|
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ 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. |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ 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. |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ 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. |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
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........ |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ 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. |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ 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 |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
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 |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ 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. |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
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.
|
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ 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 |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
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. |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone but Hillary. [/ QUOTE ] According to the latest polls.. 52% of the nation feels the same way. |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [/ 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......... |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
Fred: 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. |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
As is pointed out in this article (Thompson Sparse on Policy Positions), 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. |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
For those interested in more on Fred Thompson, he will be live on CNN today at 4:00 (or there abouts). obg |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
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?
|
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
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. |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ 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. |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ 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. |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
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." |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ 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. |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ 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. |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
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? |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
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 |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
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.
|
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
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 |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
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. |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
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. |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ 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. |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ 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. |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ 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 ] |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ 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. |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ 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?). |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ 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. |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ 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. |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
It's got nothing to do with my viewpoint. I simply thought the post in question was fine.
|
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ 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. |
Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
[ 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. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.