The good news, PPA Pres Bolcerek is friends with Pelosi....

[MagCFO]

Reports are that Michael Bolcerek is a friend of new house speaker Nancy Pelosi. They have had dinners and meetings in the past (prior to the PPA).

The PPA will now have a voice that goes straight to the leadership of the house. This is good news for poker player.

Maybe Michael can come on the board and clarify the PPA direction with the new leadership in congress.

[JPT III]

[ QUOTE ]
Reports are that Michael Bolcerek is a friend of new house speaker Nancy Pelosi. They have had dinners and meetings in the past (prior to the PPA).

The PPA will now have a voice that goes straight to the leadership of the house. This is good news for poker player.

Maybe Michael can come on the board and clarify the PPA direction with the new leadership in congress.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bad news is that Nancy Pelosi stated in an email (posted on this forum) that she is against Internet gambling because "it has negatively affected the lives of many Americans" - or something very close to that. Yes, the former public relations consultant, with her lofty bachelor's degree from Trinity college, thinks Americans are too stupid be entrusted with the right to wager online, and that the government therefore should prohibit them from doing so. Don't get too excited about Nancy helping us out.

[BS Yee]

I'm not a big Pelosi fan (I used to live in SF) but this is indeed good news. Pelosi was a partisan doppelganger who had to moderate her views when she became minority leader. The wackos in SF believe she has moved too far to the right (lol). They will continually be sniping at her to pull funding for the war in Iraq and to legalize marijuana, etc. In the meantime, with only a failed Heimlich manuver and a clogged artery between her and the Presidency, she will be pulled in many different directions so I hope the poker carveout will get her attention.

[yoursmine]

She will end up just like all other Speakers. She will be the leader of her caucus and no longer interested in helping her constituents. She will become the main voice of the Democratic party. I dont think this is a good development for us. Have to wait for '08

[JPT III]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a big Pelosi fan (I used to live in SF) but this is indeed good news. Pelosi was a partisan doppelganger who had to moderate her views when she became minority leader. The wackos in SF believe she has moved too far to the right (lol). They will continually be sniping at her to pull funding for the war in Iraq and to legalize marijuana, etc. In the meantime, with only a failed Heimlich manuver and a clogged artery between her and the Presidency, she will be pulled in many different directions so I hope the poker carveout will get her attention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, first off -- I hope you're right and I'm wrong. I'm not getting my hopes up too much though, as I don't think Communism is a very moderate approach.

The more I think about your post (and I do believe you) -- wow!! I mean, she used to be more left than she is now?!? Thank goodness for the Heimlich and cholesterol inhibiting drugs!

In all seriousness though, it's just hard for me to get excited over her possibly helping us out. At least Hastert publicly told Frist to go f*ck himself when Frist tried to sneak the gambling bill into a defense bill. Nancy is on record, in writing, stating that she voted for criminalizing Internet gambling because Americans are too stupid and reckless to control themselves, and that the government therefore should protect us from ourselves. That is the impart of her email. Period. I don't see her having an epiphany -- suddenly distinguishing poker from all the other gambling that us helpless sheep are so easily lured into.

But like I said, I hope I'm wrong.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
At least Hastert publicly told Frist to go f*ck himself when Frist tried to sneak the gambling bill into a defense bill

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that it was John Warner, not Hastert.

[JPT III]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At least Hastert publicly told Frist to go f*ck himself when Frist tried to sneak the gambling bill into a defense bill

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that it was John Warner, not Hastert.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just thinking that, and I think you're right.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
The bad news is that Nancy Pelosi stated in an email (posted on this forum) that she is against Internet gambling because "it has negatively affected the lives of many Americans"

[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully Michael can convince her that poker is different than your run of the mill gambling.

[Quanah Parker]

[ QUOTE ]
In the meantime, with only a failed Heimlich manuver and a clogged artery between her and the Presidency, she will be pulled in many different directions so I hope the poker carveout will get her attention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pocket aces would also do the trick.

[MagCFO]

having a direct phone line to her certainly helps, and over 70 of her fellow dems in the house voted no on the gambling bill.

[SlapPappy]

Why was she chosen? I can't imagine why every poker player is not a Libertarian. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif <font color="green"> OOPS </font>

[Soulman]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, first off -- I hope you're right and I'm wrong. I'm not getting my hopes up too much though, as I don't think Communism is a very moderate approach.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you considered a career as a stand-up comedian? You wouldn't know it, but you'd be hilarious.

[Jerry D]

[ QUOTE ]
Why was she chosen? I can't imagine why every poker player is not a Libertarian. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif <font color="green"> OOPS </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Because voting Libertarian is wasting your vote. The Libertarians are too lunatic fringe radical to ever win anything.

[mbburch]

Pelosi voted in favor of HR4411 I can't imagine she is that friendly toward on-line gaming.

Democrats for the most part consider this a non-issue and will probably not make it a priority in either direction.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]

She will end up just like all other Speakers. She will be the leader of her caucus and no longer interested in helping her constituents. She will become the main voice of the Democratic party. I dont think this is a good development for us. Have to wait for '08

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I think an administration that doesn't care to crack down on internet gambling is the best thing for online gaming. If the AG doesn't have it as a priority, then benign neglect will keep the games going IMO. Given the results of the election I'm fairly certain that we're likely to see a more friendly administration in 2008 that devotes few resources to cracking down on internet gambling. IMO nothing will be done past the current law. It's not a political issue that matters to politicians.

[JuntMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why was she chosen? I can't imagine why every poker player is not a Libertarian. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif <font color="green"> OOPS </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Because voting Libertarian is wasting your vote. The Libertarians are too lunatic fringe radical to ever win anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're also wasting your vote if you vote for the Republican Presidential candidate if you live in New York, but I suppose that's okay because Republicans are one of the two "real" parties right?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0#Post7548790 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=7548790&amp;an=0&amp;page=0#Post 7548790)

[whitepotatoe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why was she chosen? I can't imagine why every poker player is not a Libertarian. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif <font color="green"> OOPS </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Because voting Libertarian is wasting your vote. The Libertarians are too lunatic fringe radical to ever win anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're also wasting your vote if you vote for the Republican Presidential candidate if you live in New York, but I suppose that's okay because Republicans are one of the two "real" parties right?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0#Post7548790 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=7548790&amp;an=0&amp;page=0#Post 7548790)

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't stand when people talk about wasted votes. Your candidate may have a 0% chance of winning, but the effect of casting a libertarian vote may still be better than voting for a republican, democrat, green, or not voting at all. It's like donating money to a losing candidate, just because Pederson lost does not mean that we all got nothing out of donating to him.

BTW, not all libertarians are hardcore extremists. It's just like the other parties, you have moderates to extremists, party line voter to why is he in that party?, etc. I don't agree on every single issue with any party, but agree on at some issue with rep, dem, and lib.

[flytrap]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why was she chosen? I can't imagine why every poker player is not a Libertarian. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif <font color="green"> OOPS </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Because voting Libertarian is wasting your vote. The Libertarians are too lunatic fringe radical to ever win anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're also wasting your vote if you vote for the Republican Presidential candidate if you live in New York, but I suppose that's okay because Republicans are one of the two "real" parties right?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0#Post7548790 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=7548790&amp;an=0&amp;page=0#Post 7548790)

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't stand when people talk about wasted votes. Your candidate may have a 0% chance of winning, but the effect of casting a libertarian vote may still be better than voting for a republican, democrat, green, or not voting at all. It's like donating money to a losing candidate, just because Pederson lost does not mean that we all got nothing out of donating to him.

BTW, not all libertarians are hardcore extremists. It's just like the other parties, you have moderates to extremists, party line voter to why is he in that party?, etc. I don't agree on every single issue with any party, but agree on at some issue with rep, dem, and lib.

[/ QUOTE ]

In some cases, voting for a third party is worse than wasting your vote. It's one thing to take a voter that had no intention of voting if not for their third party canidate, but if there is lesser of two evils, and one of them in a major party, it's better to use your vote there. I love Ralph Nader's politics, but I DESPISE him for what he did to the country. If not for him, we would have Al Gore as president, and but much the better for it. All the people that voted for Nader, especially in Florida, need to look in the mirror if they want to see who should be blamed for Iraq, losing their civil rights, etc.

[JuntMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why was she chosen? I can't imagine why every poker player is not a Libertarian. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif <font color="green"> OOPS </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Because voting Libertarian is wasting your vote. The Libertarians are too lunatic fringe radical to ever win anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're also wasting your vote if you vote for the Republican Presidential candidate if you live in New York, but I suppose that's okay because Republicans are one of the two "real" parties right?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0#Post7548790 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=7548790&amp;an=0&amp;page=0#Post 7548790)

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't stand when people talk about wasted votes. Your candidate may have a 0% chance of winning, but the effect of casting a libertarian vote may still be better than voting for a republican, democrat, green, or not voting at all. It's like donating money to a losing candidate, just because Pederson lost does not mean that we all got nothing out of donating to him.

BTW, not all libertarians are hardcore extremists. It's just like the other parties, you have moderates to extremists, party line voter to why is he in that party?, etc. I don't agree on every single issue with any party, but agree on at some issue with rep, dem, and lib.

[/ QUOTE ]

In some cases, voting for a third party is worse than wasting your vote. It's one thing to take a voter that had no intention of voting if not for their third party canidate, but if there is lesser of two evils, and one of them in a major party, it's better to use your vote there. I love Ralph Nader's politics, but I DESPISE him for what he did to the country. If not for him, we would have Al Gore as president, and but much the better for it. All the people that voted for Nader, especially in Florida, need to look in the mirror if they want to see who should be blamed for Iraq, losing their civil rights, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea okay...from now on Greens should not run in any close race so that we can ensure wins for the Democrats above the slightly worse Republicans. You're a scumbag for trying to give a guilt trip to people who voted for a candidate YOU YOURSELF love. What good is a democracy if we have to pick between A or B?

Spoilers have an important place in politics. Democrats should look at what happened and say "alright, we've got to get some of these Green voters to vote Democrat - let's adopt some of their platform". So now, even though a Green doesn't have a realistic chance of winning, voting for him has caused the Democratic party to adopt some of the Green party's principles. This has happened in the past - read the link above. You have to think long-term. Take the extra time to build a sturdy raft rather than jumping into the ocean immediately with a tiny life preserver.

Say there was a close Presidential race between Bill Frist (who in this example formed his own party) and George Pataki, with Ralph Nader as a distant third. Would you vote for the Republican Pataki as insurance against Frist? That's a logical extension of the crap you're talking about.

[jlkrusty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why was she chosen? I can't imagine why every poker player is not a Libertarian. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif <font color="green"> OOPS </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Because voting Libertarian is wasting your vote. The Libertarians are too lunatic fringe radical to ever win anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're also wasting your vote if you vote for the Republican Presidential candidate if you live in New York, but I suppose that's okay because Republicans are one of the two "real" parties right?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0#Post7548790 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=7548790&amp;an=0&amp;page=0#Post 7548790)

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't stand when people talk about wasted votes. Your candidate may have a 0% chance of winning, but the effect of casting a libertarian vote may still be better than voting for a republican, democrat, green, or not voting at all. It's like donating money to a losing candidate, just because Pederson lost does not mean that we all got nothing out of donating to him.

BTW, not all libertarians are hardcore extremists. It's just like the other parties, you have moderates to extremists, party line voter to why is he in that party?, etc. I don't agree on every single issue with any party, but agree on at some issue with rep, dem, and lib.

[/ QUOTE ]

In some cases, voting for a third party is worse than wasting your vote. It's one thing to take a voter that had no intention of voting if not for their third party canidate, but if there is lesser of two evils, and one of them in a major party, it's better to use your vote there. I love Ralph Nader's politics, but I DESPISE him for what he did to the country. If not for him, we would have Al Gore as president, and but much the better for it. All the people that voted for Nader, especially in Florida, need to look in the mirror if they want to see who should be blamed for Iraq, losing their civil rights, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea okay...from now on Greens should not run in any close race so that we can ensure wins for the Democrats above the slightly worse Republicans. You're a scumbag for trying to give a guilt trip to people who voted for a candidate YOU YOURSELF love. What good is a democracy if we have to pick between A or B?

Spoilers have an important place in politics. Democrats should look at what happened and say "alright, we've got to get some of these Green voters to vote Democrat - let's adopt some of their platform". So now, even though a Green doesn't have a realistic chance of winning, voting for him has caused the Democratic party to adopt some of the Green party's principles. This has happened in the past - read the link above. You have to think long-term. Take the extra time to build a sturdy raft rather than jumping into the ocean immediately with a tiny life preserver.

Say there was a close Presidential race between Bill Frist (who in this example formed his own party) and George Pataki, with Ralph Nader as a distant third. Would you vote for the Republican Pataki as insurance against Frist? That's a logical extension of the crap you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree completely. In fact, the guy makes his own point against him--namely, that independent voters do make differences in elections. He admits that independent voters may have taken away the election from Al Gore. Boo Hoo! Maybe the democrats should have paid more attention to the independents.

And now, the same thing has happened to the republicans. The independent voters in Virginia could have swung the race to the republicans. Boo Hoo again! Maybe the republicans should have paid more attention to the independents.

Your vote for an independent may actually be your most powerful vote. For every time you vote independent, it forces both of the major parties to look at what the independents want. That is a good thing!

[whitepotatoe]

Last two posts are dead on. With the voting system that we have, voting for a third party probably not get you anything immediately. But the long term effects are your payoff. I would have voted straight libertarian, but unfortunately there was not even one on the ballot. I voted for the write in candidate "Other" in every office except one, just to let the major parties know that they both suck. The candidate that I did vote for was Green and he got 10% of the vote.

Dem - 1,677,497
Rep - 1,332,755
Grn - 349,128

If the republicans picked up the green votes, they win the election by 4,386 votes out of 3,359,380 not counting other candidates - that is .1%, so the green party cost the republicans the race right? /images/graemlins/wink.gif It's just too bad the republican party has been on a bible beating liberty grab lately. They really could have used those independant votes.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
Last two posts are dead on. With the voting system that we have, voting for a third party probably not get you anything immediately. But the long term effects are your payoff. I would have voted straight libertarian, but unfortunately there was not even one on the ballot. I voted for the write in candidate "Other" in every office except one, just to let the major parties know that they both suck. The candidate that I did vote for was Green and he got 10% of the vote.

Dem - 1,677,497
Rep - 1,332,755
Grn - 349,128

If the republicans picked up the green votes, they win the election by 4,386 votes out of 3,359,380 not counting other candidates - that is .1%, so the green party cost the republicans the race right? /images/graemlins/wink.gif It's just too bad the republican party has been on a bible beating liberty grab lately. They really could have used those independant votes.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree that voting your heart(3rd party) is not a wasted vote.But not sure if your example is valid lol Only if you assume that every 3rd party vote would have gone to Rep`s.In many cases they have been taken away from Dem`s.Although this election was no doubt different than previous years,as conservatives seemed to be equally fed up with their party.So your right,just the fuzzy math,i had to chuckle at some. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[scraggs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, first off -- I hope you're right and I'm wrong. I'm not getting my hopes up too much though, as I don't think Communism is a very moderate approach.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you considered a career as a stand-up comedian? You wouldn't know it, but you'd be hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, first off -- I hope you're right and I'm wrong. I'm not getting my hopes up too much though, as I don't think Communism is a very moderate approach.


[/ QUOTE ]

As a communist, I'd just like to say that Pelosi is a filthy liberal hypocrite. She's definitely not one of us.