Let's Organize

[gamblerNC1]

It's a nice addition to other good arguments for poker, like the game of skill, and popularity with the voters, and huge additional tax revenues.

Let us take your argument step by step.

Poker is a game of skill, but sports bettors could just as easily argue that so is their endeavor. Many sports bettors spend hours crunching the numbers and analyzing the teams they are going to bet on.

Popularity of poker has never been higher, but we are still a small number when compared to sports bettor and pot smokers. Yes, many have played in casual games and still do. If fact, the republicans who pushed this law through, were reported to often play poker with lobbyist. That did not stop them from pushing through this law. I suspect many have smoked pot as well and bet on ball games. They do not care. Those who have pushed hardest for prohibition in most areas have indulged themselves in the very thing they prohibit us from doing.

Tax revenue? This is funny to think we can push through poker on this issue. Compared with the billions wagered on sports betting and spent on pot in this county, poker is nothing.

It is not a coincidence that Europe, which still allows online gambling, has the most liberal laws on other social issues. I wish you luck in this, as I want nothing more than a return of online poker, but I think these arguments do not resonate with the average American voter, while personal liberties and the folly of prohibition do.

[YoDuff]

Your logic is flawed and contradicting.

[ QUOTE ]
but if we as poker players scream for our rights while ignoring other rights, than I
think we are sure to fail.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
the issue is, and should be, that prohibition does not work, period.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I assure you that pot smoker are for more advanced in the political arena than poker players. They have been able to pass laws decimalizing pot in 11 states and passing the medical issue in even more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. How did they manage to do that while "ignoring other rights"? By your logic, by them "ignoring other rights" they were sure to fail. Why didn’t they ask the crack smokers and cocaine sniffers to join them? Should we be pissed that they left us out? They should have gone after “prohibition”. “Period”.

You imply that tackling everything at once is the best possible way of getting any one thing done. Very illogical. That’s the problem with your Libertarian party. Speaking of which, that’s what I meant by your agenda.

[ QUOTE ]
Most of us did not support the Libertarian party

[/ QUOTE ]

No we didn’t. First of all, we don’t all agree with a lot in the Libertarian platform. (don’t take that as a reason to go on and on about how great you think it is and why we should all be Libertarians. 1. spare us, 2. This is not the place for it). Secondly, most of us are logical and can plainly see that it’s a complete waste of our vote. Even worse, it benefits the party that we dislike the most by taking a vote away from the contending party that would otherwise get our vote. The party itself is a perfect example of why tackling everything at once will never work.

Now go ahead and throw a bunch of other illogic at us. I’m not going to keep pointing out the obvious. Your agenda is different than most of us. Our priority is online poker (it’s mine, and I’m fairly confident it is also the top priority for most folks here). Yours is the Libertarian platform. Good luck with that.

[gamblerNC1]

Maybe we can continue this later but I have to go play poker tonight on a cruise to nowhere. That is until the Republicans ban that also. Of course, it is not internet poker and you do not play there, so why would you care? Or maybe you feel that poker is different, but it is ok with you if they ban craps, slots, and the rest of the table games since you do not play them?