Fred Thompson for Poker? [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

Skallagrim

08-14-2007, 11:33 AM

This post may mean this thread should go to the politics forum, but I couldnt help but mention how Karl Rove fits into all of this. The "permanent republican majority" he envisioned was primarily based on "motivating the base" and thus winning close elections but governing as if the elections were landslides for his side. The base he used was the FOF types, and it is now clear that they have so much clout within the republican party that getting the nomination without their support is nigh impossible. Unfortunately for us all, the FOF agenda is basically an anti-american agenda and alienates the majority, turning centrists to the democrats. For the next few election cycles it is pretty clear that the republican party may as well change its name to the "American Christian Taliban" party, a more honest name and one that really wont cost them any more votes than they have already lost.

For online poker players this means our choices will be limited to being criminals and outlaws (the republican way), or playing legally, but under heavy regulation and taxation (the democratic way).

Makes me really sad that an American "personal freedom and personal responsibility" way is nowhere near the mainstream.

Skallagrim

Kurn, son of Mogh

08-14-2007, 11:39 AM

For online poker players this means our choices will be limited to being criminals and outlaws (the republican way), or playing legally, but under heavy regulation and taxation (the democratic way).

IMO, this entire movement goes deeper than gambling. More and more it is looking like a back-door way for the government to regulate internet commerce.

Grasshopp3r

08-14-2007, 12:32 PM

I agree completely that regulating internet commerce is at the heart of the government's efforts. However, no government can regulate the internet due to its changing and anonymous nature. Soon, there will be other currencies which will erode more government power.

JPFisher55

08-14-2007, 12:35 PM

LuckyTxGuy

08-15-2007, 12:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This post may mean this thread should go to the politics forum, but I couldnt help but mention how Karl Rove fits into all of this. The "permanent republican majority" he envisioned was primarily based on "motivating the base" and thus winning close elections but governing as if the elections were landslides for his side. The base he used was the FOF types, and it is now clear that they have so much clout within the republican party that getting the nomination without their support is nigh impossible. Unfortunately for us all, the FOF agenda is basically an anti-american agenda and alienates the majority, turning centrists to the democrats. For the next few election cycles it is pretty clear that the republican party may as well change its name to the "American Christian Taliban" party, a more honest name and one that really wont cost them any more votes than they have already lost.

For online poker players this means our choices will be limited to being criminals and outlaws (the republican way), or playing legally, but under heavy regulation and taxation (the democratic way).

Makes me really sad that an American "personal freedom and personal responsibility" way is nowhere near the mainstream.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

This type of thinking is very near sighted and shows a lack of understanding on what principles/morals this country was founded upon by our founding fathers. If you believe that strong conservative morals and policies haven't ruled this country from day 1, then a history lesson is needed. The morals, laws and attitudes of this country become more liberal and less conservative every year and it started 200 years ago. Most, if not all of our founding fathers held most of the same beliefs as FOF. To call FOF anti-American is comical, since their beliefs are exactly what this (Christian) country was founded upon.

I'm sorry but I just think it's ridiculous to act like strong conservative morals and Christian influence in government just came about with George W.

oldbookguy

08-15-2007, 01:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Most, if not all of our founding fathers held most of the same beliefs as FOF. To call FOF anti-American is comical, since their beliefs are exactly what this (Christian) country was founded upon.

I'm sorry but I just think it's ridiculous to act like strong conservative morals and Christian influence in government just came about with George W.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am only going to paraphrase for now, I am on the wrong computer and no files.

As to the 'founding' fathers, I generally look to Jefferson on most matters.

On religion, it was he who coined the phrase, WALL of Separation.

It was Jefferson, after being elected, wrote to the Methodist Church and informed them that he
appreciated the support, BUT, they were expect no and would receive no special favors or
treatment from him or his administration.

It was Jefferson, upon becoming I believe when VP? he RESIGNED from his church and
afterwards went to a non-denominational church.

THIS my friend was the mood then, remember, the U.S. had just left England AND a country
WITH an official religion and they were in NO mood to risk the same again.

Notice the Declaration and Constitution, the word God is never used, preferring creator in a generic form, showing no preference to anyone or any group.

Heck, creator could mean anything.

Religion was a matter for EACH state to deal with as it saw fit, individually, not collectively.

obg

TheEngineer

08-15-2007, 01:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This type of thinking is very near sighted and shows a lack of understanding on what principles/morals this country was founded upon by our founding fathers. If you believe that strong conservative morals and policies haven't ruled this country from day 1, then a history lesson is needed. The morals, laws and attitudes of this country become more liberal and less conservative every year and it started 200 years ago. Most, if not all of our founding fathers held most of the same beliefs as FOF. To call FOF anti-American is comical, since their beliefs are exactly what this (Christian) country was founded upon.

I'm sorry but I just think it's ridiculous to act like strong conservative morals and Christian influence in government just came about with George W.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Skallagrim was talking about the America of today, not the one of 200 years ago, complete with slavery, insane per capta liquor consumption, and scarlet letters for adulteresses. Today, the idea of the federal government forcing morality on people by banning Internet poker through banks spying on financial transactions and ISPs spying on citizens' web browsing habits is anti-American, at leat IMHO.

Cactus Jack

08-15-2007, 10:46 AM

"Things ain't like they were in the old days. They never were." Will Rogers

People in this country have always had a fond, but irrational view of the past. They also have a strong desire to return to a past that never was what they remembered it being. Things were the same then as they are today, and always will be. The hope is by returning to the past, we can control the chaos of today, as if it were controlled back then.

I grew up in the Sixties. Some remember it fondly. Not I. It was pretty horrible. Much of the worst parts of the present started back then.

We are always looking for simple solutions where none exists. We want leaders who lead, yet are afraid of anyone with new ideas, as if the old ones have been tested and we're going in the right direction. It's a weird psychosis.

The biggest problem in this country is fear, and it dominates everything. Fear of foreigners, of losing what little you have, fear of government, fear of people who don't believe as the person holding that fear believes. Fear has been the foundation of those who've been holding the Republican Party hostage for the past 30 years, and as such, the whole country hostage. Until a leader comes along who can break that hold of fear and pushes the people to rise above it and have hope, we're going to continue along the path we've been on, and go nowhere.

As to the original question, it doesn't matter what Fred Thompson believes or doesn't. He won't be there. He was a light-weight Senator who accomplished nothing. If he gets into the race, he'll be quickly found out and that will be that. One actor per 200 hundred years, please.

LuckyTxGuy

08-15-2007, 10:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Today, the idea of the federal government forcing morality on people by banning Internet poker through banks spying on financial transactions and ISPs spying on citizens' web browsing habits is anti-American, at leat IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree with you on that.

I just think it's easy to try and look at the current politics of the country and forget 200 years of history and what this country was founded on, which was strong Christian morals. I only have a minute, so I can't properly respond to OldBookGuy, but while he does bring up some decent points, I slightly disagree with some other points.

All I'm saying is this, our founding fathers were for the most part very devout Christians who held strong Christian beliefs and morals. Our country, our rights, and our founding papers all show this strong Christian influence. I just don't think we can ignore all of this and say that legislating morality is anything new or something that any one party just dreamed up. I also believe our founding fathers would most likely be a part of FOF before the ACLU.

Kurn, son of Mogh

08-15-2007, 11:54 AM

On religion, it was he who coined the phrase, WALL of Separation.

The phrase "wall of separation between church and state" was from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. He was assuring them that government would not interfere with their free practice of religion.

I think it is safe to say that while all of the founders came from the Christian tradition, their feelings on what "morals" should be incorporated into law varied as much then as they do now, running the gamut from basic libertarian libertines like Franklin to fundamentalist followers of Cotton Mather and Jonathan Edwards.

I do agree though that the influence of evangelical Christianity on American politics did not begin with GWB. It didn't begin with William Jennings Bryan either. It has been a constant throughout our history as has the resistance to it by more secular factions.

CountingMyOuts

08-15-2007, 11:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I do agree though that the influence of evangelical Christianity on American politics did not begin with GWB. It didn't begin with William Jennings Bryan either. It has been a constant throughout our history as has the resistance to it by more secular factions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But it became a much bigger problem in this country starting with GWB.

Emperor

08-15-2007, 01:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Everyone:

Not too long ago I heard an interview on Hannity and Colmes with Alphonse D'Amato where he stated that he had already endorsed Fred Thompson for president. Now the interview had nothing to do with poker or gambling of any sort, but I can't help but wonder what Thompson's views are in this area?

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul > Fred Thompson

Best Wishes

Emperor

Kurn, son of Mogh

08-15-2007, 01:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do agree though that the influence of evangelical Christianity on American politics did not begin with GWB. It didn't begin with William Jennings Bryan either. It has been a constant throughout our history as has the resistance to it by more secular factions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But it became a much bigger problem in this country starting with GWB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much bigger problem than when? 1918? Like FoF has anywhere near the power of, say the WCTU. Do you honestly think that the UIGEA is a bigger threat to individual freedom than amending the constitution to criminalize alcoholic beverages?

Christian evangelicals are nowhere near as powerful as they were 100 years ago.

LuckyTxGuy

08-15-2007, 02:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do agree though that the influence of evangelical Christianity on American politics did not begin with GWB. It didn't begin with William Jennings Bryan either. It has been a constant throughout our history as has the resistance to it by more secular factions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But it became a much bigger problem in this country starting with GWB.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the exact type of near-sighted thinking I'm talking about. These types of comments show how poorly our public schools are really doing in teaching the real history of US.

Oh and Kurn, I agree 100%

Legislurker

08-15-2007, 02:09 PM

The Founding Fathers weren't mostly Christian. They were male elites in a society where going to church was THE social/political center of life. You bit your tongue and used sound bytes, and spoke in code. A lot were out and out criminals. They drank, gambled, womanized, and scoffed at authority, political and religious. In private the scoffed at the religious order of the day. Hell, George Washington had no problem using lottery money to fund the Continental Army. He was one of the biggestdistillers of rum for use in triangle trade. He started a damn civil war
to go after unlicensed and unregulated distillers whom he saw
as business rivals.

CountingMyOuts

08-15-2007, 02:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do agree though that the influence of evangelical Christianity on American politics did not begin with GWB. It didn't begin with William Jennings Bryan either. It has been a constant throughout our history as has the resistance to it by more secular factions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But it became a much bigger problem in this country starting with GWB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much bigger problem than when? 1918? Like FoF has anywhere near the power of, say the WCTU. Do you honestly think that the UIGEA is a bigger threat to individual freedom than amending the constitution to criminalize alcoholic beverages?

Christian evangelicals are nowhere near as powerful as they were 100 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, Kurn. There were thousands of people working in past administrations from Pat Robertson's box top law school helping to shape policy. Now there are only a hundred or so in W's administration. Things are much better now.

Skallagrim

08-15-2007, 02:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This post may mean this thread should go to the politics forum, but I couldnt help but mention how Karl Rove fits into all of this. The "permanent republican majority" he envisioned was primarily based on "motivating the base" and thus winning close elections but governing as if the elections were landslides for his side. The base he used was the FOF types, and it is now clear that they have so much clout within the republican party that getting the nomination without their support is nigh impossible. Unfortunately for us all, the FOF agenda is basically an anti-american agenda and alienates the majority, turning centrists to the democrats. For the next few election cycles it is pretty clear that the republican party may as well change its name to the "American Christian Taliban" party, a more honest name and one that really wont cost them any more votes than they have already lost.

For online poker players this means our choices will be limited to being criminals and outlaws (the republican way), or playing legally, but under heavy regulation and taxation (the democratic way).

Makes me really sad that an American "personal freedom and personal responsibility" way is nowhere near the mainstream.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

This type of thinking is very near sighted and shows a lack of understanding on what principles/morals this country was founded upon by our founding fathers. If you believe that strong conservative morals and policies haven't ruled this country from day 1, then a history lesson is needed. The morals, laws and attitudes of this country become more liberal and less conservative every year and it started 200 years ago. Most, if not all of our founding fathers held most of the same beliefs as FOF. To call FOF anti-American is comical, since their beliefs are exactly what this (Christian) country was founded upon.

I'm sorry but I just think it's ridiculous to act like strong conservative morals and Christian influence in government just came about with George W.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG

Thomas Jefferson wrote a bible that eliminated all references to Jesus as god and expressed deep admiration for Hindu philosphy in his writings. Ben Franklin, John Adams and George Washington were well known "deists" - they accepted a god, but hardly were devout christians. These are just a few examples. The founding fathers knew full well the history of Europe and its (then) seemingly endless religious wars and set about specifically to insure the same did not happen here.

You sir, are the one with absolutely NO knowledge of American History.

Skallagrim

Kurn, son of Mogh

08-15-2007, 02:48 PM

Skallagrim

08-15-2007, 03:03 PM

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis.

And another thing, despite its apparent consensus today, yoo believers in America being founded on "Christian" values have read your bible havent you? You would then know that the "christian" part of the bible (the new testament) contains absolutely ZERO proscriptions for how to form a government, run a country, or make civil laws. This was a well known and hotly debated subject at the time of the founding fathers. Please do a small amount of research on the Founding of Rhode Island by Roger Williams if you doubt me - he struggled with the issue of how to organize a "christian state" all his life and finally gave up.

The Gospels were written by a sect that never expected to have secular power and all the affirmations in the gospels implore christians to reject secular power, give ALL their possessions to the poor and await the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. A pretty tough way to run a society dont you think? The real debate has thus always been how much Jewish law do we use? But even that has been hypocritical, as no one is pushing for a constitutional amendment requiring all males to be circumcised.

The use of religious belief to stir up political passions and repressions is indeed as old as human history. Our founders knew that quite well and decided to try something new: a society based on reason and secular law.

When FOF rejects reason and secular law, instead insisting on faith and their interpertation of god's law, they are being un-american, pure and simple.

Skallagrim

Kurn, son of Mogh

08-15-2007, 03:13 PM

you believers in America being founded on "Christian" values

This clearly can't be directed at me. If it is, please cite anywhere on this forum where I have said this in the past 6 years.

ktulu22

08-15-2007, 03:23 PM

Interesting thread fellas

Skallagrim

08-15-2007, 03:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
you believers in America being founded on "Christian" values

This clearly can't be directed at me. If it is, please cite anywhere on this forum where I have said this in the past 6 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Kurn, that was not directed at you. It was directed at LuckyTxGuy and all who buy the revisionist history currently being spouted by FOF and its minions.

The post says reply to you only because you posted last before mine.

Skallagrim

BigAlK

08-15-2007, 05:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Guiliani-too many wives, or Romney-Mormon).

[/ QUOTE ]

Too many wives or Mormon. Hmmm. Sounds like the same problem to me. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sorry, couldn't resist.

oldbookguy

08-15-2007, 05:22 PM

Thanks BigAl, I needed a laugh!

obg

Legislurker

08-15-2007, 05:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis.

And another thing, despite its apparent consensus today, yoo believers in America being founded on "Christian" values have read your bible havent you? You would then know that the "christian" part of the bible (the new testament) contains absolutely ZERO proscriptions for how to form a government, run a country, or make civil laws. This was a well known and hotly debated subject at the time of the founding fathers. Please do a small amount of research on the Founding of Rhode Island by Roger Williams if you doubt me - he struggled with the issue of how to organize a "christian state" all his life and finally gave up.

The Gospels were written by a sect that never expected to have secular power and all the affirmations in the gospels implore christians to reject secular power, give ALL their possessions to the poor and await the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. A pretty tough way to run a society dont you think? The real debate has thus always been how much Jewish law do we use? But even that has been hypocritical, as no one is pushing for a constitutional amendment requiring all males to be circumcised.

The use of religious belief to stir up political passions and repressions is indeed as old as human history. Our founders knew that quite well and decided to try something new: a society based on reason and secular law.

When FOF rejects reason and secular law, instead insisting on faith and their interpertation of god's law, they are being un-american, pure and simple.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Every Christian should think of that. When you have to go out into the world, you have to struggle with those issues on what you encounter. I was lucky in college to have a very awesome class on natural politics and The Bible as a political document was part of it. Its like trying to figure out Shakespeare's politics, its hard. It does come down to what you say, you are called as an individual to give up the world, die to self, and take the cross and follow Christ. If you are really harsh and strict, any of us who have jobs and keep money and ignore duress in the world are sinning. A good place to look as well is Dostoyevsky. Brothers Karamazov, open it, start at "The Brothers make friends" and read thru "The Grand Inquisitor".
No matter what denomination or faith you espouse, Jesus refused repeatedly secular authority, and any interpretation towards politics has to honour that. If you want to look at the Old Testament, look at Isaih. Chapter and verse are elude me at the moment, but Aquinas references the part where when an evil leader is presiding over a nation, people should look at their own sins, and that God chooses who will rule over them, and not YOU. If God wants Bill CLinton president, Bill CLinton will be Pres. Not whoever FoF endorses. If God wants a policy he will move the leader to that policy, look at Pharoah in Egypt(Pharoah only hardened his heart after the first plague, then God hardened it).
Nothing makes me angrier as a Christian than hearing these little fake ass, holier than thou, home schooled, brainwashed young fucktards say Gambling is a sin. A perfectly nice girl who works at Starbucks said that and I lit into her and I hope I made her cry for saying something that stupid. Its regrettable no one seems to want an education to look at The Bible and what God says, they rely on mass produced commercialized brainwashing. Catholics have it a bit better I think, as they have always been strict in theology with high educational standards, but Protestants have always been prey to charismatic leaders who
spout drivel for donations and now votes. I had to bite my tongue at a funeral recently when some guy was BRAGGING he had a degree from Southeastern Seminary.

CountingMyOuts

08-15-2007, 06:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do agree though that the influence of evangelical Christianity on American politics did not begin with GWB. It didn't begin with William Jennings Bryan either. It has been a constant throughout our history as has the resistance to it by more secular factions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But it became a much bigger problem in this country starting with GWB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much bigger problem than when? 1918? Like FoF has anywhere near the power of, say the WCTU. Do you honestly think that the UIGEA is a bigger threat to individual freedom than amending the constitution to criminalize alcoholic beverages?

Christian evangelicals are nowhere near as powerful as they were 100 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, Kurn. There were thousands of people working in past administrations from Pat Robertson's box top law school helping to shape policy. Now there are only a hundred or so in W's administration. Things are much better now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that religious fundamentalists are not a problem in the US. Hell, they're a PITA everywhere in the world. But let's be realistic about history. Ask yourself this: Could they get the constitution amended to criminalize internet gambling (or any other of their hot button issues)?

Careful, now, that requires a 2/3 majority of both houses *plus* ratification by 38 States. The answer is, they can't. If they could, they would've done it with abortion 20 years ago.

Yet 89 years ago they had the power to make liquor illegal. They are not even remotely close to that kind of influence today.

[/ QUOTE ]

My issue with the Religicans runs much deeper than the UIGEA. While they may not have enough power to make online gaming illegal, they are in positions where they are setting policy, including foreign policy. Not all neo-cons are secular.

XChamp

08-15-2007, 07:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis.

And another thing, despite its apparent consensus today, yoo believers in America being founded on "Christian" values have read your bible havent you? You would then know that the "christian" part of the bible (the new testament) contains absolutely ZERO proscriptions for how to form a government, run a country, or make civil laws. This was a well known and hotly debated subject at the time of the founding fathers. Please do a small amount of research on the Founding of Rhode Island by Roger Williams if you doubt me - he struggled with the issue of how to organize a "christian state" all his life and finally gave up.

The Gospels were written by a sect that never expected to have secular power and all the affirmations in the gospels implore christians to reject secular power, give ALL their possessions to the poor and await the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. A pretty tough way to run a society dont you think? The real debate has thus always been how much Jewish law do we use? But even that has been hypocritical, as no one is pushing for a constitutional amendment requiring all males to be circumcised.

The use of religious belief to stir up political passions and repressions is indeed as old as human history. Our founders knew that quite well and decided to try something new: a society based on reason and secular law.

When FOF rejects reason and secular law, instead insisting on faith and their interpertation of god's law, they are being un-american, pure and simple.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Every Christian should think of that. When you have to go out into the world, you have to struggle with those issues on what you encounter. I was lucky in college to have a very awesome class on natural politics and The Bible as a political document was part of it. Its like trying to figure out Shakespeare's politics, its hard. It does come down to what you say, you are called as an individual to give up the world, die to self, and take the cross and follow Christ. If you are really harsh and strict, any of us who have jobs and keep money and ignore duress in the world are sinning. A good place to look as well is Dostoyevsky. Brothers Karamazov, open it, start at "The Brothers make friends" and read thru "The Grand Inquisitor".
No matter what denomination or faith you espouse, Jesus refused repeatedly secular authority, and any interpretation towards politics has to honour that. If you want to look at the Old Testament, look at Isaih. Chapter and verse are elude me at the moment, but Aquinas references the part where when an evil leader is presiding over a nation, people should look at their own sins, and that God chooses who will rule over them, and not YOU. If God wants Bill CLinton president, Bill CLinton will be Pres. Not whoever FoF endorses. If God wants a policy he will move the leader to that policy, look at Pharoah in Egypt(Pharoah only hardened his heart after the first plague, then God hardened it).
Nothing makes me angrier as a Christian than hearing these little fake ass, holier than thou, home schooled, brainwashed young fucktards say Gambling is a sin. A perfectly nice girl who works at Starbucks said that and I lit into her and I hope I made her cry for saying something that stupid. Its regrettable no one seems to want an education to look at The Bible and what God says, they rely on mass produced commercialized brainwashing. Catholics have it a bit better I think, as they have always been strict in theology with high educational standards, but Protestants have always been prey to charismatic leaders who
spout drivel for donations and now votes. I had to bite my tongue at a funeral recently when some guy was BRAGGING he had a degree from Southeastern Seminary.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are some good points in here. As a Christian, I frequently struggle with what laws should and should not be enacted in this country. Over the past few years I have realized that just because I believe something is right does not mean it should be a law. I think homosexuality is wrong, but that does not mean that I am screaming for it to be outlawed. Why? Because I cannot easily demonstrate that it is directly harmful to a secular society. This same reasoning applies to great deal of other topics.

LuckyTxGuy

08-15-2007, 07:45 PM

I'm sorry for my lapse in judgment. I once again forgot that 2+2 is a breeding ground for not just atheists but anti-Christians. This starts at the top with Sklansky and works its way down. For me to ever be convinced after all I've read, all I've studied, that this nation was founded by a bunch of people who had no respect for God and no Christian morals will never happen. Just not gonna happen. I again say, you have no clue about history if you think that Christians have a greater control today in our government than they did at any other point in our nations history. And to the people who have the nerve to say that in the 1700's when these men mentioned our "Creator" that they "could have been talking about anybody" is such a freaking joke.

We can agree to disagree and quit wasting each other's time. Have a great week! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

TheEngineer

08-15-2007, 07:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry for my lapse in judgment. I once again forgot that 2+2 is a breeding ground for not just atheists but anti-Christians. This starts at the top with Sklansky and works its way down. For me to ever be convinced after all I've read, all I've studied, that this nation was founded by a bunch of people who had no respect for God and no Christian morals will never happen. Just not gonna happen. I again say, you have no clue about history if you think that Christians have a greater control today in our government than they did at any other point in our nations history. And to the people who have the nerve to say that in the 1700's when these men mentioned our "Creator" that they "could have been talking about anybody" is such a freaking joke.

We can agree to disagree and quit wasting each other's time. Have a great week! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Relax, bro. FoF came after us and our livelihood, not the reverse. We have every right to call them on it.

Cactus Jack

08-15-2007, 09:27 PM

Saw this on a bumper sticker and thought it wasn't the first time I've seen truth right in front of me:

"I'm not a Liberal. I'm well educated."

Great thread, guys, and I actually learned quite a bit from it. Good job.

Txguy, sorry you feel the way you do. Unfortunately, your reaction is pretty typical. The negativity would be appalling to your Teacher. (That's what he was called, you know? Teacher? Rabbi.) There can be no discussion because since we don't believe as you believe, we must be wrong. That's kinda sad.

Legislurker

08-15-2007, 10:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry for my lapse in judgment. I once again forgot that 2+2 is a breeding ground for not just atheists but anti-Christians. This starts at the top with Sklansky and works its way down. For me to ever be convinced after all I've read, all I've studied, that this nation was founded by a bunch of people who had no respect for God and no Christian morals will never happen. Just not gonna happen. I again say, you have no clue about history if you think that Christians have a greater control today in our government than they did at any other point in our nations history. And to the people who have the nerve to say that in the 1700's when these men mentioned our "Creator" that they "could have been talking about anybody" is such a freaking joke.

We can agree to disagree and quit wasting each other's time. Have a great week! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what bs they spoonfeed babies in school now but this country, and every ideal in its founding is pure and simple the product of The Enlightenment. Maybe some of those guys were Christians, you can argue most all of them either way, Im conflicted that its NOT a Christian founding, but after a long self education, Im happy because established Christianity has [censored] every country its come in contact with. You think maybe its God's way of telling us not to sully His Word by trying to rule with it?

Skallagrim

08-16-2007, 12:05 AM

Thank you legislurker. And to luckyTxguy, just because I can demonstrate from historical record that your version of history is incorrect, doesnt mean I think you're a bad guy. A nice weekend to you too.

The great success of the US as an "immigrant nation" is due precisely to our traditiional of religous tolerance and church/state separation. You modern "christians" ( I put that in quotations because somewhere else I would try and demonstrate that FOF's version of christianity is opposite of what the Gospels really teach), need to remember that there used to be a lot of christian on christian violence and wars. Do you really think that if you were succesfull in enshrining one version of christianity as law the religious wars would never happen again? And what if the enshrined version is not your particular version?

Individual decisions based on a morality derived from faith are a great thing.

Trying to turn that faith into a system of laws enforced by the state is the first step to fascism/despotism and has always (historically) led to a society's ultimate failure or eclipse by other more free (hence more adapatable) societies.

Decisions of state, as I read the Bible, are precisely in the domain of the "ungodly." They are thus best based on a reasoned approach as to what works for the greatest good and still protects the rights of individuals to be individuals. Only by agreeing to this can members of different faiths also manage to live peacefully and productively side by side. This, at it its best, is what America is all about and why I love this country (even though I think it has gotten pretty screwed up lately - mostly by certain persons' misguided faith - and by that I am not referring to LuckyTxGuy).

Skallagrim

PS to xchamp: Your conclusions are precisely the kind of conclusions our more religious founding fathers would make and did make (although homosexuality would have been even too hot of topic for them at that time). I like the way you think, and remember that the same constitution that protects the basic civil rights of gays also protects your church from having to accept gays or give them equal church rights. This would not be so in a "Christian Country" where the majority of "christians" accepted gays equally and so told all christians to act that same way.

Cactus Jack

08-16-2007, 12:52 AM

One of the true patriots said, "if the Constitution protects a scumbag like me, you don't have to worry."

I can watch porn, play poker, drink a beer and smoke a cigar. I choose to do only one of those four things. As long as all four remain legal, I can make a choice. Make any of them illegal, which do I choose? Who would choose for me?

Americans have a choice. That's what makes it what it is.

Kurn, son of Mogh

08-16-2007, 08:22 AM

The post says reply to you only because you posted last before mine.

Ah, the "quick reply" glitch. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Kurn, son of Mogh

08-16-2007, 08:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Guiliani-too many wives, or Romney-Mormon).

[/ QUOTE ]

Too many wives or Mormon. Hmmm. Sounds like the same problem to me. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[/ QUOTE ]

New campaign slogan: "Rudy Giuliani - One Wife at a Time."

XChamp

08-16-2007, 10:23 AM

I agree with LuckyTxGuy that 2+2 tends to be anti-Christian. There is a certain kind of hate associated with those tendencies that really upsets me.

TheEngineer

08-16-2007, 10:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with LuckyTxGuy that 2+2 tends to be anti-Christian. There is a certain kind of hate associated with those tendencies that really upsets me.

[/ QUOTE ]

We oppose those who would take our freedoms. Most Christians do not oppose allowing others to gamble, so our issue is with the small minority of Christians who would. I think we're pro-Christian and anti-statist, myself.

XChamp

08-16-2007, 10:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with LuckyTxGuy that 2+2 tends to be anti-Christian. There is a certain kind of hate associated with those tendencies that really upsets me.

[/ QUOTE ]

We oppose those who would take our freedoms. Most Christians do not oppose allowing others to gamble, so our issue is with the small minority of Christians who would. I think we're pro-Christian and anti-statist, myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those in the legislation forum are much more reasonable, in my opinion. Go wander over to OOT, politics, or science math and philosophy. Sklansky himself offered a bet of $50,000 that a Christian couldn't best him on the math GRE and pass a lie detector test discerning whether he/she is a Christian. I would have taken that bet if I had $50,000 lying around and finishing time was a tie breaker. His whole point was (obviously) to "prove" that Christians are stupid and/or liars.

Kurn, son of Mogh

08-16-2007, 10:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with LuckyTxGuy that 2+2 tends to be anti-Christian. There is a certain kind of hate associated with those tendencies that really upsets me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I for one am not anti-Christian. The constitution gives you the freedom to practice your religion and I would fight anyone who tried to take that right away from you.

Certain Christians, however, want to use the power of government to require the rest of us to live according to their interpretation of scripture. The constitution forbids that, and it is that faction that I oppose.

4_2_it

08-16-2007, 11:05 AM

Alright. Enough!

Let's get this thread back on track discussing Fred Thompson's views on poker. If guys want to argue the founding of America vis-a-vis FOF and Thomas Jefferson or anything non-Thompson related, please take it to politics........

BigAlK

08-16-2007, 11:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with LuckyTxGuy that 2+2 tends to be anti-Christian. There is a certain kind of hate associated with those tendencies that really upsets me.

[/ QUOTE ]/quote]

I think Skillgram's and the other replies to this and similiar comments speak to my issue with christians and, I suspect, a large number of people. But I'm going to expand on their thoughts a bit.

Most of my life I lived in Utah and was raised as a member of the predominant religion there. Needless to say members of that denomination had a lot of clout in state politics. This is one of the reasons I choose not to live there anymore. My comments here are based on my observations having come from that background.

Others have spoken about the tendency of certain groups to attempt to legislate their beliefs. When this is done to prevent gross infringements on the rights of others it is reasonable and good.

But in any group there are a percentage of zealots who go too far. They think (as someone else has said) that everyone should be forced to believe as they do or, since you can't be forced to believe, at least forced to live by those beliefs. This problem is exacerbated when one of the zealots has a leadership role in the group because of the tendency to blindly follow those leaders. (I can't begin to count the number of times I've heard "the thinking has already been done for us.) I believe most people in these groups are good people who wouldn't want to negatively infringe on your life anymore than they would want you to infringe on their's (they try to live by the golden rule).

But rather than speak up if they believe their leaders are overstepping in some area they remain silent. They don't actively promote what they don't believe, but they don't speak out either. We could call them the "silent majority." Thus those with a different view are left believing that all the people in the group believe the same thing on an issue. Their complicity results in getting painted with the same brush as the more vocal part of the group.

Skallagrim

08-16-2007, 11:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Alright. Enough!

Let's get this thread back on track discussing Fred Thompson's views on poker. If guys want to argue the founding of America vis-a-vis FOF and Thomas Jefferson or anything non-Thompson related, please take it to politics........

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree things have gotten a little far afield, this discussion is related to Fred Thompson: in order to win the Rep. nomination he will have to convince the FOF contingent of the party to support him. He does not get much support anywhere else, because he has never really done anything politically - but he has always talked a good "social conservative" game. Thats why he is showing up in the polls. Since he cannot afford to alienate these people, I would be shocked to see him ever say anything favorable about poker players. I hope I am wrong about that and that Al D'Amato is onto something we dont know. But I doubt that I am wrong. And the FOF vision of American History and how it should reflect "christian" values is the problem here, if Thompson rejects that and goes for the real tradition of American liberty, he will not get those votes.

Skallagrim

Emperor

08-16-2007, 01:12 PM

Fred Thompson: The reason why I and many others won't vote for him.

Tows the party line when it comes to exhorborant Republican spending.

Cosponsored McCain-Feingold

Liberals love him, even editors of the Washington Post.

Fred Thompson does talk a good talk in front of the camera, but his voting record is exactly opposite of conservative values.

Now if only there was a candidate that was pro-unlegislated internet, and pro-smaller government...

Oh yeah! RON PAUL

VOTE RON PAUL

SteelWheel

08-16-2007, 01:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Alright. Enough!

Let's get this thread back on track discussing Fred Thompson's views on poker. If guys want to argue the founding of America vis-a-vis FOF and Thomas Jefferson or anything non-Thompson related, please take it to politics........

[/ QUOTE ]

And with respect to that: I know that this is the 'net, and anybody can make any claim that they want--howver, at the risk of getting flamed, I'm gonna state this anyway: I lived in NY when Al D'Amato was a Senator, and still do to this day. My brother knew him fairly well when he was in office; more recently, I've come to know him as well, and occasionally play in a private game with him.

He's been talking up Thompson for awhile in our game--but I think that Al's endorsements or political prognostications are the "kiss of death". Perfect example of this: Back in the summer of 1992, when Bush (41) was seeking reelection and clearly in trouble from the double threat of Bill Clinton and Ross Perot, Al was running around telling everybody he knew that Dan Quayle would be dropped from the ticket as Bush's running mate, that this would shake up the campaign and get things back on track for Bush, etc.

Turned out it was just another one of these inside-the-Beltway whispering games, attempting to get so many people to believe the rumor, that it would create an air of inevitability, forcing it to become reality. Nice attempt at a bluff by Al, but no way it was going to happen.

I'd lay big odds against Thompson being the GOP's nominee for '08--I think this is another case of wishful thinking on Al's part.

Legislurker

08-16-2007, 01:57 PM

I think its Giuliani's to lose as he has the most consistent slice of the GOP primary voters. I've said before I think Huckabee and Brownback will fight till the end to keep Romney(who they view as a fake and a devil-worshipper) from winning. If they keep half the ChristaNazis on their side, and Giuliani doesn't melt down its his. Pragmatic Hillary haters know he is the only one who can beat her in the known field. Im not sure theres a sitting Gov ro Sen who could shake up the national electorate enough to matter. We've culled talent out of the political system, and this year will be the fruit of that. Thompson for or against poker won't matter UNLESS he somehow breaks with the field and has an original thought and appealing platform. Oh, and his wife lets him choose his own side dish at dinner.

oldbookguy

08-16-2007, 02:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Liberals love him, even editors of the Washington Post.
Fred Thompson does talk a good talk in front of the camera, but his voting record is exactly opposite of conservative values.[ QUOTE ]

These are the things that would let him win a general election but in all likely hood will prevent him winning the GOP nomination.

One thing though, all the GOP best choices exhibt many of the same problems for the 'base' of the GOP and i think they (the base) do not have the votes to nominate Brownback / Huckabee though enough pull to perhaps get one of the two a VP slot.

Rudy, I don't know.....Yes, his to lose but I have faith in him.

obg

UATrewqaz

08-16-2007, 03:26 PM

political rant deleted by 4_2_it
Anyone tried emailing someone at the Thompson campaign and asking what his views on online poker/gambling/UGIA are?

Darn, guess he doesn't even have an official campaign yet.

Emperor

08-16-2007, 04:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Anyone but Hillary.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the latest polls.. 52% of the nation feels the same way.

Kurn, son of Mogh

08-16-2007, 04:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Anyone but Hillary.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the latest polls.. 52% of the nation feels the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to rain on anybody's parade, but in '92 and '96 more than 55% of the electorate voted against Bill Clinton, and he still won. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

4_2_it

08-16-2007, 04:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Anyone but Hillary.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the latest polls.. 52% of the nation feels the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to rain on anybody's parade, but in '92 and '96 more than 55% of the electorate voted against Bill Clinton, and he still won. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Quit mixing politics in this thread! I really hate temp banning solid posters, but I don't like seeing what could become a good thread derided by partisan rancor. Next person who brings in non-Thompson related politics gets to sit in the corner with the dunce hat for 24 hours.

This is the final warning to keep any Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Romney, Giuliani or McCain bashing/supporting out of here (unless you tie it directly to the OP's subject). If you must, just head to politics.........

Emperor

08-16-2007, 04:37 PM

Fred: On Federalism (http://fredfile.imwithfred.com/2007/on-federalism/)

"Now, there are plenty of areas in criminal law where a federal role is appropriate. More and more crime occurs across state and national boundaries; the Internet is increasingly a haven for illegal activity. A federal role is appropriate in these and other instances."

Now that is taken out of context of the rest of the article, which basically talks about how the Federal goverment is mucking about in things that should be decided by the states.

Wahoo73

08-17-2007, 12:11 PM

As is pointed out in this article (Thompson Sparse on Policy Positions (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20316290/)), the fact that he is not yet an officially declared candidate does indeed make it difficult for him to publically state what policies he would enact as president.

"To some degree, his lack of detail is a legal matter. The law under which he is "testing the waters" of a presidential run limits activities that would make it appear he was doing more than simply weighing a bid. Talking about what he would do as president could violate that threshold."

As for his general political philosophy, the articles states:

More prominently, he established a reputation for working to limit the role of the federal government and protect states rights - an issue that remains very important to him and, perhaps, is an indication of what may lie at the root of his candidacy.
Broadly, he favors a strong federalist approach that emphasizes personal liberties and fiscal conservatism.
"Centralized government is not the solution to all of our problems and, with too much power, such centralization has a way of compounding our problems," Thompson wrote in a recent column on his Web site. "This was among the great insights of 1787," when the Constitution was adopted, "and it is just as vital in 2007."
He adds: "How we draw the line between federal and state roles in this century, and how we stay true to the principles of federalism for the purpose of protecting economic and individual freedom, are questions we must answer."

Personally, I find this encouraging, at least as compared to the nanny-statism philosophies espoused by Hillary and Barack Obama.

As an aside, considering MSNBC's liberal-leaning bias, I found this article to be fair and objective.

oldbookguy

08-17-2007, 03:43 PM

For those interested in more on Fred Thompson, he will be live on CNN today at 4:00 (or there abouts).

obg

Legislurker

08-17-2007, 04:04 PM

He is promising an amendment to ban gay marriage.............and to overturn Roe v Wade. To me, that means he knelt down and kissed Dobson's Nazi ass. After that, you think he will spare gambling?

Kurn, son of Mogh

08-17-2007, 04:06 PM

This is the final warning to keep any Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Romney, Giuliani or McCain bashing/supporting out of here (unless you tie it directly to the OP's subject). If you must, just head to politics.........

I'll start by saying I understand what you're striving to avoid here. However, any discussion regarding legislation that includes an opinion about that legislation is by definition a discussion of politics.

If I were hired as a consultant to analyze and critique the taxonomy of this site, I would recommend that *Poker Legislation* is more properly placed as a sub-topic under *politics* than a subtopic under *General Poker.*

This specific forum is more about government than poker. How can we adequately discuss Fred Thompson's position on poker legislation if we have to avoid discussing his candidacy for President or the positions of his opponents?

That being said, I will adhere to your restrictions as best I can.

fnurt

08-17-2007, 04:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He is promising an amendment to ban gay marriage.............and to overturn Roe v Wade. To me, that means he knelt down and kissed Dobson's Nazi ass. After that, you think he will spare gambling?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that pretty conclusively debunks the notion that he's got any kind of deep commitment to "federalism." Yes, a federal definition of marriage, that's what the country is crying out for.

Wahoo73

08-17-2007, 04:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He is promising an amendment to ban gay marriage.............and to overturn Roe v Wade.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source and/or citation for this assertion? Sorry...I won't believe the veracity of this allegation without some proof that he is really "promising" to do these things.

Skallagrim

08-17-2007, 04:56 PM

Hard to resist saying I told you so ... we see the group he is playing too and one doesnt get any votes from that group by saying "of course I would sign a "legalized internet Poker/Gambling bill."

Skallagrim

PS - if the poster who knows Al D. reads this, would you give your opinion of whether to believe Al D. IF Al D. were to say "trust me, Fred cant say it, but he would sign the bill."

4_2_it

08-17-2007, 05:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is the final warning to keep any Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Romney, Giuliani or McCain bashing/supporting out of here (unless you tie it directly to the OP's subject). If you must, just head to politics.........

I'll start by saying I understand what you're striving to avoid here. However, any discussion regarding legislation that includes an opinion about that legislation is by definition a discussion of politics.

If I were hired as a consultant to analyze and critique the taxonomy of this site, I would recommend that *Poker Legislation* is more properly placed as a sub-topic under *politics* than a subtopic under *General Poker.*

This specific forum is more about government than poker. How can we adequately discuss Fred Thompson's position on poker legislation if we have to avoid discussing his candidacy for President or the positions of his opponents?

That being said, I will adhere to your restrictions as best I can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kurn,

I am not afraid of politics encroaching in this forum. There is a natural overlap, but there is no need for partisan rants or Clinton bashing based on the original subject of this thread. Having an opinion on how Hillary or Obama feels about poker and contrasting that to Thompson's views is fine and encouraged.

What I was trying to prevent was a thread about Fred Thompson's views on poker being hijacked into a "How electable is Hillary Clinton" thread. I had no other agenda.

I don't mind discussing candidacies. Look back in this thread. There were 3 short posts in row there were basically "Hillary sucks", "No she doesn't" "Yes she does, I'm not voting for her" with no support or logical argument. That's what is not acceptable.

Legislurker

08-17-2007, 07:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He is promising an amendment to ban gay marriage.............and to overturn Roe v Wade.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source and/or citation for this assertion? Sorry...I won't believe the veracity of this allegation without some proof that he is really "promising" to do these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was in Iowa today and I turned on CNN as obg said at 4pm.
I can't remember which of Turner's douchebags was covering it, but wrapped up Thompson's "life" statements at the State Fair as promising those things. I can't put out a press release, but I don't think CNN would make it up.

Wahoo73

08-17-2007, 09:25 PM

Don't misunderstand me...there is little if no doubt in my mind that Thompson would be opposed to gay marraige and abortion as a matter of principle and policy. However, as President he would neither have the power to create an amendment to ban gay marriage (only Congress would) nor would he have the power to overturn Roe v Wade (only the Supreme Court would). Therefore, I am extremely skeptical that he would be "promising" to do either of these things, inasmuch as I'm confident he knows he would be unable to deliver either promise.

Knowing the bias that exists at CNN, if indeed the reporter said Thompson is "promising" to do these things, I suspect Thompson's positions have been mischaracterized. If this was reported by CNN, then there must be a record available of the report. Would you please attempt to find it for all of us so that we could have assurances that what you said is true?

oldbookguy

08-17-2007, 09:35 PM

I watched as well and at the conclusion, the reporter "reported" that Thompson would push for the gay marriage amendment and seek to appoint judges to overturn RvW.
Would he do those, I do not know.
agreed, CNN is very liberal and reporters offer opinions as news a lot.
the conservative Fox reports and makes a big deal that he lobbied for abortion rights (which he did).
Seems neither side is pleased with his stance......
Also, he did meet with a rep from the evangelicals and he was interviewed but only stated a meeting took place and had no comment either way as to Thompson’s positions.

obg

Legislurker

08-17-2007, 11:53 PM

This wouldnt be a [censored] issue if the primary system wasnt so gd broken. EVERY state has ChristaNazis, SC and Iowa especially. Republicans need to remember they can win national elections without totally pandering. Giuliani is their best run-off guy as is. Is it worth all that time for Visa and Viagra commercials? Would be great to have a moderate wing REFUSE to rally behind any panderer. Bush isn't a Christian in the least, but he has "honoured' the deal he made with the devil to get elected, and governs for them. Bush knew he owed them, and paid. You can't jsut move away in politics and expect nothing to happen.

Skallagrim

08-18-2007, 12:05 AM

Whether Thompson "promised" those things or merely promised to "support" those things, the point for us is still the same: the people he is playing to are not people who will ever side with legalized internet gambling or poker.

And as legislurker points out, if these are the people who get you elected, you dont cross them if you want to be re-elected.

Skallagrim

fnurt

08-18-2007, 01:49 AM

Thompson apparently "amended" his statement later to explain that he doesn't support an amendment to ban gay marriage, he just supports an amendment to prevent any state from forcing other states to have gay marriage. It's not really worth getting into, but it's kind of an embarrassing position for a legally trained person to take.

The more important point, as others have noted, is that this plants him firmly in the Dobson camp. It's hard to imagine anyone would take strong positions on abortion and gay marriage to please the likes of Dobson, and then go against them by supporting online gambling. Just not gonna happen.

Cactus Jack

08-18-2007, 11:07 AM

The problem for Republican candidates is they must pander to get the nomination, then move away to win the election. That won't work. The country got fooled once, but not twice. Thompson is caught in the dilemma, and sounds as if he won't be able to walk to fine line. The small percentage of people that seem to count the most in the Republican Party are not going to ever wise up and see they are doing to their party exactly what the far left did to the Dems. Both will always believe they are fundamentally right. While they could in fact both be right, that doesn't mean it works for most of the people.

The problem is you need both fringe groups as a moral compass. When the compass becomes the driving force, things tend to go off the cliff.

Thompson cannot be elected, so there's really little point to much more discussion. As I said previously, one actor per 200 years, please.

frommagio

08-18-2007, 06:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This wouldnt be a [censored] issue if the primary system wasnt so gd broken. EVERY state has ChristaNazis, SC and Iowa especially. Republicans need to remember they can win national elections without totally pandering. Giuliani is their best run-off guy as is. Is it worth all that time for Visa and Viagra commercials? Would be great to have a moderate wing REFUSE to rally behind any panderer. Bush isn't a Christian in the least, but he has "honoured' the deal he made with the devil to get elected, and governs for them. Bush knew he owed them, and paid. You can't jsut move away in politics and expect nothing to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this exactly the kind of post that is supposed to earn a quick 24-hour ban from 4_2_it? I can't even pick out a few examples to bold-face or italicize. This is just 100% unacceptable - it's a pure unadulterated, troll-raving partisan junk rant.

This post has no merit, and it contributes nothing to this forum or this thread.

TheEngineer

08-18-2007, 07:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't this exactly the kind of post that is supposed to earn a quick 24-hour ban from 4_2_it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

frommagio

08-18-2007, 07:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't this exactly the kind of post that is supposed to earn a quick 24-hour ban from 4_2_it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

"No"? Not exactly a deep analysis, is it? That's not typical of the thought you usually put into your posts!

[ QUOTE ]

I am not afraid of politics encroaching in this forum. There is a natural overlap, but there is no need for partisan rants or Clinton bashing...

[/ QUOTE ]

TheEngineer

08-18-2007, 07:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't this exactly the kind of post that is supposed to earn a quick 24-hour ban from 4_2_it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

"No"? Not exactly a deep analysis, is it? That's not typical of the thought you usually put into your posts!

[ QUOTE ]

I am not afraid of politics encroaching in this forum. There is a natural overlap, but there is no need for partisan rants or Clinton bashing...

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

His issue concerns specific candidates, not politics in general. If we couldn't discuss politics, it wouldn't be much of a Legislative forum.

frommagio

08-18-2007, 08:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't this exactly the kind of post that is supposed to earn a quick 24-hour ban from 4_2_it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

"No"? Not exactly a deep analysis, is it? That's not typical of the thought you usually put into your posts!

[ QUOTE ]

I am not afraid of politics encroaching in this forum. There is a natural overlap, but there is no need for partisan rants or Clinton bashing...

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

His issue concerns specific candidates, not politics in general. If we couldn't discuss politics, it wouldn't be much of a Legislative forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the final warning to keep any Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Romney, Giuliani or McCain bashing/supporting out of here (unless you tie it directly to the OP's subject). If you must, just head to politics.........

[/ QUOTE ]

It's partisan, it's bashing, it's directed at an individual, and it's not at all tied to the OP's post. It doesn't even have any intelligible content. On the other hand, it is directed at the Republicans, but that shouldn't matter (should it?).

TheEngineer

08-18-2007, 08:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's partisan, it's bashing, it's directed at an individual, and it's not at all tied to the OP's post. It doesn't even have any intelligible content. On the other hand, it is directed at the Republicans, but that shouldn't matter (should it?).

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound angry. I guess we'll see what 4_2 thinks.

frommagio

08-18-2007, 08:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's partisan, it's bashing, it's directed at an individual, and it's not at all tied to the OP's post. It doesn't even have any intelligible content. On the other hand, it is directed at the Republicans, but that shouldn't matter (should it?).

[/ QUOTE ]

You sound angry. I guess we'll see what 4_2 thinks.

[/ QUOTE ]

"You sound angry."?

Engineer - In the long run, it's better that the rules apply to the people we agree with just as much as the people we disagree with. Think about it, and as you consider it, try not to be limited by your own viewpoint. It could just as easily work the other way someday, and you wouldn't like that.

TheEngineer

08-18-2007, 08:50 PM

It's got nothing to do with my viewpoint. I simply thought the post in question was fine.

frommagio

08-18-2007, 08:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's got nothing to do with my viewpoint. I simply thought the post in question was fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your own posts contradict your statement - the atypical no-analysis response, followed by the personalization and the gratuitous insult. That's not you.

It's tough to step beyond your own viewpoint. Few people can, but it's worth the attempt.

TheEngineer

08-18-2007, 09:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's got nothing to do with my viewpoint. I simply thought the post in question was fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your own posts contradict your statement - the atypical no-analysis response, followed by the personalization and the gratuitous insult. That's not you.

It's tough to step beyond your own viewpoint. Few people can, but it's worth the attempt.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't share his viewpint here, but I think his comment adds value to the discussion. It doesn't merit censoring IMHO.

TheEngineer

08-18-2007, 09:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
followed by the personalization and the gratuitous insult.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't insult you. You really did sound angry in trying to get the post you didn't agree with censored.

Emperor

08-18-2007, 09:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This wouldnt be a [censored] issue if the primary system wasnt so gd broken. EVERY state has EnviroCommies, CA and WA especially. Democrats need to remember they can't win national elections without totally pandering. Giuliani is the Democrats best run-off guy as is. Is it worth all that time for Visa and Viagra commercials? Would be great to have a moderate wing REFUSE to rally behind any panderer. Clinton isn't a moderate in the least, but she made her deal with the devil a long time ago

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP since Engineer felt it provided content.

THOMPSON on the other hand (bringing it back to avoid ban)has as many skeletons in his closet as Hilliary and Jillianni.

Ron paul seems to be suprisingly absent of these skeletons. The worst thing that has been said about him to date is that he voted for some pork for his district. OH TEH NOES!

VOTE RON PAUL

PS. RP is also for deregulating the internets

TheEngineer

08-18-2007, 09:34 PM

Both parties have issues with the fact that the primaries favor candidates who adhere closest to the party doctrine.

TheEngineer

08-18-2007, 09:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
VOTE RON PAUL

[/ QUOTE ]

TheEngineer

08-18-2007, 09:47 PM

Anyway, discussion of the primary process is relevant, as it helps us deduce the likelihood of Thompson saying anything in our favor. So long as FoF-types are influential at the primary level, it's unlikely. The same is true of Democrats with the war and issues like that.

TheEngineer

08-18-2007, 09:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This wouldnt be a [censored] issue if the primary system wasnt so gd broken. EVERY state has EnviroCommies, CA and WA especially. Democrats need to remember they can't win national elections without totally pandering. Giuliani is the Democrats best run-off guy as is. Is it worth all that time for Visa and Viagra commercials? Would be great to have a moderate wing REFUSE to rally behind any panderer. Clinton isn't a moderate in the least, but she made her deal with the devil a long time ago

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP since Engineer felt it provided content.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a Republican, I do agree more with your version. Still, I think Lesislurker has a right to state his opinion, so long as it's on-topic.

Legislurker

08-18-2007, 10:41 PM

Wow, what did I do? I wasn't aiming for your Cheerios. Lets see, what did I say? The primaries are so broken Thompson can't support poker without losing the nutjobs who determine who gets the money and press and nomination. Ok, so I curse, swear, vituperate, and condemn. Sue me, you're supposed to be a damned poker player. You've heard worse. Its ON TOPIC. I think I have a right in the post to be mildly upset, and if you go back and read I think I put it up before the "warning". Im not trolling, Im not looking for a fight, we are having a discussion in here and no one else involved in the flow of it has a problem with it. If 42 it wants me to edit it away, fine, but I definitely don't see it the way you do.

THe Ron Paul thing..........I just rescinded myself from the local Meetup group and I don't think I'm voting for him anymore. I've always wanted to see some competence and sanity from a candidate, and RP has started to label EVERYTHING evil. Going back to the gold standard? Abolish the Fed? WIthdraw from the UN, NAFTA, and the WTO? I have read soem Iowa stump things, and I just can't. Add in a total [censored] local politician that is working with the local group who is a bigot, homophobe, xenophobe, and a tard
I have to walk away. That guy included even in an informal setting in the campaign was the straw that broke the camel's back. I guess I have to keep waiting till I am 35 or a sane Libertarian who understands we can't remake the world system runs. He is a nice man, but I can't back him any longer. Guess I am left with Bill Richardson. If I thought my backign RP would get poker back, Id keep doing it, but I don't. Poker just can't be the sole reason I vote for someone. Im not that big a self interested ass. And I can't put in time and work for someone I feel I can't trust in office.

Maybe if Fred shows some traction in polling he can stand up for poker, and I would come along. Ill take a mild Republican Prez anyday. I liked Bush 41 and Fred is more reminiscent of him than anyone else. I think if he gave poker to us, and was solidly "life" they FoF crowd would swing behind him to avoid Rudy or Mitt. I think by Thanksgiving Dobson will have to decide on a horse. I know he wants Brownback or Huckabee, but he ain't stupid. I like
Thompson's wait and see approach, he isn't spending huge $ and is getting tons of press. Not maxing out primary contributions early is a big plus for him, as if it comes down to him and Mittyboy(have you seen those gay oven mitts his people wear?) he will need every penny he can get. He has tapped the least of his political capital of anyone in the race, save AlGore. I hope Bolcerek is at least talking to Thompson's people, and AL will be a good bridge. The next administration will shape the domestic firms entry into the US market, and love it or hate it, we will all have to follow the fish crowd to them. WTO, Imega, Kaplan aside, the next Prez is important to how much we can make. Thompson I think just won't care where Rudy would hate, Mitt would condemn, and well McCain isnt going to win. So he is Republican #1 outside RP, and Ive jumped that ship. Wow, to just get a damned word out of the PPA if Thompson is at LEAST sympathetic would go a long way to forming my opinion and backing.
I think if they had us organized i KNOW we could swing Nevada to 40% Thompson. 40% in this big a field is like tacking on 10% extra Super Tuesday delegates. New Hampshire I gave up predicting, those people are finicky in extremis. SC I think we can impact because Brownback and Huckabee will take the mainline Protestant vote(which matters way out of proportion there) because those guys still teach Mormonism is a cult, and believe it. McCain was slaughtered there in 2000, how much to do with him, and how much the black baby rumours mattered, I can't tell you. But, even SC has moderate libertarian secular Republicans. Thompson is the nearest geographically based as well. Tenn esee mountains and SC's abut. Some efforts at Clemson and Columbia(USC) I think we could push him over 20% and into a pluraltiy. Maybe a good lifer, a guy who is seen to be a shot against Hillary, and they can overlook poker. I don't think the rank and file has that rancour that Dobson radiates. THough its worth noting SC is one of the few states to ever roll back gaming in the 90s and oughts. The man needs a fulcrum to work from within the Party, and he isn't strong anywhere, but he isnt loathed anywhere yet. Im going to back up , and put his candidacy personally in the wait and see column.

TheEngineer

08-18-2007, 11:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, what did I do? .....

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I made seven or so posts sticking up for you, can I assume this isn't to me? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Probobly that "quick reply".

TheEngineer

08-18-2007, 11:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't this exactly the kind of post that is supposed to earn a quick 24-hour ban from 4_2_it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

"No"? Not exactly a deep analysis, is it? That's not typical of the thought you usually put into your posts!

[ QUOTE ]

I am not afraid of politics encroaching in this forum. There is a natural overlap, but there is no need for partisan rants or Clinton bashing...

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm typing one-handed today.... Torn Pec (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=9919245&an=0&page=0#Post 9919245)

Legislurker

08-18-2007, 11:35 PM

no its not you, who is that guy. Im on tilt enough i might say something bannable sooner or later...............think , nope, am , taking batteries out of the keyboard for tonight before i lose Stars chat for the 5th timeand 2p2 for the first.

And uhm, one-handed typing.......T M I

TheEngineer

08-19-2007, 12:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And uhm, one-handed typing.......T M I

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. My other arm is in a sling.

frommagio

08-19-2007, 01:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, what did I do?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, you posted the following nutzo diatribe about Christian Nazis, Bush's pact with the devil, and Viagra:

[ QUOTE ]

This wouldnt be a [censored] issue if the primary system wasnt so gd broken. EVERY state has ChristaNazis, SC and Iowa especially. Republicans need to remember they can win national elections without totally pandering. Giuliani is their best run-off guy as is. Is it worth all that time for Visa and Viagra commercials? Would be great to have a moderate wing REFUSE to rally behind any panderer. Bush isn't a Christian in the least, but he has "honoured' the deal he made with the devil to get elected, and governs for them. Bush knew he owed them, and paid. You can't jsut move away in politics and expect nothing to happen

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this have anything to do with anything?

TheEngineer

08-19-2007, 01:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, you posted the following nutzo diatribe about Christian Nazis, Bush's pact with the devil, and Viagra:

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe he was calling all Christians Nazis. Rather, I think he was referring to the Christians who want to dictate how others live their lives.

Check out www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293250,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293250,00.html) for an example.

TheEngineer

08-19-2007, 01:28 AM

From www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293250,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293250,00.html):

[ QUOTE ]
Gooch isn't worried about the city losing businesses or tax revenues if alcohol sales are banned. Normal economic growth and God will make up any difference if residents dump the bottle, he said.

"We believe that God will honor and bless our city," Gooch said.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Republican presidential nominee most likely has to win that guy's vote.

Also, note that he didn't say God will bless them for not drinking....rather, he feels God will bless them for not alowing others to do so. They seem deluded given that Jesus himself made wine.

So, that's the vote Thompson is seeking in the primaries. After the primaries, maybe we'll get support, as he'll have to look good to other voters without completely flip-flopping.

Legislurker

08-19-2007, 02:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, what did I do?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, you posted the following nutzo diatribe about Christian Nazis, Bush's pact with the devil, and Viagra:

[ QUOTE ]

This wouldnt be a [censored] issue if the primary system wasnt so gd broken. EVERY state has ChristaNazis, SC and Iowa especially. Republicans need to remember they can win national elections without totally pandering. Giuliani is their best run-off guy as is. Is it worth all that time for Visa and Viagra commercials? Would be great to have a moderate wing REFUSE to rally behind any panderer. Bush isn't a Christian in the least, but he has "honoured' the deal he made with the devil to get elected, and governs for them. Bush knew he owed them, and paid. You can't jsut move away in politics and expect nothing to happen

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this have anything to do with anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Visa and viagra is a reference to Bob Dole and his endorsement deals after finishing second. You pander so much to the douchebags that control primaries, you will lose. Thomspn is the Republican flavor of the month and is flirting with pandering to the enemy. The enemies of poker are among those on the Republican fringe. If you don't think so, you are out of step with almost everyone here, and I guess its a free country and thats cool. You've totally succeeded in hijacking this threadm so please, if you want, Engineer can link you to the FoF homepage. They don't swear there, unless you write a book about them and call it, "The Jesus Machine".

frommagio

08-19-2007, 03:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, what did I do?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, you posted the following nutzo diatribe about Christian Nazis, Bush's pact with the devil, and Viagra:

[ QUOTE ]

This wouldnt be a [censored] issue if the primary system wasnt so gd broken. EVERY state has ChristaNazis, SC and Iowa especially. Republicans need to remember they can win national elections without totally pandering. Giuliani is their best run-off guy as is. Is it worth all that time for Visa and Viagra commercials? Would be great to have a moderate wing REFUSE to rally behind any panderer. Bush isn't a Christian in the least, but he has "honoured' the deal he made with the devil to get elected, and governs for them. Bush knew he owed them, and paid. You can't jsut move away in politics and expect nothing to happen

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this have anything to do with anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Visa and viagra is a reference to Bob Dole and his endorsement deals after finishing second. You pander so much to the douchebags that control primaries, you will lose. Thomspn is the Republican flavor of the month and is flirting with pandering to the enemy. The enemies of poker are among those on the Republican fringe. If you don't think so, you are out of step with almost everyone here, and I guess its a free country and thats cool. You've totally succeeded in hijacking this threadm so please, if you want, Engineer can link you to the FoF homepage. They don't swear there, unless you write a book about them and call it, "The Jesus Machine".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that guy Dole used Viagra and he only has one good arm, too, and he uses Visa. And Thompson never seems to use that other arm, and he could be buying Viagra with a Visa too for all anybody here knows. It's just sickening when you put all the facts together and see the big picture. You'll never get this kind of analysis from the ChristianNazi douchebags at the FoF for sure!

TheEngineer

08-19-2007, 08:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, that guy Dole used Viagra and he only has one good arm, too, and he uses Visa. And Thompson never seems to use that other arm, and he could be buying Viagra with a Visa too for all anybody here knows. It's just sickening when you put all the facts together and see the big picture. You'll never get this kind of analysis from the ChristianNazi douchebags at the FoF for sure!

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't understand why you're so upset. Are you suggesting that we cannot even mention FoF, as if speaking negatively about one particular Christian group = speaking negatively about all of Christianity? They are our primary opposition, you know. Perhaps you could clarify, as none of us yet understand.

As for me, my only problem with FoF is that they wish to force their opinions on me.

tangled

08-19-2007, 10:20 AM

Most of us seem to support the notion that a moderate Republican candidate is not good for us because they have to pander to the social conservative wing of the party to get nominated. And social conservatives delight in the idea of shutting us down. I certainly agree with this notion and have posted such more than once.

However---

there is another side to this political dynamic that might play out.

Once a candidate becomes the standard bearer everything reverses. Candidates start to pander to the voting moderates, people that could vote either way -swing voters- , in large part because their votes are worth more than party loyalists. Every vote a candidate gets from a swing voter is not just one vote for themselves, but one that the opponent could have gotten but didn't. If a candidate turns off a party loyalist, that voter may stay home on election day depriving their party's candidate of one vote, but he will not vote for the opposing party's candidate. I know things are a little more complex than this, but in general, the general election is a great deal about wooing moderate voters.

If the republican nominee has made it through the primary process without being pinned down on their position on internet poker, then they will be much more likely to come up with a reasonable position on the issue.

I think it would be a mistake to try to nail Thompson down on our issue until after the nomination has been decided.

Gregatron

08-19-2007, 11:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This type of thinking is very near sighted and shows a lack of understanding on what principles/morals this country was founded upon by our founding fathers. If you believe that strong conservative morals and policies haven't ruled this country from day 1, then a history lesson is needed. The morals, laws and attitudes of this country become more liberal and less conservative every year and it started 200 years ago. Most, if not all of our founding fathers held most of the same beliefs as FOF. To call FOF anti-American is comical, since their beliefs are exactly what this (Christian) country was founded upon.

I'm sorry but I just think it's ridiculous to act like strong conservative morals and Christian influence in government just came about with George W.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have a Ph.D. in political science, and teach American Government on the college level. I would just like to say that everything you just said is completely, 100%, unequivocally WRONG.

Warren Harding

08-19-2007, 12:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This post may mean this thread should go to the politics forum, but I couldnt help but mention how Karl Rove fits into all of this. The "permanent republican majority" he envisioned was primarily based on "motivating the base" and thus winning close elections but governing as if the elections were landslides for his side. The base he used was the FOF types, and it is now clear that they have so much clout within the republican party that getting the nomination without their support is nigh impossible. Unfortunately for us all, the FOF agenda is basically an anti-american agenda and alienates the majority, turning centrists to the democrats. For the next few election cycles it is pretty clear that the republican party may as well change its name to the "American Christian Taliban" party, a more honest name and one that really wont cost them any more votes than they have already lost.

For online poker players this means our choices will be limited to being criminals and outlaws (the republican way), or playing legally, but under heavy regulation and taxation (the democratic way).

Makes me really sad that an American "personal freedom and personal responsibility" way is nowhere near the mainstream.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

This type of thinking is very near sighted and shows a lack of understanding on what principles/morals this country was founded upon by our founding fathers. If you believe that strong conservative morals and policies haven't ruled this country from day 1, then a history lesson is needed. The morals, laws and attitudes of this country become more liberal and less conservative every year and it started 200 years ago. Most, if not all of our founding fathers held most of the same beliefs as FOF. To call FOF anti-American is comical, since their beliefs are exactly what this (Christian) country was founded upon.

I'm sorry but I just think it's ridiculous to act like strong conservative morals and Christian influence in government just came about with George W.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply wishful theocratic thinking. The FF largely hated organized religion and meddling from one to another. Our nation was founded in rebellion against those who viewed the Bible as a weapon, and not a guide. They were pious, but said things about religion that would make them unelectable today. FOF =\= piety.

And, more people need to hear this, from the FF themselves: " the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html)"

Now back to poker...

I cannot be brought around to vote for the party* of Goodlatte and Abramoff (about the latter: B&M casinos drive the anti-online gambling in part). I also cannot vote for the party of Sali and Goode, but that'll start a tome of a digression.

Thomson does not strike me as one to trust: he'll say what he has to say, but in the end, his coalition will be with the far right. The comment about the federal gov't and regulation of the internet is damn true. Democratss and Republicans cannot wait for the supreme court to expand interstate commerce clause even further. It's inevitable.

The two candidates I see best for poker are Bill Richardson and Ron Paul. Ron Paul needs no introduction here. Richardson is the most libertarian of the democrats, and beats out all other republicans in that respect. He's not looking to tax new sources, and Westerners do not like to be told what to do.

In fact, I'm going to dig around about Bill Richardson and post about him.

*Ron Paul excepted

TheEngineer

08-19-2007, 12:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot be brought around to vote for the party* of Goodlatte and Abramoff (about the latter: B&M casinos drive the anti-online gambling in part).

[/ QUOTE ]

The B&M casinos would prefer to keep out the competition, no doubt. I agree they're part of the problem. In fact, I initially suspected that was a bigger player. However, the data seems to indicate that the primary driver is groups like FoF.

If you check out Early House Report Card (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=11322467&page=0&fpart=2& vc=1), you'll note most of our opposition comes from the Bible Belt:

[ QUOTE ]
8/5 Update, by Region:

..................... With Us.....Neutral/Unknown.....Against us
Northeast............40%.....................49%..................11%
West...................41%.....................41%..................18%
Midwest..............25%.....................45%..................30%
Territories............25%.....................25%..................50%
South..................18%.....................34%..................47%

The Northeast has 83 reps (plus one vacant seat), the West has 97 reps (plus the other vacant seat), the Midwest has 100 reps, the territories (Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) have four delegates, and the South has 154 reps.

As can be readily seen, the South is strongly against us. There are 284 non-Southern reps: 35% with us, 45% neutral/unknown, and only 20% against us. Of the 131 congressmen rated F, F*, or F-, 73 are Southern (56%).

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x223/TheEngineer2007/8-5InternetGamingSupport.png

[/ QUOTE ]

Looking at the map, it seems we're strongest where casino gaming is legal, and weakest otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
The two candidates I see best for poker are Bill Richardson and Ron Paul. Ron Paul needs no introduction here. Richardson is the most libertarian of the democrats, and beats out all other republicans in that respect. He's not looking to tax new sources, and Westerners do not like to be told what to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. In fact, Richardson has spoken in favor of allowing Internet gaming.

Gregatron

08-19-2007, 12:48 PM

Okay, re: Mason's topic -

The thing we have to understand about internet poker is that it is not a salient issue. Most of the top candidates have much more to lose than to gain from taking a position on the issue at this point.

That said, I don't think Thompson would be very pro-poker. Thompson is more or less a political chameleon, and the people he needs to cater to to be successful tend to be against the agenda of online poker. That said, he might be pro free trade enough to embrace WTO decisions, so who knows. So while I think he will take a more "conservative" (note the quotes please -- don't flame) stance on the issue, politicians are notorious for selling out their base on certain issues.

Cliff notes version: FT is probably not pro internet poker, at least not on the surface, but who knows what he might do if it were politically expedient.

oldbookguy

08-19-2007, 01:39 PM

Very nice, the link provides some really good historical reading.

obg

Poker Clif

08-19-2007, 02:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do agree though that the influence of evangelical Christianity on American politics did not begin with GWB. It didn't begin with William Jennings Bryan either. It has been a constant throughout our history as has the resistance to it by more secular factions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But it became a much bigger problem in this country starting with GWB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much bigger problem than when? 1918? Like FoF has anywhere near the power of, say the WCTU. Do you honestly think that the UIGEA is a bigger threat to individual freedom than amending the constitution to criminalize alcoholic beverages?

Christian evangelicals are nowhere near as powerful as they were 100 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, Kurn. There were thousands of people working in past administrations from Pat Robertson's box top law school helping to shape policy. Now there are only a hundred or so in W's administration. Things are much better now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know anything about Pat Robertson's "box top law school", but I do know a little about academia, including both state and Christian colleges and universities.

I have been to three different colleges, with two community college degrees, and I'm closing in on two degress (economics and political science) at a major state university. I have also taken a few grad courses

Two of my three sons chose to go to Christian colleges, the other went to a state school.

I'm getting very tired of Christian beliefs, Christian schools, and Christians in general being portrayed as anti-American and stupid.

For what it's worth, I don't think that Christianity and poker are incompatible (neither does Doyle Brunson, by the way). I have played in chess tournaments, and run 10K races, that had money prizes. What's the difference?

But back to the main topic, Christians as stupid and anti-American.

How do you know Pat Robertson's school gave out boxtop degress? Both of my sons found their Christian schools very challenging.

Son #1--13th in his high school class of 300, all-state in jazz band competion (both my son and the band as a whole). He was used to success, but found his school challenging enough that he needed help to get through a couple of his physics classes.

Son #2--another high achiever. The only freshman in his high school to get the scholar athelete award (varsity letter and >= 3.5 GPA).

Son 2 also found his school very challenging, and I was very impressed with the academic atmosphere of this unabashedly conservative Christian school.

Over 90% of the faculty were PhDs, published and respected in their various fields (science, business, arts, social sciences, etc).

I don't know what kind of boxtops Pat Robertson is alledgedly handing out, but I really wish that you would just accept that the people you so despise are intelligent, concerned Americans who you just happen to disagree with, and who have as much write to their opinions as you do.

TheEngineer

08-19-2007, 02:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know anything about Pat Robertson's "box top law school", but I do know a little about academia, including both state and Christian colleges and universities.

I have been to three different colleges, with two community college degrees, and I'm closing in on two degress (economics and political science) at a major state university. I have also taken a few grad courses

Two of my three sons chose to go to Christian colleges, the other went to a state school.

I'm getting very tired of Christian beliefs, Christian schools, and Christians in general being portrayed as anti-American and stupid.

For what it's worth, I don't think that Christianity and poker are incompatible (neither does Doyle Brunson, by the way). I have played in chess tournaments, and run 10K races, that had money prizes. What's the difference?

But back to the main topic, Christians as stupid and anti-American.

How do you know Pat Robertson's school gave out boxtop degress? Both of my sons found their Christian schools very challenging.

Son #1--13th in his high school class of 300, all-state in jazz band competion (both my son and the band as a whole). He was used to success, but found his school challenging enough that he needed help to get through a couple of his physics classes.

Son #2--another high achiever. The only freshman in his high school to get the scholar athelete award (varsity letter and >= 3.5 GPA).

Son 2 also found his school very challenging, and I was very impressed with the academic atmosphere of this unabashedly conservative Christian school.

Over 90% of the faculty were PhDs, published and respected in their various fields (science, business, arts, social sciences, etc).

I don't know what kind of boxtops Pat Robertson is alledgedly handing out, but I really wish that you would just accept that the people you so despise are intelligent, concerned Americans who you just happen to disagree with, and who have as much write to their opinions as you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally think most here on the Legislation forum merely have issues with the beliefs and tactics of groups like FoF who would force their beliefs on others.

The issue with Robertson's school is that this administration is disproportionately hiring ideologues into civil service postitions. The initial post on that didn't seem to be on the intelligence of the grads, but on the fact that they were likely given preference based on ideology.

Skallagrim

08-19-2007, 02:58 PM

PokerClif, you are being a bit thin-skinned here. The vast majority of folks in this forum (some other 2+2 forums have a different set of regulars) are not anti-christian in any way. In fact, most of them ARE Christian. But they resent other christians LEGISLATING how to live their lives based on faith. I have a lot of admiration for most christians, its theocrats that I despise.

When a "christian" says to me they support banning internet gambling because its dangerous to children, encourages addictive behavior, etc... I consider that a "reasoned" opinion and respond with reason (if thats your real concern than there are much better ways of controlling those problems than prohibition, etc...). But when a "christian" says to me they support banning gambling because "its a sin" and against the will of god" I know I am dealing with someone who is both uninformed (the bible says no such thing) and dangerous. Dangerous, precisely because they think matters of secular, public policy should be decided by appeals to faith. Even if they dont realize it they are theocrats whose only difference from the Taliban is their religion. And theocracy is un-American.

Skallagrim

Legislurker

08-19-2007, 04:50 PM

Running a university for turning out troops for the culture wars is rather despicable, which a lot of modern "Christian" schools do. Used to be, Christian schools had rigorous academic standards, and some still do. Most of the new ones are some kind of perceived counterstroke to a conspiracy to "remove God from the Pledge" or "the homosexual agenda". They make these kids sign pledges to not drink, to not have sex outside marriage, to condemn homosexuals, and other political garbage. They are ALL appearance. 99% of an education is just learning to learn, not being indoctrinated in the FORMS of faith. They teach [censored] to reinforce things like that creation museum in Kentucky with Eve and dinosaurs. There are NOT two teams in the world, one Christian, one non-Christian. But there is a propaganda machine telling people that and having people vote and donate money to that. What we hate are those false premises driving the modern overarching Christian terror groups like FoF.

TheEngineer

08-19-2007, 05:13 PM

Scandal puts spotlight on Christian law school Grads influential in Justice Dept (http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/?page=full)

[ QUOTE ]
Scandal puts spotlight on Christian law school
Grads influential in Justice Dept.
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 8, 2007

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- The title of the course was Constitutional Law, but the subject was sin. Before any casebooks were opened, a student led his classmates in a 10-minute devotional talk, completed with "amens," about the need to preserve their Christian values.

"Sin is so appealing because it's easy and because it's fun," the law student warned.

[/ QUOTE ]

and

[ QUOTE ]
In a recent Regent law school newsletter, a 2004 graduate described being interviewed for a job as a trial attorney at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in October 2003. Asked to name the Supreme Court decision from the past 20 years with which he most disagreed, he cited Lawrence v. Texas, the ruling striking down a law against sodomy because it violated gay people's civil rights.

"When one of the interviewers agreed and said that decision in Lawrence was 'maddening,' I knew I correctly answered the question," wrote the Regent graduate . The administration hired him for the Civil Rights Division's housing section -- the only employment offer he received after graduation, he said.

[/ QUOTE ]

frommagio

08-19-2007, 05:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, that guy Dole used Viagra and he only has one good arm, too, and he uses Visa. And Thompson never seems to use that other arm, and he could be buying Viagra with a Visa too for all anybody here knows. It's just sickening when you put all the facts together and see the big picture. You'll never get this kind of analysis from the ChristianNazi douchebags at the FoF for sure!

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't understand why you're so upset. Are you suggesting that we cannot even mention FoF, as if speaking negatively about one particular Christian group = speaking negatively about all of Christianity? They are our primary opposition, you know. Perhaps you could clarify, as none of us yet understand.

As for me, my only problem with FoF is that they wish to force their opinions on me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't understand why you think I'm upset. That's your perception, but it's not accurate, and I imagine that it reflects more on your viewpoint than anything else.

My sole agenda is to call attention to an infantile posting that seems to be utterly without merit, and appears to be directly in violation of the guidelines posted by the moderator.

You would probably be surprised to learn that I agree with you on the issue. But I just don't think it's acceptable for the rules to work only one way. Mindless Hillary or Obama bashing isn't any better than mindless Bush bashing. Also, the gutter language and the gratuitous insults aimed at Christians greatly reduce the value of this thread.

Legislurker

08-19-2007, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Scandal puts spotlight on Christian law school Grads influential in Justice Dept (http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/08/scandal_puts_spotlight_on_christian_law_school/?page=full)

[ QUOTE ]
Scandal puts spotlight on Christian law school
Grads influential in Justice Dept.
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 8, 2007

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- The title of the course was Constitutional Law, but the subject was sin. Before any casebooks were opened, a student led his classmates in a 10-minute devotional talk, completed with "amens," about the need to preserve their Christian values.

"Sin is so appealing because it's easy and because it's fun," the law student warned.

[/ QUOTE ]

and

[ QUOTE ]
In a recent Regent law school newsletter, a 2004 graduate described being interviewed for a job as a trial attorney at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in October 2003. Asked to name the Supreme Court decision from the past 20 years with which he most disagreed, he cited Lawrence v. Texas, the ruling striking down a law against sodomy because it violated gay people's civil rights.

"When one of the interviewers agreed and said that decision in Lawrence was 'maddening,' I knew I correctly answered the question," wrote the Regent graduate . The administration hired him for the Civil Rights Division's housing section -- the only employment offer he received after graduation, he said.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

And we are stuck with these people because they can't be fired politically. Most career Justice jobs have been stocked with low talent, but not that low, and that gratuitously political. Judges barely make any money in the legal world, and Justice people make less, maybe its time to clean house, raise the pay, and hire better.

TheEngineer

08-19-2007, 05:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, that guy Dole used Viagra and he only has one good arm, too, and he uses Visa. And Thompson never seems to use that other arm, and he could be buying Viagra with a Visa too for all anybody here knows. It's just sickening when you put all the facts together and see the big picture. You'll never get this kind of analysis from the ChristianNazi douchebags at the FoF for sure!

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't understand why you're so upset. Are you suggesting that we cannot even mention FoF, as if speaking negatively about one particular Christian group = speaking negatively about all of Christianity? They are our primary opposition, you know. Perhaps you could clarify, as none of us yet understand.

As for me, my only problem with FoF is that they wish to force their opinions on me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't understand why you think I'm upset. That's your perception, but it's not accurate, and I imagine that it reflects more on your viewpoint than anything else.

My sole agenda is to call attention to an infantile posting that seems to be utterly without merit, and appears to be directly in violation of the guidelines posted by the moderator.

You would probably be surprised to learn that I agree with you on the issue. But I just don't think it's acceptable for the rules to work only one way. Mindless Hillary or Obama bashing isn't any better than mindless Bush bashing. Also, the gutter language and the gratuitous insults aimed at Christians greatly reduce the value of this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's nothing personal. I was simply sticking up for Legislurker's right to share his opinion. If the situation were reversed, I'd have done the same for you. As for the post in question, many of us have expressed the merit behind his post, so I'll refrain from rehashing.

Cheers.

Emperor

08-19-2007, 05:43 PM

Not sure what "Scandal" they are talking about...

I'd also agree that Lawrence v. Texas was a huge step in the wrong direction for states rights, and the overall health of America by making obvious sinful, and antisociety behavior legal.

Homosexuals aren't a protected class in my state, and I was very upset when Governor Strickland used his power to make discrimnation against them for State jobs illegal.

Luckily private industy can still follow their values to try and discourage this kind of destructive behavior.

I also don't see how this makes Christians look bad. If anything it makes these law students more concerned for society.

I have no idea how this affects Thompson's view on Poker

Best Wishes,

Emperor

TheEngineer

08-19-2007, 05:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure what "Scandal" they are talking about...

I'd also agree that Lawrence v. Texas was a huge step in the wrong direction for states rights, and the overall health of America by making obvious sinful, and antisociety behavior legal.

Homosexuals aren't a protected class in my state, and I was very upset when Governor Strickland used his power to make discrimnation against them for State jobs illegal.

Luckily private industy can still follow their values to try and discourage this kind of destructive behavior.

I also don't see how this makes Christians look bad. If anything it makes these law students more concerned for society.

Best Wishes,

Emperor

[/ QUOTE ]

The scandal is the Monica Goodling scandal. I posted the article to show the hiring preferences for ideologues into civil service jobs.

I posted the quote about homosexuality to show that these folks think it's not enough for them to simply not be gay, but that they need to criminalize this for others, as if that would somehow make homosexuality go away. I also quoted it to show that the DoJ isn't hiring based in existing law, but on their vision of laws (you can see how that applies to us). I'll refrain from commenting further, as this is the wrong forum for that, aside from stating that I haven't needed any legislation to keep me 100% hetero. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Legislurker

08-19-2007, 05:54 PM

We could just have the thread locked.

TheEngineer

08-19-2007, 05:55 PM

I think I'll bow out of this thread (and will not reply to this post). I'm not trying to offend anyone. I am a Christian myself....I just don't like the idea of these fundamentalist groups who wish to force their ideas on others via legislation. I don't see how we can get where we need to be if we're not allowed to even discuss FoF for fear of offending anyone.

Cheers.

frommagio

08-19-2007, 07:50 PM

4_2_it, where are you man?

frommagio

08-19-2007, 08:06 PM

The raving gibberish:
[ QUOTE ]
This wouldnt be a [censored] issue if the primary system wasnt so gd broken. EVERY state has ChristaNazis, SC and Iowa especially. Republicans need to remember they can win national elections without totally pandering. Giuliani is their best run-off guy as is. Is it worth all that time for Visa and Viagra commercials? Would be great to have a moderate wing REFUSE to rally behind any panderer. Bush isn't a Christian in the least, but he has "honoured' the deal he made with the devil to get elected, and governs for them. Bush knew he owed them, and paid. You can't jsut move away in politics and expect nothing to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

TheEngineer:
[ QUOTE ]

It's nothing personal. I was simply sticking up for Legislurker's right to share his opinion. If the situation were reversed, I'd have done the same for you. As for the post in question, many of us have expressed the merit behind his post, so I'll refrain from rehashing.

Cheers.

[/ QUOTE ]

To the contrary, I haven't seen a single thing written here that demonstrates any merit behind his post, beyond "I feel it has content," and, essentially, "not all Christians are nazis, this is only directed at the bad ones". Mostly, I just see accusations of anger directed at people who see no merit in the original post.

The reason that nobody has defended the content in this post is that there is no defensible content in the post. That's the point. There is no defense for this kind of junk, and it simply doesn't belong here.

frommagio

08-19-2007, 08:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'll bow out of this thread (and will not reply to this post). I'm not trying to offend anyone. I am a Christian myself....I just don't like the idea of these fundamentalist groups who wish to force their ideas on others via legislation. I don't see how we can get where we need to be if we're not allowed to even discuss FoF for fear of offending anyone.

Cheers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think discussion of FoF would be fine. (Does anybody really disagree?) The question here is: How do you feel about discussing ChristaNazis, false Christian devil-worshipping presidents, and Viagra panderers?

Your only choice in this discussion is to leave or to somehow shore up the very weak position you've adopted. I expect more from you, and this is disappointing.

Legislurker

08-19-2007, 08:48 PM

Do I have to lead you by the nose?

UIGEA has two driving factors. Harrah's bribed Frist, while the horseracers bribed Goodlatte et al. The other was Frist wanted to PANDER to FoF for primary support to be president. They repute themselves to be THE authoritative CHRISTIAN voice in America. These Republicans signed some kind of "values contract" with Dobson's consent, blessing and participation. This activity is despicable, unchristian, and will lead to a loss in the general election worse than Bob Dole's(thats the Viagra reference because his loss led to his endorsement deal with them). It ALSO keeps Fred Thompson from having the cahones to back poker players. These evil people with the mailing lists to the blue-haired old ladies and the bible thumpers are screwing us over to keep power, simply because they dislike gambling, and it appears to be another evil bogeyman to scare people with. They call gambling a sin, totally ignoring the Bible. Would you prefer calling them blasphemers or apostates in lieu of Nazis? They want to install some de facto social order to consolidate their position as determiners of what is right and wrong, and keep the halndle-end of tithing. To hate them, to name-call them, and to actively post agaisnt them is well within the scope of this forum, this thread, and any poker player's perogative. If you want to extrapolate from trashing them to trashing all Christians, maybe you should fax your resume' to their marketing dept. That's exactly the doublespeak and misrepresentation they present to their sheep audience. None of us are anti-Christian, anti-family, or anti-Republican. Hell, most of us go to church, have families, and used to be Republicans. We just can't keep silent that our names and beliefs are being used to rob our livelihoods and liberties.
If your ego and vanity can't handle that, open internet forums aren't for you.

TheEngineer

08-19-2007, 09:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your only choice in this discussion is to leave or to somehow shore up the very weak position you've adopted. I expect more from you, and this is disappointing.

[/ QUOTE ]

My interest in this topic started and stopped with sticking up for a poster's right to express his opinion. Trying to goad me into an argument won't do the trick, as I have no dog in this fight. See, while you've been worrying about Legislurker's post, I was busy writing next month's Congessional Ratings Guide and sending copies of my three published letters to the editors to my congressman, governor, and both senators (and all with one arm in a sling). See, I'd rather work on my rights than fight with my allies. So, keep starting arguments from behind your keyboard (this is the third one I've seen you start in the past three weeks)...we'll be busy fighting our opponents.

Have a good day.

frommagio

08-19-2007, 09:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do I have to lead you by the nose?

UIGEA has two driving factors. Harrah's bribed Frist, while the horseracers bribed Goodlatte et al. The other was Frist wanted to PANDER to FoF for primary support to be president. They repute themselves to be THE authoritative CHRISTIAN voice in America. These Republicans signed some kind of "values contract" with Dobson's consent, blessing and participation. This activity is despicable, unchristian, and will lead to a loss in the general election worse than Bob Dole's(thats the Viagra reference because his loss led to his endorsement deal with them). It ALSO keeps Fred Thompson from having the cahones to back poker players. These evil people with the mailing lists to the blue-haired old ladies and the bible thumpers are screwing us over to keep power, simply because they dislike gambling, and it appears to be another evil bogeyman to scare people with. They call gambling a sin, totally ignoring the Bible. Would you prefer calling them blasphemers or apostates in lieu of Nazis? They want to install some de facto social order to consolidate their position as determiners of what is right and wrong, and keep the halndle-end of tithing. To hate them, to name-call them, and to actively post agaisnt them is well within the scope of this forum, this thread, and any poker player's perogative. If you want to extrapolate from trashing them to trashing all Christians, maybe you should fax your resume' to their marketing dept. That's exactly the doublespeak and misrepresentation they present to their sheep audience. None of us are anti-Christian, anti-family, or anti-Republican. Hell, most of us go to church, have families, and used to be Republicans. We just can't keep silent that our names and beliefs are being used to rob our livelihoods and liberties.
If your ego and vanity can't handle that, open internet forums aren't for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

A gentle request, from those of us who want to see legal poker online: Please do us all a favor, and refrain from sending any written communication to any candidates, journalists, or other organizations with public policy interests.

We really do need to put our best foot forward to win this. It will not help our cause if we make it easy for folks to dismiss our views because we act like raving lunatics.

Please give this request serious consideration.

frommagio

08-19-2007, 09:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your only choice in this discussion is to leave or to somehow shore up the very weak position you've adopted. I expect more from you, and this is disappointing.

[/ QUOTE ]

My interest in this topic started and stopped with sticking up for a poster's right to express his opinion. Trying to goad me into an argument won't do the trick, as I have no dog in this fight. See, while you've been worrying about Legislurker's post, I was busy writing next month's Congessional Ratings Guide and sending copies of my three published letters to the editors to my congressman, governor, and both senators (and all with one arm in a sling). See, I'd rather work on my rights than fight with my allies. So, keep starting arguments from behind your keyboard (this is the third one I've seen you start in the past three weeks)...we'll be busy fighting our opponents.

Have a good day.

[/ QUOTE ]

This work on the new Congessional Ratings Guide and on the next round of letters sounds like a great use of your time, just the kind of effort that we've all grown accustomed to seeing from you. We all appreciate the hard work you do for our cause; nobody has done more.

This thread was an unfortunate deviation from the normal high quality of your contribution here. For whatever reason, your defense of this poster involved a lot more than "sticking up for a poster's right to express his opinion;" you claimed that it had valuable content, but you would not supply it. When asked to elaborate, you turned to personal insult, erected and demolished a strawman, and then withdrew. All in all, it was a very disappointing performance, and definitely out of character for you.

Now let's get busy fighting our opponents, and let's all put our best foot forward and advance high-quality arguments. And I wish you a good day as well, and thank you for your many positive contributions.

oldbookguy

08-19-2007, 10:34 PM

I have watched this discussion of Thompson with great interest.
Sen. Al supports him; the question we need to know is why.
OK, lets see.
The true conservatives to not really like Fred, he is on the record speaking for and lobbying for abortion rights, now…..
The liberals do not like him; he is for a strong defense and supported pardoning Libby though he only got a commute in his sentence.

OK, so examine the realistic options, Paul aside.

Hillary or Obama from the democratic side.

On the GOP we have:

1. Rudy – he went after gambling and stuff as a federal prosecutor, no he would not support us.
2. McCain – he helped sponsor anti gaming legislation after the 2000 primary, he will not support us.
3. Huckabee – if I remember correctly he is an ordained minister, he will NOT support us; rather he will be in bed in a three way with Dobson and Chad Hill.
4. Mitt Boy, please, he is so religious NOW, he has made his deal with the devil; he will not support us. See number three above.

After this, the choices for us are pretty limited, unless of course you are OK with Clinton or Obama.

So, why is Sen. al supporting Thompson?

We need a campaign to let Thompson know we are here and we are watching.

obg

oldbookguy

08-19-2007, 11:10 PM

We can post letters and comments to Thompson and reply to his federalism position at:
http://fredfile.imwithfred.com/2007/on-federalism/#comment-5811

obg

Legislurker

08-20-2007, 01:00 AM

We could phone bone his campaign, excuse me, exploratory committee, this week.

4_2_it

08-20-2007, 08:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
4_2_it, where are you man?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I actually decided to have a life this weekend. It actually seems like you guys just about managed to work things out, so I will not stir the pot at this point. I will add this: Mentioning Dobson, FoF is fine if you have a point, just insulting them or Moveon.org for that matter without an argument makes you look stupid. A ban decision will be made based on how stupid you manage to look.

Kevmath

08-20-2007, 06:58 PM

ACPW.org's Perspectives Weekly (http://youtube.com/watch?v=dNgBhjTih6g)

About 7:30 in, they mention someone by the name of Bill Wichterman, a top advisor for Bill Frist who helped get the UIGEA passed. Thompson recently hired him as an advisor for his potential campaign.

DeadMoneyDad

08-21-2007, 02:04 AM

Worring about which Presidential candidate might or might not suport on-line poker is, IMO, a waste of time.

1. The no one beleives poker is such a swing issue with enough suport to cause people to cross party lines. I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she made this her signature issue.

2. The fight will be on the Hill for any favorible legislation for on-line poker.

3. Poker groups are doing NOTHING to show that they are any kind of cohesive voting block.

4. The current "leadership" of the poker lobbing efforts have, IMO, placed too much emphasis on lobbing with out proving that they can motovate us players.

I'm an old campaign hand. Yes I come from the "evil" Republican side of politics. But my heart and soul is grassroots politics. I've hepled moderate Republicans win in States normally run by the fundementalists.

It can be done.

But until we have some sort of structure to organize around, to prove to elected officals and those seeking office we are a group they HAVE to deal with all of these posts are wrothless. Letter writing campaigns have a limited value as well.

What politicans respect more than money are volunteers in their campaign offices. Volunteers do the work no campaign can afford to pay for, this is why the various organized groups have clout.

We can continue to fragrament out efforts and loose all chance to be a chohesieve group or pick one and move forward.

Just my opinion,

D$D

Legislurker

08-21-2007, 02:09 AM

Im not sure what to read in to the hiring. I just don't know the inner workings of the Frist staff. The Tennessee roots and Frist's aborted national ambitions both seem more plausible than an anti-gambling conspiracy. Frist did have a more professional and fully formed exploratory committee ready to go than Thomspon has. Perhaps he is just cannibalizing it. Until we see some advertizing going out saying he will back UIGEA lets not jump the gun. Maybe we should speed up lobbying him via phone/letter. Let him know we will vote Hillary before him if he condemns poker. 500 calls and letters for that should slow an already reticent decision maker down from taking a drastic line.

Emperor

08-21-2007, 02:38 AM

Ron Paul talks about an unregulated Internet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRAcLPmq5M4)

While Fred Thompson is talking about The federal government regulating the internet. Ron Paul is discussing keeping it unregulated.

Legislurker

08-21-2007, 04:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul talks about an unregulated Internet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRAcLPmq5M4)

While Fred Thompson is talking about The federal government regulating the internet. Ron Paul is discussing keeping it unregulated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul won't be President, and it would be bad if he was.
If he triggers a massive global recession poker won't be much of a living. The man simply will not come sane and stop labelling every Federal and International body evil.
He talks a big game about freedom, but is queitly letting homophobe and xenophobes in important grassroots positions in his campaign. I think we want to be seen as sane, normal, everday moderate Americans. Ron Paul's campaign is bringing in the usual baggage that has kept Libertarians from ever gaining national traction, and its a shame. I don't think poker players should be lumped in that crowd.

Legislurker

08-21-2007, 04:14 AM

TheEngineer

08-21-2007, 04:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Worring about which Presidential candidate might or might not suport on-line poker is, IMO, a waste of time.

1. The no one beleives poker is such a swing issue with enough suport to cause people to cross party lines. I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she made this her signature issue.

2. The fight will be on the Hill for any favorible legislation for on-line poker.

3. Poker groups are doing NOTHING to show that they are any kind of cohesive voting block.

4. The current "leadership" of the poker lobbing efforts have, IMO, placed too much emphasis on lobbing with out proving that they can motovate us players.

I'm an old campaign hand. Yes I come from the "evil" Republican side of politics. But my heart and soul is grassroots politics. I've hepled moderate Republicans win in States normally run by the fundementalists.

It can be done.

But until we have some sort of structure to organize around, to prove to elected officals and those seeking office we are a group they HAVE to deal with all of these posts are wrothless. Letter writing campaigns have a limited value as well.

What politicans respect more than money are volunteers in their campaign offices. Volunteers do the work no campaign can afford to pay for, this is why the various organized groups have clout.

We can continue to fragrament out efforts and loose all chance to be a chohesieve group or pick one and move forward.

Just my opinion,

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said. I made a post here once where I noted that the 2p2 Legislation forum posters have a lot of drive, ability, and intelligence, but are constrained by size. My choices fo actions for our "Fight for Online Gaming" thread definitely reflect our small numbers. I do think the few hundred posters here have done more as far public advocacy of our position than pretty much any other pro-gaming organization, and I'm proud of everyone here who fought back.

The PPA has the opposite issue. They have a lot of members, but they've asked far too little of those members, IMO (the "IMO" seems gratuitous). I've been in some commuication with them over the past few months concerning things they could do, and I do think they are starting to see the light. However, if we want PPA to become the organization we want them to be, I think we need to post our opinions on their message boards and write to them demanding action. After all, we are the membership. Their forum is at http://webringamerica.com/4/pokerplayersalliance/viewforum.php?f=2 ; their email address is email@pokerplayersalliance.org . If we could combine our drive and their size, we'd be unstoppable.

xxThe_Lebowskixx

08-21-2007, 06:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
ACPW.org's Perspectives Weekly (http://youtube.com/watch?v=dNgBhjTih6g)

About 7:30 in, they mention someone by the name of Bill Wichterman, a top advisor for Bill Frist who helped get the UIGEA passed. Thompson recently hired him as an advisor for his potential campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

omfg, you guys are insane if you think ANY republican candidate besides Paul is going to better for online gaming then a republican candidate. if a democrat lead congress passes a bill to legalize gambling, it is much less likely to be shot down by a democrat president than a republican president. a matter of fact, the chance of a republican not shooting it down are 100:1. The Republicans are OWNED by the Christian Groups who own rural uneducated America. War = Moral, Gay Sex and Gambling = Immoral. It would be a political nightmare for a first term Republican president to sign such a bill.

xxThe_Lebowskixx

08-21-2007, 06:55 AM

don't forget that most of these groups thought GWB was too moderate for their tastes.

oldbookguy

08-21-2007, 10:25 AM

This is disturbing at least and in the best, bad.

We need to let the Thompson camp know this.

Contact:
http://www.imwithfred.com/Contact/Contact.aspx

My Letter To Thompson:

Sen. Fred Thompson

Sen.,
It was my hope your potential candidacy would be the saving grace of the Republican Party and the United States.

Sadly, having read closely your positions and becoming aware of your choices to head your campaign, it is obvious I was mistaken. Why? Simple. You are seeking to align yourself with closely with the Focus on the Family movement by hiring Bill Wichterman, former Sen. Frist Chief of Staff and ally of Focus on the Family.

Though I am a Christian as well, I am able to differentiate between my belief structure and the American Constitutional Structure. The two are wholly incompatible, the FoF beliefs that religious beliefs and morals should be codified into law.

Not all Christians adhere to the same strict tenants promulgated by FoF. So, simply by aligning yourself with this organization and promoting Laws based upon the FoF Evangelical beliefs you are seeking to establish a sectarian religious philosophy not endorsed nor followed by ALL Christians.

You and many of the GOP presidential hopefuls continue the mantra of the latest catch phrase, Federalism; I am a Federalist.

Your positions and staff however reveal this is but a ‘Catch Phrase’ and nothing more.

It is becoming more and more apparent that this ‘Federalism’ mantra is little or no different than the last manta, ‘Compassionate Conservative’.

I simply want a President that CAN and WILL understand; you are applying for a job not to represent a select few, but to represent ALL Americans. And remember, the job is only temporary at best.

XXXX

obg

Emperor

08-21-2007, 04:41 PM

The left has been very vocal about the influence of Limbaugh and Hannity. I've always been amazed that no one seems to mention Dobson has more listeners, ~30M listeners over 2K stations, compared to 20M listeners over 600 stations for Limbaugh.

Dobson's umbrella of influence is massive. I agree that it is very difficult for any candidate to ignore this, republican or democrat. ie the reason you had democrats talking about God in 04.

Legislurker

08-21-2007, 08:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The left has been very vocal about the influence of Limbaugh and Hannity. I've always been amazed that no one seems to mention Dobson has more listeners, ~30M listeners over 2K stations, compared to 20M listeners over 600 stations for Limbaugh.

Dobson's umbrella of influence is massive. I agree that it is very difficult for any candidate to ignore this, republican or democrat. ie the reason you had democrats talking about God in 04.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is ten years ago, Dobson wasn't political. Gay marriage mobilized prompted him into politics. Bush was his first, and so far only, candidate. Rush and Hannity are
political. Pure. Dobson is becoming that way, but they don't know he exists, or didn't. Ive heard tales about Democratic Party leadership who as late os 2002 didn't even know who James Dobson was.

No Party

08-29-2007, 03:08 PM

America was founded by deists and atheists who believed that our nation's government's integrity had to be protected from religion. Yes, they believed in god, but a great majority of them believed in a god who created the world and then abandoned it. Very few of them believed in the divinity of Christ, which must surely be the most fundamental and unifying belief of Christianity.

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - James Madison

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." - Abe Lincoln (not a 'founder' but a part of the foundation of what we have become)

"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites." - Thomas Jefferson

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. " - Thomas Paine

Many of these men attended churches, which has often been cited as proof of their Christianity. However, their stated beliefs are a much more direct indication of, um, their beliefs.

Other prominent deists:

George Washington
John Adams

This is a highly contentious issue and it really gets under the skin of Christians who want to believe (and who want everyone to believe) that the US was founded by Christians. The evidence is clear, however, and any other conclusion is as silly and unsupported by the facts as the belief that W engineered 9/11.

frommagio

08-29-2007, 08:29 PM

Thanks for a very well-written and well-researched post!

Cactus Jack

08-29-2007, 08:43 PM

Nicely done, No Party.

Amazing/scary how 200+ years later, they are still right. Those were some very smart cats.

oldbookguy

08-31-2007, 04:07 PM

In-case anyone missed it, Thompson is in.

He announced yesterday that he will have the 'formal' announcement on September 6.

OK, so, do we let him know, again, our feelings or wait till Sept. 07?

This will shake the GOP up some though (perhaps moving some wannabes out) and who will win is anyones guess.

obg

Legislurker

08-31-2007, 04:15 PM

I doubt anyone leaves for a few reasons.

1. They are all(except McCain) making money. They can DONATE
money from this campaign to friend's cmapaign when positioning for leadership in the House or Senate.

2. Huckabee and Brownback are in it to spite Romney. One may drop, but not both. They want the ChristaNazi vote, and can swing 20% if the other leaves. 20% on Feb 5th could get the nomination. Sad.

3. Vanity. All of them covet and enjoy the attention. They like being feted, wined, dined, and private jetted. Talked to like they should be the leader of the free world.

4. Anything can happen before Feb 5th. Most are in denial about being able to win. Except Hunter and Tancredo. Both are in it for exposure and warchests for powerbrokering.

I doubt more than 2 of the top 10 drop out before Feb 5.

tangled

08-31-2007, 05:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul talks about an unregulated Internet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRAcLPmq5M4)

While Fred Thompson is talking about The federal government regulating the internet. Ron Paul is discussing keeping it unregulated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul won't be President, and it would be bad if he was.
If he triggers a massive global recession poker won't be much of a living. The man simply will not come sane and stop labelling every Federal and International body evil.
He talks a big game about freedom, but is queitly letting homophobe and xenophobes in important grassroots positions in his campaign. I think we want to be seen as sane, normal, everday moderate Americans. Ron Paul's campaign is bringing in the usual baggage that has kept Libertarians from ever gaining national traction, and its a shame. I don't think poker players should be lumped in that crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]

The importance of Paul's candidancy is not in the possibilty of winning - as you point out, he is not going to win - but in the possibilty that he might do better than expected. If he captures a fair amount of votes, then someone that can win will likely want to pander to his constituency once he has dropped from the race. This pandering could happen during the nomination process or during the general election campaign.

There is potential value in that for us.

frommagio

08-31-2007, 08:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt anyone leaves for a few reasons.

1. They are all(except McCain) making money. They can DONATE
money from this campaign to friend's cmapaign when positioning for leadership in the House or Senate.

2. Huckabee and Brownback are in it to spite Romney. One may drop, but not both. They want the ChristaNazi vote, and can swing 20% if the other leaves. 20% on Feb 5th could get the nomination. Sad.

3. Vanity. All of them covet and enjoy the attention. They like being feted, wined, dined, and private jetted. Talked to like they should be the leader of the free world.

4. Anything can happen before Feb 5th. Most are in denial about being able to win. Except Hunter and Tancredo. Both are in it for exposure and warchests for powerbrokering.

I doubt more than 2 of the top 10 drop out before Feb 5.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you use the terms "Nazi" or "fascist" to label any person that you disagree with, then what terms do you reserve for the actual Nazis and fascists?

You continue to embarrass yourself.

Legislurker

08-31-2007, 10:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I doubt anyone leaves for a few reasons.

1. They are all(except McCain) making money. They can DONATE
money from this campaign to friend's cmapaign when positioning for leadership in the House or Senate.

2. Huckabee and Brownback are in it to spite Romney. One may drop, but not both. They want the ChristaNazi vote, and can swing 20% if the other leaves. 20% on Feb 5th could get the nomination. Sad.

3. Vanity. All of them covet and enjoy the attention. They like being feted, wined, dined, and private jetted. Talked to like they should be the leader of the free world.

4. Anything can happen before Feb 5th. Most are in denial about being able to win. Except Hunter and Tancredo. Both are in it for exposure and warchests for powerbrokering.

I doubt more than 2 of the top 10 drop out before Feb 5.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you use the terms "Nazi" or "fascist" to label any person that you disagree with, then what terms do you reserve for the actual Nazis and fascists?

You continue to embarrass yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have anything better to do? Or do you just stay in on Friday, pop a Cialis, and play forum police?

TheRedRocket

08-31-2007, 11:29 PM

do you think it helps the cause to equate people who want to ban internet gambling with an army who wanted to exterminate an entire ethnic group? You are being ridiculous and offensive. Please don't become a spokesman for poker.

Emperor

09-01-2007, 05:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I doubt anyone leaves for a few reasons.

1. They are all(except McCain) making money. They can DONATE
money from this campaign to friend's cmapaign when positioning for leadership in the House or Senate.

2. Huckabee and Brownback are in it to spite Romney. One may drop, but not both. They want the ChristaNazi vote, and can swing 20% if the other leaves. 20% on Feb 5th could get the nomination. Sad.

3. Vanity. All of them covet and enjoy the attention. They like being feted, wined, dined, and private jetted. Talked to like they should be the leader of the free world.

4. Anything can happen before Feb 5th. Most are in denial about being able to win. Except Hunter and Tancredo. Both are in it for exposure and warchests for powerbrokering.

I doubt more than 2 of the top 10 drop out before Feb 5.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you use the terms "Nazi" or "fascist" to label any person that you disagree with, then what terms do you reserve for the actual Nazis and fascists?

You continue to embarrass yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

frommagio, these are the same people who think the religious zealot Al Gore of the church of global warming should be running, ignore their hypocrisy lest you be trapped in a whirlpool of socialistic driven conspiracy.

XChamp

09-01-2007, 09:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]

When you use the terms "Nazi" or "fascist" to label any person that you disagree with, then what terms do you reserve for the actual Nazis and fascists?

You continue to embarrass yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do you have anything better to do? Or do you just stay in on Friday, pop a Cialis, and play forum police?

[/ QUOTE ]

Frommagio has a point.

TheEngineer

09-01-2007, 10:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
When you use the terms "Nazi" or "fascist" to label any person that you disagree with, then what terms do you reserve for the actual Nazis and fascists?

You continue to embarrass yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frommagio: Use of "Nazi" and "fascist" to describe those who would try to force their views on others is ultrastandard in the English language. For example, the "soup Nazi" on Seinfeld (the use of "Nazi" apparently didn't offend Jerry Seinfeld) wasn't trying to kill millions. And, when Rush Limbaugh (before being forced to completely sell out to the Republican Party in exchange for his continued livelihood following his OxyContin bust) referred to very militant feminists as "feminazis", he wasn't suggesting that they were somehow on par with Hitler (though some misunderstood and thought he was comparing abortion and genocide...some anti-abortionists have made this connection, so this was not entirely without merit). Rather, he was suggesting that they wanted to force their views on everyone.

From Wikipedia's "Nazi" article:

[ QUOTE ]
The multiple atrocities and racist ideology that the Nazis followed have made them notorious in popular discourse as well as history. The term "Nazi" has become a genericised term of abuse. So have other Third Reich terms like "Führer" (often spelled "fuhrer" or less often, but more correctly, "fuehrer" in English-speaking countries), "Fascist", "Gestapo" (short for Geheime Staatspolizei, or Secret State Police in English) or "Hitler". The terms are used to describe any people or behaviours that are viewed as thuggish, overly authoritarian, or extremist.

The terms are also used to describe anyone or anything seen as strict or doctrinaire. Phrases like "grammar nazi", "Feminazi", "Open Source Nazi", and "parking [enforcement] Nazis", are examples of those in use in the U.S. These uses are offensive to some, as the controversy in the popular press over the Seinfeld "Soup Nazi" episode indicates, but still the terms are used so frequently as to inspire "Godwin's Law ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law )".

More innocent terms, like "fashion police", also bear some resemblance to Nazi terminology (Gestapo, Secret State Police) as well as references to Police states in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

Legislurker: I understand (though I'd not personally use it myself) your use of the term "ChristaNazi" when referring to a VERY small subset of Christian fundamentalists who would like America to become a religous country, complete with scarlet letters, stocks, and public whippings for moral indiscretions. However, I think using the term to describe all fundamentalists is too broad, and it risks offending and alienating the many good and decent Christian posters who are here fighting with us. I know you don't wish to offend your friends here, nor do I, so perhaps we could all be more careful with our word choices. Surely "nanny-stater", "fascist nanny-stater", etc. would convey the same thoughts without offending Christians who don't believe poker should be banned. After all, we're only complaining about people who DO want poker banned, right?

Everyone: Let's all chill out and focus on the nanny-state poker banners. We put them on the ropes in the election of '06, and we'll deliver the knockout punch in '08. Cool? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

tangled

09-01-2007, 10:18 AM

Considering that we all benefit from living in a world sustained by the wisdom of Locke, Jefferson and Madison , and considering that our opponents are attempting to stop us from doing what we want in the privacy of our own homes with our own money -- I don’t think that saying that their actions are Fascist like, is that much of a stretch. Remember, they are the offender here. They are trying to tell each and every one of us what to do. That is going to, understandably , tee Americans off.

However, it is probably not profitable to call them names as their indignation will become the focus of the argument, not their intolerable intolerance.

Legislurker

09-01-2007, 10:34 AM

Its an apt description. This isn't FCC compliant. This is not a newspaper, mailed bulletin, or flier. This is supposed to be an open, authentic discussion board. Why take two sentences to describe a certain subset when one or two will do? Maybe you should go back to the schoolyard, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." I have enough that upsets me now, so from now on, much as I hate to do it, and never had to here, just going to put you on ignore. Your puffed up righteous indignation is rather sickening, and arguing serves no point.

TheEngineer

09-01-2007, 10:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Its an apt description. This isn't FCC compliant. This is not a newspaper, mailed bulletin, or flier. This is supposed to be an open, authentic discussion board. Why take two sentences to describe a certain subset when one or two will do? Maybe you should go back to the schoolyard, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." I have enough that upsets me now, so from now on, much as I hate to do it, and never had to here, just going to put you on ignore. Your puffed up righteous indignation is rather sickening, and arguing serves no point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me? I'm not indignant at all. You brought me into this by mentioning my name. If I hadn't responded I'd have appeared to have agreed with you by default.

Anyway, I merely suggested that you consider the feelings of other posters. Many Christians here do find it highly offensive to be compared to Nazis, especially when your use of this apparently goes beyond legislation of values.

If you wish to put me on ignore....so be it. Cheers.

DeadMoneyDad

09-01-2007, 11:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Considering that we all benefit from living in a world sustained by the wisdom of Locke, Jefferson and Madison , and considering that our opponents are attempting to stop us from doing what we want in the privacy of our own homes with our own money -- I don’t think that saying that their actions are Fascist like, is that much of a stretch. Remember, they are the offender here. They are trying to tell each and every one of us what to do. That is going to, understandably , tee Americans off.

However, it is probably not profitable to call them names as their indignation will become the focus of the argument, not their intolerable intolerance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well said! In any type of duscussion from two people to national politics it is often profitible to make your opponet's views seem extremist. BUT you have to let them create that fondation before you can build on it.

Because this is so prevelant in politics, you are often better focusing on projecting the "everyman" image of rational sanity mixed in with some common sense. Let you opponet get desperate and make mistakes.

What I love about this forum is the very educated, for the most part, opinions held by it's members and the passion that is evident in the posts. BUT that passion can and sadly to say very often does get overwrought.

We already have enough enimies to our cause that we don't need to create a few more from out friends. Remember in many forums there are quite a few people who read but never post. I'd say that ratio is significantly higher here given the welcome most new posters are given.....

D$D

Berge20

09-01-2007, 11:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This is supposed to be an open, authentic discussion board. Why take two sentences to describe a certain subset when one or two will do?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen this topic bubble up a few times over the past couple of days and want to comment on it.

Even if using the terms you use to describe a small subset of the opposition is accurate (and quite frankly, I think it is terrible word choice), somehow you continue to miss the larger picture. By constantly using words that look like broad personal attacks (on religion in particular), you alienate a lot of people who may be open to our arguments.

This isn't about "Oh well, person XYZ can't handle my language--too bad for them."

It is about working very hard to bring people together, show a level of professionalism in lobbying efforts and not be written off immediately by those in the political arena due to language choice.

When an argument contains such language that is perceived by a listener/reader to be harsh/attacking/etc, I believe that a lot of people will dismiss anything else that comes with it. You risk putting yourself, and by association--online poker legality, in a position that is viewed as fringe (just as you try to describe) and irrelevant by the language you use.

dorethawsp

09-01-2007, 11:18 AM

What I want to know is why our (the PPA) lobbyist/chairman is going on national TV and proclaiming his support for someone who won't be anything but hostile to our goals. Maybe he knows something I don't, but I doubt Fred Thompson will do anything to offend the FOF crowd.

DeadMoneyDad

09-01-2007, 11:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What I want to know is why our (the PPA) lobbyist/chairman is going on national TV and proclaiming his support for someone who won't be anything but hostile to our goals. Maybe he knows something I don't, but I doubt Fred Thompson will do anything to offend the FOF crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know it is a distinction without a difference for most people, and a politicans dodge, but D'Amto has said his support is a personal position, not that as chairman of the PPA.

Given Fred's views on a number of subjects including abortion I would not assume that he is controled by the religious right. I would also not assume that he is pro-poker.

As a "main-stream" Republican, whatever the F@$! that means these days, I feel he is about the only candidate who has a shot against Hillary Obama. Now what shot a Republican candidate has next year is another question. There are some serious people in the party for hopes with Fred, but until he declares and gets tested under fire all they are and will be are hopes.

D$D

XChamp

09-01-2007, 12:13 PM

I don't think you understand. I would much rather Legislurker called these people Nazis or Fascists rather than ChristaNazis. Why? Because he is using the word "Christ" in his insult, which is a very meaningful word to all Christians. I find it personally insulting and know many more that would as well.

Legislurker:

There are things in life that some people hold so very dear to them that they view it as being more important than their own life. Do you have anything like that? If not, then I don't think you will ever see my, or Frommagio's, point of view.

TheEngineer

09-01-2007, 03:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you understand. I would much rather Legislurker called these people Nazis or Fascists rather than ChristaNazis. Why? Because he is using the word "Christ" in his insult, which is a very meaningful word to all Christians. I find it personally insulting and know many more that would as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that's what I said.

TheRedRocket

09-01-2007, 08:34 PM

the reason using fascists or Nazis is ridiculous and indefensible is because these people worked within the framework on the current government to get a law passed similar to laws which outlaw dog fighting, using illicit drugs or prostitution. Are people who support these laws fascists or Nazis as well? Most reasonable people would say no, and using the term in the way legislurker while again being incorrect is also apt to turn many reasonable people off who might otherwise be supportive.

Do I like the laws that have been passed? No and I'll do what I can within the law to get them changed but I'm not going to go around spouting off moronic adjectives because I didn't get my way.

dorethawsp

09-01-2007, 11:53 PM

Not that I agree with the "christnazi" reference, but are you guys as outraged with Rush Limbaugh when he throws out the "femi-nazi" reference or do you chuckle? C'mon be honest.

TheRedRocket

09-02-2007, 12:19 AM

DeadMoneyDad

09-02-2007, 12:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Not that I agree with the "christnazi" reference, but are you guys as outraged with Rush Limbaugh when he throws out the "femi-nazi" reference or do you chuckle? C'mon be honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a previous listener to Rush I can tell you that having to listen to all of the air time wasted on Rush explaining the diference between all women, feminists, and femi-nazis, leads me to on the one hand agree with you only to a point.

The juxtiposition of those two words christ and Nazi just isn't one I'd try nor recomend. As someone who has worked in the trenches of republican politics I can tell you I've worked with people who the term had an apt and almost the same conotation Rush used in the femi-nazi example. It doesn't have the same basis of foundation and not worth the effort of offending more than anything you might gain from attempting to paint the picture you are attempting to foster.

D$D

dorethawsp

09-02-2007, 12:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not that I agree with the "christnazi" reference, but are you guys as outraged with Rush Limbaugh when he throws out the "femi-nazi" reference or do you chuckle? C'mon be honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a previous listener to Rush I can tell you that having to listen to all of the air time wasted on Rush explaining the diference between all women, feminists, and femi-nazis, leads me to on the one hand agree with you only to a point.

The juxtiposition of those two words christ and Nazi just isn't one I'd try nor recomend. As someone who has worked in the trenches of republican politics I can tell you I've worked with people who the term had an apt and almost the same conotation Rush used in the femi-nazi example. It doesn't have the same basis of foundation and not worth the effort of offending more than anything you might gain from attempting to paint the picture you are attempting to foster.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. Because you like right wing Christians, but don't like feminists.

DeadMoneyDad

09-02-2007, 01:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not that I agree with the "christnazi" reference, but are you guys as outraged with Rush Limbaugh when he throws out the "femi-nazi" reference or do you chuckle? C'mon be honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a previous listener to Rush I can tell you that having to listen to all of the air time wasted on Rush explaining the diference between all women, feminists, and femi-nazis, leads me to on the one hand agree with you only to a point.

The juxtiposition of those two words christ and Nazi just isn't one I'd try nor recomend. As someone who has worked in the trenches of republican politics I can tell you I've worked with people who the term had an apt and almost the same conotation Rush used in the femi-nazi example. It doesn't have the same basis of foundation and not worth the effort of offending more than anything you might gain from attempting to paint the picture you are attempting to foster.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. Because you like right wing Christians, but don't like feminists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong! You missed my point entirely. I have no more love or affection for extreme radicals of any stripe. Rush wasted way too much time, IMO, going over and over his distinctions to make the thing worth the joke/point.

I'm a self described "Jesuit trained agnostic." /images/graemlins/blush.gif

D$D

dorethawsp

09-02-2007, 01:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no more love or affection for extreme radicals of any stripe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure you don't. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Skallagrim

09-02-2007, 01:16 AM

I like legisluker's rants. amd I understand his use of the wording "christanazi."

Intellectually, I find it unfortunate that political correctness demands that you never compare a group's TACTICS with nazi tactics unless you can also substantiate that said group also supports genocide. The tactics of FOF and their ilk are very simlar to that of the nazis and to ignore that fact is to let them off lighter than is correct.

As to using the word "christanazi" as part of our public outreach, however, I agree with most of the previous posters: It hurts more than it gains.

But here on 2+2, I say let Legislurker go for it. FOF doesn't read these boards for advice, and cannot use legislurker's posts to attack the work engineer would have us (rightly) do anyway. He is, after all, just one poster.

Say what you feel here legislurker. But understand that it is not the language we want to use to affect public opinion because it does, as others have stated, give our opponents something to attack, where as respectful argument keeps them on the defensive.

Skallagrim

TheEngineer

09-02-2007, 10:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
the reason using fascists or Nazis is ridiculous and indefensible is because these people worked within the framework on the current government to get a law passed similar to laws which outlaw dog fighting, using illicit drugs or prostitution. Are people who support these laws fascists or Nazis as well? Most reasonable people would say no, and using the term in the way legislurker while again being incorrect is also apt to turn many reasonable people off who might otherwise be supportive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Passing fascist laws via democracy is done all the time. Tyranny of the majority is well-documented. Slavery existed under the Constitution. The McCarthy communist witchhunts were conducted under law. The internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was legal as well.

Prohibition was legal and constitutional, due to passage of a constitutional amendment authorizing it. This didn't make it right, nor did it make Prohibitionists less fascist.

Finally, Hitler and the Nazis rose to power under democracy, within the framework of the Weimar Republic.

So, it's certainly possible to pass oppressive laws within our framework of laws. Reread the definition of "Nazi" (common usage) I posted -- the poker prohibitionists certainly fit that definition.

Anyway, I understand some prefer we don't use the term "ChristNazi", and I won't...not that I have a personal problem with it, but out of deference to those who don't like it (and despite the fact that these folks have not asked nicely; rather, they ordered others to not use it), I'll not use it. However, I can't think of a group that should be offended by me calling Dobson a "fascist".

Legislurker

09-02-2007, 11:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I like legisluker's rants. amd I understand his use of the wording "christanazi."

Intellectually, I find it unfortunate that political correctness demands that you never compare a group's TACTICS with nazi tactics unless you can also substantiate that said group also supports genocide. The tactics of FOF and their ilk are very simlar to that of the nazis and to ignore that fact is to let them off lighter than is correct.

As to using the word "christanazi" as part of our public outreach, however, I agree with most of the previous posters: It hurts more than it gains.

But here on 2+2, I say let Legislurker go for it. FOF doesn't read these boards for advice, and cannot use legislurker's posts to attack the work engineer would have us (rightly) do anyway. He is, after all, just one poster.

Say what you feel here legislurker. But understand that it is not the language we want to use to affect public opinion because it does, as others have stated, give our opponents something to attack, where as respectful argument keeps them on the defensive.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I don't think genocide is a requirement, or espousing it, to be a Nazi. Their rise was, unlike Stalin or Mussolini, almost entirely bloodless. They didn't kill each other internally until the end. The Camps weren't public. They appealed to a group of people out of power and who felt outsiders, and frankly, were kinda dumb. German workers and peasants. Draw your paralells if you so desire.
They considered public opinion and how to affect it. They were the first 20th century sophisticated party. Nazi to me
has an element of ruthless, but more so one of insidious deception. Buzzwords and slogans. A gradual crushing of dissent and disagreement with propaganda, unquestioned loyalty, and demonizing bogeymen(Communistis, Poles, Jews, Roma, etc). If you look at FoF that is how they operate.
Gays are their bogeymen, and apparently now gamblers. God knows they constantly turn out books, fluff schools, tv shows, albums, and anything else to make a dollar. They REQUIRE action from the Republicans they back. My God they lined up every Senator they could to amend the Constitution over queers. Maybe 10 of them really believed in it, the rest feared him. God's law as defined BY THEM is what should be law. If you read and care about history, you know America is vulnerable to waves of pseudo-religious political
revivals. I think they are a threat, a fascist threat, and one to take seriously. If you want a better term for them, sit down for a couple hours and think one up. Snappy, snazzy, and maddening. I have no shame about plagiarizing.

JPFisher55

09-02-2007, 11:43 AM

They are religious fanatics like the Taliban. If not for the US constitution and our system of laws, they would attempt to operate the same way. So far, they have not operated like Al Queda. Well except for the bombing in Oklahoma City.
So call them what you like, they are religious extremist, like all the Muslim extremists. I wish they were not part of the Republican Party. And I will not vote for another Republican until they are no longer a factor in the Republican Party.

oldbookguy

09-02-2007, 11:45 AM

NOTE: THIS S NOT TO DEFEND THE NAZI'S, but a brief history lesson here is required.

Yes, the Nazi’s committed serious atrocities, it was not, however, their idea.

After the U. S. led battle in the Middle East prior to invading Italy, we ran the Mufti out of Iraq. He was the uncle of Saddam.

The German’s entered into the area in a deal with the Baathists (Iraq was one a Syria still is a Baathist country).

He fled to Germany. The Germans were in the process of expelling the Jews to the Holy Land, NOT killing them. As part of the ‘deal’ for support and hopes of turning things around and re-taking the Middle East the Mufti required NO expulsions, death to the Jews.

Yes, the Nazi’s committed horrible atrocities, in the name of and on behalf of the Muslim leaders.

In many respects, the war we are fighting now is simply the final culmination of WWII since we never finished then, defeating the Baathist, instead moving on and leaving that behind.

obg

JPFisher55

09-02-2007, 02:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
NOTE: THIS S NOT TO DEFEND THE NAZI'S, but a brief history lesson here is required.

Yes, the Nazi’s committed serious atrocities, it was not, however, their idea.

After the U. S. led battle in the Middle East prior to invading Italy, we ran the Mufti out of Iraq. He was the uncle of Saddam.

The German’s entered into the area in a deal with the Baathists (Iraq was one a Syria still is a Baathist country).

He fled to Germany. The Germans were in the process of expelling the Jews to the Holy Land, NOT killing them. As part of the ‘deal’ for support and hopes of turning things around and re-taking the Middle East the Mufti required NO expulsions, death to the Jews.

Yes, the Nazi’s committed horrible atrocities, in the name of and on behalf of the Muslim leaders.

In many respects, the war we are fighting now is simply the final culmination of WWII since we never finished then, defeating the Baathist, instead moving on and leaving that behind.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry but this post is completely wrong. Hitler was the biggest anti-semite of all time. He stated in his book Mein Kampf that he blamed the Jews for Germany's defeat in WW1, the Depression in Germany in 1920's which was worse than the US Depression and every other ill he could imagine. He also stated in his book that he wanted to exterminate all the Jews.
The Nazis were killing Jews from the beginning of WWII if not before September 1939. In fact, concentration camps started before 1939. The US invaded North Africa in November 1942 in an operation called Operation Torch. Truth is that US forces never entered the Middle East in WWII; only North Africa. The UK held Egypt and Isreal, called Palestine, during WWII. Syria and Irag were French colonies before WWII and were not largely occupied in WWII. The French briefly reclaimed them after WWII, but left by 1947-48.
No Iragi had anything to do with or caused the Holocaust.