Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ 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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ 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

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

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

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
VOTE RON PAUL

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ 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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ 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? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Probobly that "quick reply".

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 ]

I'm typing one-handed today.... Torn Pec

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

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

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. My other arm is in a sling.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ 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?

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ 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 for an example.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

From 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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ 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".

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ 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!

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ 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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ 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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ 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"

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

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ 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, you'll note most of our opposition comes from the Bible Belt:

[ QUOTE ]
8/5 Update, by Region:

<font color="white">.....................</font> With Us<font color="white">.....</font>Neutral/Unknown<font color="white">.....</font>Against us
Northeast<font color="white">............</font>40%<font color="white">.....................</font>49%<font color="white">..................</font>11%
West<font color="white">...................</font>41%<font color="white">.....................</font>41%<font color="white">..................</font>18%
Midwest<font color="white">..............</font>25%<font color="white">.....................</font>45%<font color="white">..................</font>30%
Territories<font color="white">............</font>25%<font color="white">.....................</font>25%<font color="white">..................</font>50%
South<font color="white">..................</font>18%<font color="white">.....................</font>34%<font color="white">..................</font>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/x...ingSupport.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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

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

obg

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ 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 &gt;= 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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ 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 &gt;= 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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

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

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

Scandal puts spotlight on Christian law school Grads influential in Justice Dept

[ 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 ]

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ 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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Scandal puts spotlight on Christian law school Grads influential in Justice Dept

[ 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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ 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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

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

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

We could just have the thread locked.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

4_2_it, where are you man?

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ 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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ 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.