THANKS U.S. GOVERNMENT

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It’s been 5 years now on my second successful attempt at quitting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should re-evaluate your first "successful" quitting attempt then.

[/ QUOTE ]

A person can quit and then choose later to start again and that doesn't mean they didn't sucessfully quit the first time. I quit smoking like 5 years ago, but if I started again it wouldn't mean that I didn't sucessfully quit the first time, just that I had for some reason decided the pros outweighed the cons.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Show me the quote where I say that the government should pass any type of anti-smoking legislation at all. My post is about hypocracy and inconsistancy. That's the issue. You want to believe I'm saying the opposite because you just want to flame somebody even if they agree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, if you don't see how your post implies these things you need to seriously work on your communication skills. If you're saying one thing and everyone else is hearing something else, you're the one with the communication problem, not the people misinterpreting you. The only real exception to this is if you're being direct and blunt, which you definitely weren't.

[Rubin]

[ QUOTE ]



I think I agree with you, to a point. Problem is cigarettes are really a bad example. Actually, cigarettes and alcohol are areas in which I think the government has done the right thing and moved in way that is more responsible. Smoking as dropped in the US over the last few decades by putting forth information on the dangers of smoking and restrictions on minors buying cigarettes.



[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, understand that i'm not talking about what needs to be "done about smoking". I'm talking about the way that Washington blatantly misalignes it's agenda with the needs of people who WORK and VOTE representatives to their positions. The government is trying to BAN online gambling. They site the "protection of minors" as being a prime motive. My contention is that cigarettes are the best example of hypocracy , because(in my mind) they cause the most harm to minors in our society than any other thing that is normally refered to as a "vice". The measures you describe are not a ban. Why no ban here? Because Phillip Morris doesn't run Party Poker. Meanwhile the UIGEA includes, right at the beginning under "congressional findings and purpose" an explicit statement as to whom the government is trying to protect: "(3) Internet Gambling is a growing cause of debt collection problems for insured depository institutions and the consumer credit industry."
Right there you have it in plain english who the law is passed to protect. Visa, Mastercard, Citibank. If Phillip Morris makes money, no ban. Again, I'm not advocating a ban on cigarettes. I'm just pointing out that there can be no clearer example of how, collectively, the government in Washington is of practically negative value. No health care/defense spending is obscene. No Poker(no personal freedom...) /Smoke it up kids(...unless there are corporate profits).

[Rubin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Show me the quote where I say that the government should pass any type of anti-smoking legislation at all. My post is about hypocracy and inconsistancy. That's the issue. You want to believe I'm saying the opposite because you just want to flame somebody even if they agree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, if you don't see how your post implies these things you need to seriously work on your communication skills. If you're saying one thing and everyone else is hearing something else, you're the one with the communication problem, not the people misinterpreting you. The only real exception to this is if you're being direct and blunt, which you definitely weren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? I already conceded that I should have been clearer. The focus is on cigarettes being bad so the assumption is going to be made alot, I see that now. I'm not in the habit of adding content to other people's statements so I didn't friggin spell it out, sorry. I honestly would not have assumed from reading it that somebody was calling for a ban on cigarettes. At worst I would have asked for clarification "Are you saying you think the Govt. should ban cigarettes or something?" like somebody with good communication skills.

[gamblerNC1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



I think I agree with you, to a point. Problem is cigarettes are really a bad example. Actually, cigarettes and alcohol are areas in which I think the government has done the right thing and moved in way that is more responsible. Smoking as dropped in the US over the last few decades by putting forth information on the dangers of smoking and restrictions on minors buying cigarettes.



[/ QUOTE ]
Because Phillip Morris doesn't run Party Poker. Meanwhile the UIGEA includes, right at the beginning under "congressional findings and purpose" an explicit statement as to whom the government is trying to protect: "(3) Internet Gambling is a growing cause of debt collection problems for insured depository institutions and the consumer credit industry."
Right there you have it in plain english who the law is passed to protect. Visa, Mastercard, Citibank. If Phillip Morris makes money, no ban. Again, I'm not advocating a ban on cigarettes. I'm just pointing out that there can be no clearer example of how, collectively, the government in Washington is of practically negative value. No health care/defense spending is obscene. No Poker(no personal freedom...) /Smoke it up kids(...unless there are corporate profits).

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I take it back I do not agree. I do not think that the people of this nation, inside or outside of politics, think it is ok to kill kids as long as the tobacco companies make a profit. I think most are well-intended people who are just misguided in their way to fix a problem.

Religious groups consider all vices a sin and since their god says it is a sin, they think it should be against the law. I am sure if they could, they would include smoking, and alcohol, to the prohibition list.

I think that if they thought for second they could ban tobacco and some how enforce it they would. They just realize that they cannot enforce it. The jails are already packed to the seams. America has the largest prison population in the world as a percentage of the population.

I think internet gambling was ban by the republicans only a short time before the mid-term elections to rally their most conservative base. Online gambling was just an easy target.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
I think internet gambling was ban by the republicans

[/ QUOTE ]

Internet gambling was "banned" by both the Republicans and the Democrats. Don't try to blame one party for bipartisan legislation.

[AzDesertRat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think internet gambling was ban by the republicans

[/ QUOTE ]

Internet gambling was "banned" by both the Republicans and the Democrats. Don't try to blame one party for bipartisan legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed--the only reason that it was banned is because it got mixed up with other forms of gambling, i.e. sports betting, etc., and didn't differentiate poker as a game of skill. Of course, Congress with its infinite wisdom said that horse racing and lotteries were exempt even though they are more of a problem than poker ever was or is going to be.


They didn't mention the millions of dollars that lobbyists for these groups paid Congress to carve out these exemptions. F%$$ers--I hope they rot in hell (if they believe in it) for that.

[gamblerNC1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think internet gambling was ban by the republicans

[/ QUOTE ]

Internet gambling was "banned" by both the Republicans and the Democrats. Don't try to blame one party for bipartisan legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bill was sponsored by a Republican, co-sponsored by a Republican. Signed into law by Republican president. It was attached to a safe port bill knowing that if a Dem voting against it they could scream the Dems do not care about national security.

trying to define that as bipartisan is not even close to correct.

[gamblerNC1]

The Republicans tried to push it through several time and were not able to. It was part of the ten points of the “Family Values” package that the Republicans promised the religious right.

It was hooked to the port security bills weeks before the elections to shore up support by the conservative base.

All of this is indisputable fact!

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2006/1...eorge-will.htm



http://www.pokernews.com/news/2006/1...ash-begins.htm

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
trying to define that as bipartisan is not even close to correct.

[/ QUOTE ]
Depends on yoyr definition of bipartisan.