E-mail from Moveon.org

[AlwaysWrong]

It's wrong to view liberals as "weak" libertarians. I'm a pretty dedicated liberal, but I think libertarianism would be the quickest way towards ubreathable air, canals for streets, and mass starvation. But on the issue of personal liberties such as gambling or free speech, there is nothing contradictory between liberalism and libertarianism that I can see.

[BennyMac]

[ QUOTE ]
It's wrong to view liberals as "weak" libertarians. I'm a pretty dedicated liberal, but I think libertarianism would be the quickest way towards ubreathable air, canals for streets, and mass starvation. But on the issue of personal liberties such as gambling or free speech, there is nothing contradictory between liberalism and libertarianism that I can see.

[/ QUOTE ]

[tinhat]

GAH, MY EYES!!! moveondotfuckingorg?? Are you serious? I thought losing online poker was a nightmare but associating with the P.R.B. fruitcakes is just plain ghastly. Besides, from a tactical standpoint, aren't you losers like 0-for-everything?

Incidentally, what's a "movie party"? Is that where you all eat peyote, get stoked on Mi. Moore movies then race out into the street screeching and throwing leaflets everywhere?

[omgwtf]

Associating the legalization of poker with MoveOn.org is the surest way to convince middle/right America that Frist did the right thing and online poker should never be allowed.

Email them back and say "nevermind". MoveOn.org is the enemy of our cause no matter what stand they take. Everybody I know who is middle/right and who is sympathetic to poker would lose that sympathy if MoveOn was fighting to legalize it.

[cbloom]

You shouldn't really put "middle" and "right" in the same sentence, much less the same word.

Anyway, the ACLU would be a much better organization to take on this issue. Oddly some nut-jobs think the ACLU is somehow anti-freedom or anti-American, but those people are probably lost anyway.

[Gbob]

Just some perspective. The issue of limiting personal liberties cuts along both party lines. It doesn't matter if it's in the name of "social enginering" or "god's will", the results are the same.

Thetre are people on both side of the aisle who might support us. Just today I stumbled upon an interview in National Review (a far right publication)

article

The problem is that those who think they know what's "best" for us will almost always win. See the war on booze, drugs, gambling, sex, etc.

Personally I think it's that people who don't have sex, drink or gamble have too much free time on their hands.

[tinhat]

[ QUOTE ]
You shouldn't really put "freedom" and "ACLU" in the same sentence

[/ QUOTE ]

web page

[SoftcoreRevolt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You shouldn't really put "freedom" and "ACLU" in the same sentence

[/ QUOTE ]

web page

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely this one action that the group was considering for its board members completely discredits everything they have ever done!

In the end there are going to be liberals, conservatives and libertarians who oppose this legislation and each is going to go through their own channels because liberals don't believe in some libertarian ideals and vice versa. One group from one side putting some effort in isn't going to alienate the other side if that side also has its own support system.

[omgwtf]

[ QUOTE ]
One group from one side putting some effort in isn't going to alienate the other side if that side also has its own support system.

[/ QUOTE ]
Two problems here. First, the right will not have a support structure for online poker. At best we get sympathy and distaste for government intrusion.

Second, as illogical as it is/seems, there is a knee-jerk reaction to positions taken by opposing extremist groups. On the left that includes George Soros, the ACLU, and most of all, MoveOn.org. On the right it is the Christian Coalition and the plethora of similar organizations.

Right or wrong that's how people tend to react. For this issue we don't need to convince the left that online poker should be legal; we have to convince the right and to a lesser degree the middle. If MoveOn.org starts defending online poker, the right (including very moderate Republicans) automatically dig in their heels in opposition to online poker.

A few years back in my state, we had a ballot initiative to require the proceeds of assets from drug seizures to go to the school system instead of the municipality that made the seizure. This was in response to a city that instituted a policy where the arresting officer got a bonus equal to 10% of the proceeds of any resulting seizure.

I was discussing this with someone on election night, expressing how pleased I was that it passed. He immediately turned red, raised his voice, and said "That was put on the ballot by George Soros! How could you support that?" and it got worse from there. (It was true that Soros had funded a good portion of the effort to get the initiative on the ballot.)

Point is that some people and organizations have been so extreme that their presence on this issue can only hurt with the people we need to convince.

[Misfire]

As ineffective an organization as MoveOn is, I hopw they support banning poker.