out to the religious right are spitting on the heritage of Reagan et al. But the facts are no one has made a convincing argument whatsoever as to how the Democrats woud be better to online poker.

I will say this one more time. The point of this effort is to show that poker players can be a political force. This is our best chance to do this in this election cycle. The Republican Senate did this to us and we need to try to do something to the Republican Senate. I would be saying the same thing if the parties were reversed.





[/ QUOTE ]

[cowboyzfan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But the Republican party has been the traditional place for liberty minded people.


[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, that's a bold statement. I guess it depends on how you define liberty. Do you define it by a broad interpretation of The Bill of Rights? With the exception of the 2nd Ammendment, my vote goes to the Democrats.

Do you define economic liberty as marginal tax rates? Is an attempt to balance an unlevel economic playing field taking away wealthy peoples liberty or increasing the opportunities of those at the bottom? Is a college giving spots to children of alumni more or less pro-liberty than one than supports affirmative action?

What about issues like relaxation of Marijuana Laws? Do abortion rights mean more liberty for women or less 'liberty' for fetuses?
On issues that the ACLU (the L stands for Liberty) cares about, the usually agree with Democratic politicians more than Republicans. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, it seems to me Republicans are more likely to sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security.

But anyway, on this issue I don't care about McCaskill's stance on this issue. Or if a Democratic Senate would have done the same thing to us. (IMO, they wouldn't have. It wouldn't have even been brought up.) This is about making a statement. So, that next time around some politician thinks to himself, "do i really want to piss off 23 million poker players?". The same way they think to themselves the same thing about gun owners. or the pro-israeli lobby.

Let's make it happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm, pro Israel lobby? well sir, you have made my case right there about political Democrats trying to use poker players to their own ends. This argument is about poker, not Anti-Semitism.

Huh??? Trying taking a course in reading comprehension.

The facts are Democrats are not making as issue about repealing this ban, period. Secondly, the Democrats are traditionally pro big government and traditionally think ivy leage millionaires (more Demo millionaires in Congress than Republican) know better than the average person how to spend money. The Democrats want to increase taxes and spend your money because they think they know better than you do. They think if you had more money you would waste it on booze and smokes, or gambling.

Yes. I know. Tax and Spend Liberals. Do you not see that there are other liberties other than economic liberties? I am not here to support Republicans, those who sold themselves out to the religious right are spitting on the heritage of Reagan et al. But the facts are no one has made a convincing argument whatsoever as to how the Democrats woud be better to online poker.

I will say this one more time. The point of this effort is to show that poker players can be a political force. This is our best chance to do this in this election cycle. The Republican Senate did this to us and we need to try to do something to the Republican Senate. I would be saying the same thing if the parties were reversed.





[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

fine then count me out

[satelliter]

I was ready to support him until he came out with that obnoxious pretentious book title: "The Audacity of Hope". Come down to earth pal. Can't support carpetbagger Clinton because of her retarded flag burning stance. Another pathetic pandering "moderate". I guess it's Nader again. No idea how he feels about poker.

[cowboyzfan]

candyman you have been here a few months, i have been here years. maybe you should stop trying to take over the place, just a suggestion.

[candyman718]

[ QUOTE ]
candyman you have been here a few months, i have been here years. maybe you should stop trying to take over the place, just a suggestion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry if I got excited about this idea. It wasn't even my idea. Nor do I have any truly vested interest in the Missouri Senate race.

But, I have been very angry since this bill passed and this is the first idea that had any resonance for me. Trying my best to support it. I didn't realize that there was some type of tenure system here.

[cowboyzfan]

hey, don't get me wrong, i am not for tenure. But I am saying this is not a good idea. Your opnion is equal to mine. But i think voting for a particular party, one that has said zippo about online gambling would be a waste of time and money. look, if we all chose to pay for an add to support poker, i would be in.

[DeliciousBass]

[ QUOTE ]
Well sir, you have made my case right there about political Democrats trying to use poker players to their own ends.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I missed some hot CSPAN action. What Dems are using poker players to their own ends? I mean seriously, poker players? That's what my party is focusing on? We should be using scare tactics and Osama's face and the memories of 9/11...unless of course you guys have some sort of copyright on that...do you? Being that your party rolls that combo out every friggin' election year. Probably best not to get into a "which party is the most disgusting when it comes to politicizing things to get the vote" battle.

[ QUOTE ]
The facts are Democrats are not making as issue about repealing this ban, period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bigger fish to fry perhaps?

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, the Democrats are traditionally pro big government and traditionally think ivy leage millionaires (more Demo millionaires in Congress than Republican) know better than the average person how to spend money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether Dems believe this or not would be impossible to say. But logically it makes sense. Millionaire guy thinks he knows how to spend money better than "in debt up to his eyeballs" guy...I can buy that.

[ QUOTE ]
The Democrats want to increase taxes and spend your money because they think they know better than you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check that...I think they actually want to repeal the tax cuts. Might use the extra money to, oh, I don't know...pay for some of the insane spending your boys have been busy doing.

[ QUOTE ]
They think if you had more money you would waste it on booze and smokes, or gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well they won't have to worry about gambling as much will they?

[ QUOTE ]
I am not here to support Republicans, those who sold themselves out to the religious right are spitting on the heritage of Reagan et al. But the facts are no one has made a convincing argument whatsoever as to how the Democrats woud be better to online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

And no one else has made a convincing argument as to how the Republicans would be better at anything. Obviously the Dems were already getting my vote come November, but it seems to me that "Republican" voters are jumping ship for any number of reasons. For some on this board, poker may have been the proverbial straw but if you asked, I'll bet that there is another reason or two behind the change in their vote.

If you're looking for a candidate from either of the two parties that has poker anywhere on the list, best of luck to ya.

[cowboyzfan]

[ QUOTE ]
The same way they think to themselves the same thing about gun owners. or the pro-israeli lobby.


[/ QUOTE ]

let me be clear, i understand your desire but it is obvious you are a Democrat. That is fine, I am a Republican. But Demos on this site, have been trying to take this issue as their own and have shown not one iota of proof as to why they are better on the subject. In contrast, i have shown that the vast majority of libertarians vote Republican. It is a fact but i would gladly back it up with sources if that is wished.

Furthermore, for you to question my reading comprehension is a joke and an insult. I never insulted you though I could. To bring up the "pro-Israeli" lobby is inflammatory and does nothing for online gambling. I am offering a truce, but I do not think our comments are equal.

[candyman718]

I was simply bringing up 2 powerful lobbies that politicians are afraid to [censored] with. I did so without any indications of whether I agreed with their issues or not. That was not my point. Just that, in or own small way we should adopt as many of their tactics as we can.

I agree to the truce because I don't want the readers of these posts to get bogged down in any more debating between the 2 of us. Hopefully there are many conservatives and republicans that will read the thread about supporting McCaskill and realize it is not some hidden Democratic plan.

[cowboyzfan]

how to reply to a lefty? seriously, there is no way. I guess the best i can do is show that political Democrats ON THIS SITE are using poker players to further their agenda, to elect Democrats, poker be damned.

I am for a smaller government, no intrusion on personal rights and for a strong USA. Since the Demos want to bring up so many issues, such as the "Israeli Lobby" AKA JEWs, i will say that the War against Islamofacism is more important than even online gambling. And i am all for online gambling and freedom. In fact, I will never vote for the likes of Frist for anything, period.

But i will say this, there is NOTHING in poker that even resembles modern liberalism even in the most modest of ways. I am an old timer here, even without the absurd post count. I knew of Sklansky's Hold'em long before most in here that post 100 messages and day. I am telling you that poker, the life, the game have nothing to do with liberalism. They would call it evil. Educated poker is about those with knowledge taking the money of those who are weaker. The Democrats are about stealing the money made by the well off and giving it to the poor and weak. This has nothing to do with poker. But even more than that, the Democrats (who are universally richer than republicans) are all about taking your money and spending it on what causes they think are important, your will and sweat we damned.

[candyman718]

You have completely misinterpreted my reference to the pro-Israel lobby. Please read (re-read?) the post above yours.

BTW, when does the truce begin?

[cowboyzfan]

reply, lol, it begins now /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[WaimanaloSlim]

On a related sidenote:

While I was googling about tho Anti-Internet Gambling legislation, I learned that conservatives like former Chief Justice (now deceased) Rehnquist, Justice Scalia, William Bennett, and Robert Bork used to play in a monthly penny-ante poker game.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
But even more than that, the Democrats (who are universally richer than republicans) are all about taking your money and spending it on what causes they think are important, your will and sweat we damned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how your comments and these facts line up.

1) Federal budget spending during Clinton's first six years increased from 1.41 to 1.65 trillion pear year.
2) Federal budget spending during Bush's first six years increased from 1.86 to 2.57 trillion per year.

The Clinton increase is 1/3 that of the Bush increase. The President submits the budget, and Bush has had no qualms spending the hard earned money of Americans, even more so than Clinton. Republicans long ago used to practice smaller government and less spending, now it is election rhetoric. Republicans do advocate less social spending (welfare/health/etc) than Democrats, but that money is merely redirected to Republican priorities, not your wallet.

[DeliciousBass]

[ QUOTE ]
how to reply to a lefty? seriously, there is no way. I guess the best i can do is show that political Democrats ON THIS SITE are using poker players to further their agenda, to elect Democrats, poker be damned.

I am for a smaller government, no intrusion on personal rights and for a strong USA. Since the Demos want to bring up so many issues, such as the "Israeli Lobby" AKA JEWs, i will say that the War against Islamofacism is more important than even online gambling. And i am all for online gambling and freedom. In fact, I will never vote for the likes of Frist for anything, period.

But i will say this, there is NOTHING in poker that even resembles modern liberalism even in the most modest of ways. I am an old timer here, even without the absurd post count. I knew of Sklansky's Hold'em long before most in here that post 100 messages and day. I am telling you that poker, the life, the game have nothing to do with liberalism. They would call it evil. Educated poker is about those with knowledge taking the money of those who are weaker. The Democrats are about stealing the money made by the well off and giving it to the poor and weak. This has nothing to do with poker. But even more than that, the Democrats (who are universally richer than republicans) are all about taking your money and spending it on what causes they think are important, your will and sweat we damned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, "there is no way"...well not if you fail to respond to anything I said there isn't.

You continue to bring up the Pro-Israeli faction so let's replace it with something else; AARP, Corn-farmers, National Thoroughbred Association, Unions, Teachers, Lawyers, take your friggin' pick. His point was (and he clarified twice) that these groups have political influence and so should we. It never was about some hidden anti-semetism he holds.

Secondly, as a liberal and a poker-player I obviously feel that I should have the right to play. Being that my world exists in many shades of grey, I don't categorize things in terms of "good" and "evil". Those are symbolic words and I tend to leave symbols for the symbol-minded*. As far as taking folks hard-earned money and spending it on things like schools and health-care and helping those who have fallen get back on their feet well, I guess I'm a bleeding-heart liberal then. These, naturally, are things that an individual sometimes has no control over as opposed to, umm, I don't know...sitting down at a poker table perhaps? And, of course as an American who is so anguished by having to pay taxes you certainly have the option of not working so hard, or refusing that next pay raise. Most of us tend to take that pay raise or better job, even if it puts us in "the next tax bracket!" GASP...being that we have a basic understanding of what that means. (Hint: More money for you).

As far as your point of Dems politicizing this situation, well, we know our audience don't we? I mean here's a forum for poker players, in which they discuss things related to poker, recently a Republican president signed into law a bill banning online poker that was passed by a Republican House and Republican Senate. In our minds, the Republicans have been busy f'ing up everything they possibly can. In being that we would like to see Dems take control of the House and (maybe, just maybe) the Senate, it might not be a bad idea to come to this poker forum and set aside our enjoyment of the game for a moment (not so hard to do since it has been set aside for us), point out these simple facts, and offer the idea that maybe Dems would be a bit better for, not only this cause, but the country as a whole. After all, the Republicans have managed to politicize any number of hot issues, rallying voters to their sides, and then proceed to head to Washington on the backs of those voters and not do anything they said that they would. So if the Dems win and for the next two years I can't play poker online, I'll still sleep better.

Finally, congratulations on being a member of two-plus-two longer than I have. I bow down to your excellence in registering sooner than I did. For the record though, I'm still not clear on how that even factors into this discussion.


*I owe George Carlin props for that

[cowboyzfan]

well let me set you straight, although your k-12 teachers should have done it. The fact that you have been a member for only a short amount of time puts into question the idea that you are here only for the election.

You say a Republican House and Senate voted for this ban but you completely ignore that the majority of Democrats voted for the ban as well.

You claim that Democrats spend money on the poor and not the rich but there are more millionaire Democrats in the House and Senate than Republicans. Just because someone says they are spending money on the poor or school lunches or whatever does not mean they are doning a good job ot it. The government is usually the worst organization there is at spending money to make a difference.

I could go on and on but will not waste my time. As long as you lefty Democrats try to use poker players for your political advantage, you will lose half this community and never make a difference. Again, if you want to place non biased add to stand for poker i am in, if you want to turn us all into Nancy Pelosi Zeta males, i am out.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
You say a Republican House and Senate voted for this ban but you completely ignore that the majority of Democrats voted for the ban as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone keeps bringing this up. The act was piggy-backed onto some must-pass port security legislation. Not voting for that bill would be political suicide (weak on terror image). Many Democrats expressed their discontent at not being able to debate the gambling issue on its merits. I have not heard any comment from a Republican along those lines. Piggy-backing exists for a good reason, but the means to which it is often stretched is a black mark on our legislative process, which screwed us hard. Do you honestly believe that if any Democrat, or just a non-evangelical Republican were majority leader, that this would have been forced down Congress' throat? Republicans as a whole may not be to blame, but the evangelical side is certainly an appropriate target. You'll find many posts of Republicans here dismayed with the frequent hijacking of their party by the religious right. Just as I hate the far left of my party that borders on socialist. But a Republican majority is a direct cause of this litigation. Poker players are well within reason to want to punish Republicans as a whole for the actions of their extremists, as there is no way to just punish Frist and his close friends in the senate.

[ QUOTE ]
You claim that Democrats spend money on the poor and not the rich but there are more millionaire Democrats in the House and Senate than Republicans.

[/ QUOTE ]

The personal wealth of elected officials is irrelevant, and your facts actually contradict your conclusion. If Dem reps are richer than Repub reps, and are selfish, they should be the party trying to reduce taxes for the wealthy. Instead, it is the Republicans who do this (less capital gains/marginal tax rates).

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
well let me set you straight, although your k-12 teachers should have done it. The fact that you have been a member for only a short amount of time puts into question the idea that you are here only for the election.

You say a Republican House and Senate voted for this ban but you completely ignore that the majority of Democrats voted for the ban as well.

You claim that Democrats spend money on the poor and not the rich but there are more millionaire Democrats in the House and Senate than Republicans. Just because someone says they are spending money on the poor or school lunches or whatever does not mean they are doning a good job ot it. The government is usually the worst organization there is at spending money to make a difference.

I could go on and on but will not waste my time. As long as you lefty Democrats try to use poker players for your political advantage, you will lose half this community and never make a difference. Again, if you want to place non biased add to stand for poker i am in, if you want to turn us all into Nancy Pelosi Zeta males, i am out.

[/ QUOTE ]Holyyy Politicsssssss lol I played some ring for a few hours came back and there was like 40 new tags to this post.But since the water is warm /images/graemlins/smirk.gifJust curious dude,i understand your a republican,but exactly what more do your boys need to f*ck up before you quit following them down the road?My guess is nothing that they could ever do,no amount of carnage,totalitarian ideals,or sick combination of government with their hypocritical christian beliefs would ever get you to change your song.Im not saying run out and vote democrat if you disagree with their platform.But is their no line you will ever draw??? What is enough for you to stop following like sheep being led to a slaughter house? Just curious /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[DeliciousBass]

[ QUOTE ]
well let me set you straight, although your k-12 teachers should have done it. The fact that you have been a member for only a short amount of time puts into question the idea that you are here only for the election.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting idea. Of course, you could have taken a look at my posts to realize that wasn't the case but clearly you don't have that kind of time. I do though, so it strikes my as odd that it appears that is exactly why you are here.

[ QUOTE ]
You claim that Democrats spend money on the poor and not the rich but there are more millionaire Democrats in the House and Senate than Republicans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Forgive me again but I'm not clear as to what this has to do with the discussion at hand. For the record, I never claimed that Democrats did not spend money on the rich.

[ QUOTE ]
The government is usually the worst organization there is at spending money to make a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another interesting idea. And another that I disagree with (I think that the people of Baghdad would disagree as well).

[ QUOTE ]
I could go on and on but will not waste my time. As long as you lefty Democrats try to use poker players for your political advantage, you will lose half this community and never make a difference. Again, if you want to place non biased add to stand for poker i am in, if you want to turn us all into Nancy Pelosi Zeta males, i am out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that I'm trying to "use" anyone. I'm simply stating an opinion that happens to conflict with your desperate ramblings. There are much bigger stakes here than whether or not poker makes it out (for the record, it hasn't under the watch of wackos calling themselves "Republicans"). As a matter of fact, that might be the only thing that you and I will agree upon, your party has been hijacked and your dream of small government and fiscal responsibility right along with it...so vote your conscience brother.

[cowboyzfan]

[ QUOTE ]
If Dem reps are richer than Repub reps, and are selfish, they should be the party trying to reduce taxes for the wealthy. Instead, it is the Republicans who do this (less capital gains/marginal tax rates).

[/ QUOTE ]

it is like a 14 year old bully against 10 years olds. you think i am making this [censored] up? come one, i thought we were here about poker? You are making my point that many political Dems are trying to cheat poker players on this site by getting them to give money to people who care nothing about poker and will do NOTHING to repeal this ban. At least I am honest, you guys are freaking cheats.

[DeliciousBass]

Since this thread has clearly taken a turn into the surreal...I just want to say I would vote for Obama in a heartbeat.

I'd also like to know his thoughts on playing AKo out of position.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
it is like a 14 year old bully against 10 years olds. you think i am making this [censored] up? come one, i thought we were here about poker? You are making my point that many political Dems are trying to cheat poker players on this site by getting them to give money to people who care nothing about poker and will do NOTHING to repeal this ban. At least I am honest, you guys are freaking cheats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than refute any points made towards you, you accuse anyone who argues that Republicans are responsible for this bill is simply a Dem spy here to collect funds. I could stop responding to your arguments, and just call you a conservative spy here to deflect attention away from the orginators of the bill, but that would be stupid. I doubt you see why.

Will Dems repeal this legislation? No way. This issue is nearly politically irrelvant. Republicans created it, and non-evangelical Democratic leaders would not have. For this, many players blame Republicans, and will be casting votes the other direction this election cycle. I'm not telling people what to do with their money, or their vote, I'm just trying to get through your head why people are pissed at Republicans, but it's futile.

[DeliciousBass]

[ QUOTE ]
It's futile.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

(I should have attempted this approach much, much sooner)

[Poofler]

Nice avatar btw, used it on Stars. I think there is really something to using an avatar to your advantage. Like, when I see baby picture avatars, I think loose calling station. Maybe it looks silly, but no one would fold to my bets with Napoleon above me.

[burningyen]

[ QUOTE ]
There is simply NO proof whatsoever that Democrats are more pro poker than Republicans.

[/ QUOTE ]
O RLY? (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll363.xml)

[carlgraham]

[ QUOTE ]
I am sick and tired of political Democrats on this site trying to use the poker issue in order to elect more Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of regret posting that original message now, as it was an attempt to inject a bit of light-heartedness into the legistlation issue, rather than start a political debate.

I happen to be a lifelong fiscal conservative and social libertarian, which probably makes me more libertarian than anything else. I spent my formative years in Britain, and was a staunch Thatcherite, and obviously loved Reagan. And I was a great fan of Gingrich's Contract with America. I'm not sure if your comment was directed at me, but I'm certainly no political leftist, and don't think I've ever voted Democrat (but I have been tempted this year, out of disgust for what the GOP has done in 6 years of controlling both houses, the scandals, lack of fiscal responsibility, expansion of government programs and spending, etc).

[ QUOTE ]
There is simply NO proof whatsoever that Democrats are more pro poker than Republicans. States such as Illinois and Washington have made a concerted effort to ban online gambling, those are Democrat states.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Given a chance, both parties will trample on our rights to further their respective agendas.

Cheers, Carl.

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am sick and tired of political Democrats on this site trying to use the poker issue in order to elect more Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of regret posting that original message now, as it was an attempt to inject a bit of light-heartedness into the legistlation issue, rather than start a political debate.

I happen to be a lifelong fiscal conservative and social libertarian, which probably makes me more libertarian than anything else. I spent my formative years in Britain, and was a staunch Thatcherite, and obviously loved Reagan. And I was a great fan of Gingrich's Contract with America. I'm not sure if your comment was directed at me, but I'm certainly no political leftist, and don't think I've ever voted Democrat (but I have been tempted this year, out of disgust for what the GOP has done in 6 years of controlling both houses, the scandals, lack of fiscal responsibility, expansion of government programs and spending, etc).

[ QUOTE ]
There is simply NO proof whatsoever that Democrats are more pro poker than Republicans. States such as Illinois and Washington have made a concerted effort to ban online gambling, those are Democrat states.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Given a chance, both parties will trample on our rights to further their respective agendas.

Cheers, Carl.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just wanted to respond that I've voted Republican in every election I've ever voted on (issue votes were voted conservatively).

I will be voting all Democrat across the board. You can call it illogical or unfounded if you wish. No one EVER claimed that society votes in a logical manner. I'm mad about what's happenned with this bill, and I have mostly Republicans to blame, so they will not get my vote. And, I know many, MANY more people like me as well as people that I have influenced based on something much broader than online poker, which this bill is. It is very easy to talk with people and explain how Republicans want government to "save us from ourselves," especially when you read this bill. It's online poker now, what will be next?

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]
well let me set you straight, although your k-12 teachers should have done it. The fact that you have been a member for only a short amount of time puts into question the idea that you are here only for the election.

You say a Republican House and Senate voted for this ban but you completely ignore that the majority of Democrats voted for the ban as well.

You claim that Democrats spend money on the poor and not the rich but there are more millionaire Democrats in the House and Senate than Republicans. Just because someone says they are spending money on the poor or school lunches or whatever does not mean they are doning a good job ot it. The government is usually the worst organization there is at spending money to make a difference.

I could go on and on but will not waste my time. As long as you lefty Democrats try to use poker players for your political advantage, you will lose half this community and never make a difference. Again, if you want to place non biased add to stand for poker i am in, if you want to turn us all into Nancy Pelosi Zeta males, i am out.

[/ QUOTE ]

The above post sounds a little like I did (about 2-3 years ago) before I stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh. I voted Reps, still, for a little longer. At this point, I'm finished with them.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
The above post sounds a little like I did (about 2-3 years ago) before I stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh. I voted Reps, still, for a little longer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you feel less informed now? I try to get a perspective from both extremes (the left and the right) so I can understand the worse case scenario. I have come to the conclusion that for me it would be better to lose some online poker rather than suffer the other potential extremes from the Left.

[WhatEverItTakes]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to rain on that thought.But the truth is,this country is not going to elect a black president with a muslim sounded name to boot.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the enormous turnout of black voters that would surely result from a black candidate?

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The above post sounds a little like I did (about 2-3 years ago) before I stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh. I voted Reps, still, for a little longer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you feel less informed now? I try to get a perspective from both extremes (the left and the right) so I can understand the worse case scenario. I have come to the conclusion that for me it would be better to lose some online poker rather than suffer the other potential extremes from the Left.

[/ QUOTE ]You imply that "losing some online poker" is the worst case scenario from the right.(your side)I see that as just minor compared to the other horrors i have seen.I have come to the conclusion that for me it would be better to lose a few dollars in government spending helping poor people or for social programs.Than to live in a totalitarian christian state that has ideals of a world wide christian theocracy and has no problem enforcing this plan through the barrel of a gun.But i respect your point of view.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not to rain on that thought.But the truth is,this country is not going to elect a black president with a muslim sounded name to boot.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the enormous turnout of black voters that would surely result from a black candidate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly seems logical, but Democrats have a had a hard time getting non-voting blacks to come out of the woodwork for a black man. On state-wide levels in South, blacks are rarely elected despite being a very large percentage of the population. Maybe blacks would be more energized for a President, but in areas where Dems actually need black votes (basically, the South) the white counter-reaction tends to be stronger than the black turnout increase.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not to rain on that thought.But the truth is,this country is not going to elect a black president with a muslim sounded name to boot.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the enormous turnout of black voters that would surely result from a black candidate?

[/ QUOTE ]I hope your right,i find absolutely no reason to discount a man cause of his race.I just gave you my honest opinion.Many african americans have tried to get in the door but rarely has it happened.Governor is ofton used as a stepping stone for running for president.How many black governor`s have we had in the history of our democracy?Not sure exactly,One??? This illustrates the problem and obstacles he will face.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
How many black governor`s have we had in the history of our democracy?Not sure exactly,One??? This illustrates the problem and obstacles he will face.

[/ QUOTE ]

One black governor (VA). Three black senators (IL,IL,MA). There are 42 black representatives, and nearly all were from majority black areas. Several are running in the upcoming elections, and we appear to be getting gradually more tolerant. But, historically in Republican stronghold states, the black turnout factor has generally been both small, and dwarfed by anti-black white vote factor.

[cowboyzfan]

I kind of regret posting that original message now, as it was an attempt to inject a bit of light-heartedness into the legistlation issue, rather than start a political debate.

I happen to be a lifelong fiscal conservative and social libertarian, which probably makes me more libertarian than anything else. I spent my formative years in Britain, and was a staunch Thatcherite, and obviously loved Reagan. And I was a great fan of Gingrich's Contract with America. I'm not sure if your comment was directed at me, but I'm certainly no political leftist, and don't think I've ever voted Democrat (but I have been tempted this year, out of disgust for what the GOP has done in 6 years of controlling both houses, the scandals, lack of fiscal responsibility, expansion of government programs and spending, etc).

<font color="red"> Well then we seem to be aligned politically. I am not for all Republicans, I am against those who choose to take away our rights on moral grounds. I would never vote for the likes of Frist again.
</font>



[ QUOTE ]
There is simply NO proof whatsoever that Democrats are more pro poker than Republicans. States such as Illinois and Washington have made a concerted effort to ban online gambling, those are Democrat states.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Given a chance, both parties will trample on our rights to further their respective agendas.

Cheers, Carl.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just wanted to respond that I've voted Republican in every election I've ever voted on (issue votes were voted conservatively).

I will be voting all Democrat across the board. You can call it illogical or unfounded if you wish. No one EVER claimed that society votes in a logical manner. I'm mad about what's happenned with this bill, and I have mostly Republicans to blame, so they will not get my vote. And, I know many, MANY more people like me as well as people that I have influenced based on something much broader than online poker, which this bill is. It is very easy to talk with people and explain how Republicans want government to "save us from ourselves," especially when you read this bill. It's online poker now, what will be next?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to vote all Democrat then fine with me. Again my only point is that we should stand up for poker and not just assume the other party is better on the issue.

[satelliter]

yes.
"

[/ QUOTE ]You imply that "losing some online poker" is the worst case scenario from the right.(your side)I see that as just minor compared to the other horrors i have seen.I have come to the conclusion that for me it would be better to lose a few dollars in government spending helping poor people or for social programs.Than to live in a totalitarian christian state that has ideals of a world wide christian theocracy and has no problem enforcing this plan through the barrel of a gun.But i respect your point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]"

[Shoe]

Funny, the PPA states that GWB is our best hope right now, as he is a poker player himself.

[buglemouth]

Are you guys for real? This guy has as much chance of getting elected as Jesse Jackson.
Do you really think democrats give a sh.t about making online poker legal?
If you believe this maybe you could get Phil Ivy elected president. Why not, its just as likely. LOL naivetement.

[Bobbo539]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is simply NO proof whatsoever that Democrats are more pro poker than Republicans.

[/ QUOTE ]

No Democratic president has ever signed a bill into law banning online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. President Kennedy signed the Wire Act in 1961.

This is all above the fact that both the Wire Act and the Internet Gambling Ban (2006) were both un-vetoable, meaning the legislature passed them by such a margin that congress could overide the veto.

[DeliciousBass]

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. President Kennedy signed the Wire Act in 1961.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did that Wire Act of 1961 ban all forms of Internet poker or just Crazy Pineapple?

JFK, more insightful than the history books give him credit for.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but ratha should you fold top peah when your apponant is playing wicked tough pokah to your left? Theafore, as I sign into law this bill, I do so to protect fewcha generations of Americans from the beats they will take at the hands of citizens in farrin lands playing caads over the Internet." ~ John F. Kennedy 1961

It should be noted that this statement was followed by an audible, "Whaa?" from the press in attendance.

[burningyen]

[ QUOTE ]
Again my only point is that we should stand up for poker and not just assume the other party is better on the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, I won't assume. I'll just look at the facts (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll363.xml).

[Wake up CALL]

Dear MoveOn members,
Every day you face personal tests in your life—at work, at home and in how you relate to those around you. Today I am writing to ask you to face the test you have as a citizen—to commit yourself to a cause larger than yourself.

With just 13 days to the election, there are candidates who need your support. They are challenging the politicians in Congress who steered America in the wrong direction. Can you chip in $20 to support them? Click here:

https://pol.moveon.org/give/keyraces7.html

I have been traveling the country to support candidates in close races. I have met many of these candidates and they will be great leaders.

As a citizen, you have a choice between two different paths.

One path is easy. When you turn on the TV or open the newspaper and hear about all the trouble in the world you could walk away from the stories about Iraq or poverty or violence or joblessness or hopelessness.

Just turn it off and tune out. That would be the easiest thing in the world to do. There will be pundits and politicians who will tell you that it's someone else's fault and someone else's problem to fix.

I am not one of them.

There is a second path. This one is more difficult. It asks more of you. It asks you to not just pursue your own individual dreams, but to help perfect our collective dream as a nation. It asks you to realize there is more to life than being rich, thin, young, famous, safe, and entertained. It asks you to recognize that there are people out there who need you.

I already know you are headed towards the second path—you are part of MoveOn. One easy thing to do right now is to throw your support behind candidates running in close races. Can you do that with a $20 contribution? Click here:

https://pol.moveon.org/give/keyraces7.html

When you choose the second path—when you choose to broaden your ambit of concern and empathize with the plight of others, whether they are close friends or distant strangers—it becomes harder not to act; harder not to help.

Please contribute.


Thank you.

Barack Obama

[critikal]

Just because Obama plays poker doesn't mean that he wouldn't do the exact same thing that Bush did with the Port Security Bill. If he were elected President do you really think he would go out and repeal the legislation against online gambling? Seems to me like this post belongs in the politics forum.

Also, isn't Obama pretty religious?

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but ratha should you fold top peah when your apponant is playing wicked tough pokah to your left? Theafore, as I sign into law this bill, I do so to protect fewcha generations of Americans from the beats they will take at the hands of citizens in farrin lands playing caads over the Internet." ~ John F. Kennedy 1961

[/ QUOTE ]

I about died laughing.

[TomVeil]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because Obama plays poker doesn't mean that he wouldn't do the exact same thing that Bush did with the Port Security Bill. If he were elected President do you really think he would go out and repeal the legislation against online gambling? Seems to me like this post belongs in the politics forum.

Also, isn't Obama pretty religious?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're probably right. He probably wouldn't repeal it. Although I have to say, that although Obama is religious, he respects those of us who have differing views. He talked at the Call For Renewal confrence a few weeks ago talking about faith and why it needs to be kept out of politics. He made the point that all religions and non believers still have the same basic principles and it's not fair to those people to rule like you have moral authority over them. It was a great speech, you can find it on you tube, it's about an hour long.