|
|
#41
09-02-2006, 01:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The chances of the bill passing are getting BETTER every day.
[ QUOTE ]
I am hard pressed to come up with a convincing media story that has near the impact that these ruined college kids ones have. [/ QUOTE ] Chris Moneymaker. 
|
|
#42
09-02-2006, 08:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The chances of the bill passing are getting BETTER every day.
[ QUOTE ]
what i'm wondering is this....let's say they don't vote on this in october.does that mean its done with? i also heard there was something called a lame duck session.how many days is a lame duck session? are the chances good of it coming up during a lame duck session? [/ QUOTE ] do a username search for my posts the last 2 weeks. You will find answers to both questions.
|
|
#43
09-09-2006, 12:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: at this point in time what are the chances of the bill passing?
with two different ceo getting arrested this makes me wonder if that makes the chances of this bill passing a little higher.hopefully the senate will stay very busy with other stuff that this doesn't get voted on or brought up.
|
|
#44
09-09-2006, 10:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The chances of the bill passing are getting BETTER every day.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I am hard pressed to come up with a convincing media story that has near the impact that these ruined college kids ones have. [/ QUOTE ] Chris Moneymaker. [/ QUOTE ] Sure, neat story...but for a policy maker I don't think a guy winning the big tourny as an internet qualifier is any counter justification for a kid losing his shirt.
|
|
#45
09-09-2006, 10:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The chances of the bill passing are getting BETTER every day.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I am hard pressed to come up with a convincing media story that has near the impact that these ruined college kids ones have. [/ QUOTE ] Chris Moneymaker. [/ QUOTE ] Sure, neat story...but for a policy maker I don't think a guy winning the big tourny as an internet qualifier is any counter justification for a kid losing his shirt. [/ QUOTE ] especially as moneymaker had huge gambling problems himself!
|
|
#46
09-09-2006, 12:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The chances of the bill passing are getting BETTER every day.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I am hard pressed to come up with a convincing media story that has near the impact that these ruined college kids ones have. [/ QUOTE ] Chris Moneymaker. [/ QUOTE ] Sure, neat story...but for a policy maker I don't think a guy winning the big tourny as an internet qualifier is any counter justification for a kid losing his shirt. [/ QUOTE ] This is exactly the reason that I think people are going at this from the wrong viewpoint. Freedom means the freedom to do things you want to do, EVEN IF some people may harm themselves by doing so. Why do we NEED amusement parks? Why shouldn't they be illegal. At least one child has died on a ride, is the small amount of fun that someone may have riding a roller coaster really worth a life? Obviously the above sounds silly. Of course people feel they should be able to go to an amusement park even with the inherent risks. Poker needs the same analogy. Actually poker is even safer. The kid at the amusement park had no control over whether or not that ride was going to hurt him. People playing poker have total control over whether they will let it destroy thier lives. (You can argue they don't, but that's a different matter and makes us not responsible for anything we do) If you base everythings legality off if it is good for society vs. bad for society you could justify making almost everything illegal. <-- The Republicans and Religious Right LOVE when we get into these debates we have ZERO chance of winning. Because they using this tactic can make ANYTHING illegal. Who cares about freedom? Save the kids!!! In the words on Penn and Teller I call B***S***!! There's another element here, enjoyment. People want to enjoy thier lives, poker is one way that people do that. Some drink alcohol, some mountain climb (also dangerous and provides no benefit to society).
|
|
#48
09-09-2006, 04:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The chances of the bill passing are getting BETTER every day.
[ QUOTE ]
The media has no interest in promoting anything from a "freedom" angle. That just won't happen in the MM. [/ QUOTE ] Sadly, I believe you are correct. But us trying to prove poker should be legal because it is good for society is hopeless.
|
|
#49
09-09-2006, 07:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The chances of the bill passing are getting BETTER every day.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The media has no interest in promoting anything from a "freedom" angle. That just won't happen in the MM. [/ QUOTE ] Sadly, I believe you are correct. But us trying to prove poker should be legal because it is good for society is hopeless. [/ QUOTE ] Perhaps...but neither alchohol nor cigs are, but I can booze up and smoke till I get a pickled liver and cancered lungs. They may say it till they turn blue in the face, but it is not about saving the children. This issue is about money and politics and not about a logical, sound resolution. Politicians are known to ride the current popular tide and make those they consider most important happy; how else do they get reelected? Also most people, including those in the media, are retarded about gambling. The only time journalists care about gambling is when their rights are threatened (e.g. freedom of speech per the WA state anti-gambling law). Self interest, baby! Gotta love human behavior! You just have to look from the right angle to see what where the motiviations are skewed.
|
|
#50
09-10-2006, 06:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why I\'m not all that worried
The thing to remember about the poker ban is the "river of support" is wide, but not terribly deep; i.e. many are in favor but few care enough to make it a priority.
That affects how we prevent it from passing. I think that writing to Senators to persuade them to change their votes is doomed to faliure: either because too many favor the ban or at least feel it politically expedient to be seen as in favor of it. The best hope of shooting this down is what financial institutions have been doing: show how the enforcement procedeures are burdensome and/or unworkable, and get "permissable" gaming interests to complain about the nature of the carve-outs therein. Give the Senate a good reason to let this bill die without a vote, because if it reaches the floor, it'll pass. Not to get this post redirected to "politics," but it's beginning to get to me how conservatives, whose mantra used to be "we're against big, intrusive government," are happy to sell out this concept in a minute if it furthers their interest. Not just gambling, but right to die, war on drugs and a dozen other things I'm not even going to mention, they seem totally unphazed by being all for government intrusion. I'd have a lot more respect if they'd apply their deeply held principles across the board.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
