[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
JPF,

I do actually agree with that label, as ridicule is a great rhetorical method *if properly used* (not overused). I just mean that beyond that, it is more productive to attack their side arguments which are flawed, and which after such rebuttals, make it clear that they are really only seeking to have their moral standards/views on gambling imposed on others by force of law. And the argument that we should be able to spend our money as we wish, just as do shopaholics, is also a better tactic than attacking the motivations of FoF.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Some people won't read the multi-page explanation of what's wrong with FoF, but they'll get the three-word version. The best thing is that it's not mean-spirited, so no one will get fired up over it.

It's like many elections in the past, where candidates debate the fine points of their positions for a year, but the election moves on who couldn't spell "potato" or who looked like a dork riding a tank. Too bad the writers' strike is this week...we'd have had a shot of getting that clip on the Daily Show.