Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

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

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

Yes, I heard this a few weeks ago and posted it here at that time. I looked around for public statements by Thompson but couldn't find any.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

Fred Thompson will say nothing about poker (if he and AD are really friends) or he will be against us. His possible run for the presidency depends on his appeal to the far-right moralists (who cant stand McCain-old wounds, or Guiliani-too many wives, or Romney-Mormon).

I would like to be proved wrong, good luck in doing so.

Skallagrim

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

The biggest obstacle I is see with the GOP contenders in 2008 is two fold.

The new ‘catch phrase’ among the GOP top tier (Romney, Thompson, et al) is Federalism. However, they also want to be in bed with the Far Right (FoF, Dobson, et al) and the two are mutually exclusive positions.

The right conservatives want to legislate morality; a true Federalist wants limited federal government preferring states / individual rights.

They cannot have their cake and eat it too, though they seem to think so. This mantra of federalism is simply the Bush catch phrase ‘Compassionate Conservative’ repackaged and we see where that got us.

obg

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

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

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ 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 ]

I completely agree and I wish that online gambling was the only symptom of this problem rather than a small symptom.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ 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.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ 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