Bush's Big Bluff by Marc Cooper - Page 3

Cooder · #21 10-21-2006, 06:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I like it. Is this the guy that writes for Time?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's a newsie way out on the left edge of the envelope.

Click here for a Marc Cooper Bio

Grey · #22 10-21-2006, 09:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And by Bush he means Frist.

[/ QUOTE ]No- Bush said months ago that he'd sign a bill banning internet gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course he would sign it, lol. What, you think any president would NOT sign it? Take a stand with...internet gambling? LOL. That he said he would sign it (like basically every member of Congress) doesn't mean he pushed it, or had anything whatever to do with pushing it through. In fact, he didn't, and I'm sure would care less if it got done, like most of our nation. There was a small, select few who wanted this done, and it wasn't the "religious right", and it wasn't Bush. You posters' penchant for warrantless babble is irresponsible.

[/ QUOTE ]You don't have even the first beginning of an understanding of American politics. A President has a huge amount of influence over what reaches his desk when his own party controls both houses. When a President comes out saying he wants to sign something, it means he wants to friggin sign it. Otherwise he does not bring the topic up. Frist is trying to get the Bush team (the conservatives) to join him to try to get the '08 nomination (also part of why he snuck the amendment in). This is because McCain has the moderate part of the party locked up. Right now Frist will do absolutely anything Bush tells him.

candyman718 · #23 10-21-2006, 10:14 AM

"Frist is trying to get the Bush team (the conservatives) to join him to try to get the '08 nomination"

Not conservatives. The Religious Right.

Stipe_fan · #24 10-21-2006, 10:23 AM

Conservatives = Religious Right these days.

You are either far left, C=RR or independent. Years ago I was a tad right of center, nearly a moderate, but now I am an independent.

....and I like Cooper (who ever he is) and his optimism. But, if Bush permits internet gambling on poker, his whole voter base might string him up. I really doubt he does anything after the mid-terms.

Stipe

Grey · #25 10-21-2006, 10:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Not conservatives. The Religious Right.

[/ QUOTE ]In the U.S. ideologies are defined by their social (not economic) stances. 'Conservatives' = 'social conservatives' here. Otherwise known as reactionaries; always fearful of change. Otherwise known as what's wrong with humanity.

Our House · #26 10-21-2006, 01:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this scenario - if the US turns round somewhere down the line and says "hey - online poker is OK now - as long as its AMERICAN BASED poker"

The WTO will have a field day. And it wont be just Antiga. The EU will [censored] create havoc if this scenario occurs.

[/ QUOTE ]
The scenario has already occurred. It's in the form of horse racing and lotteries.

Why is poker so special?

Our government is going to do whatever the [censored] it wants to do regardless of consequences. They don't care what the rest of the world thinks. For some reason, they believe America owns the universe.

BJK · #27 10-21-2006, 03:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this scenario - if the US turns round somewhere down the line and says "hey - online poker is OK now - as long as its AMERICAN BASED poker"

The WTO will have a field day. And it wont be just Antiga. The EU will [censored] create havoc if this scenario occurs.

[/ QUOTE ]
The scenario has already occurred. It's in the form of horse racing and lotteries.

Why is poker so special?

Our government is going to do whatever the [censored] it wants to do regardless of consequences. They don't care what the rest of the world thinks. For some reason, they believe America owns the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what happens when the world has but one superpower. There needs to be a system of checks and balances on an international level, or our world is doomed.

JOHNY CA$H · #28 10-21-2006, 08:52 PM

"Shortly after the election, expect a rowback from the administration that will exempt poker from other types of prohibited online wagering. In the name of decency and defense of morality, the Congress — controlled by either party — will announce a strict regulation of newly legalized online poker. This time around, however, the gambling sites will be required to be onshore and taxed. And in return, the gambling entrepreneurs — most likely the same conglomerates that now own most casinos — will repay their congressional benefactors with a healthy campaign rake."

WOOOOOOOOOOWWWWW.

As a Canadian, I'm still gonna play on the offshore sites and beat up on the Euros, though. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

JOHNY CA$H · #29 10-21-2006, 08:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Even the monkeys that run the US couldn't be as stupid as to think they would get away with this blatent protectionism.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US HAS gotten away with more blatent protectionism than this in the past. Your operating on the flase assumption that the US gives a [censored] what the WTO thinks.

Copernicus · #30 10-21-2006, 08:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this scenario - if the US turns round somewhere down the line and says "hey - online poker is OK now - as long as its AMERICAN BASED poker"

The WTO will have a field day. And it wont be just Antiga. The EU will [censored] create havoc if this scenario occurs.

The US destroys a global gaming economy by making deposits illegal then turns round and legalises it for US-based businesses! Even the monkeys that run the US couldn't be as stupid as to think they would get away with this blatent protectionism.

[/ QUOTE ]

They wouldnt need "protectionism". Fish would flock to a US legal site and the sharks would follow. They would dominate the industry before you can say "fossilman"