|
|
#161
10-04-2006, 05:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Mat, David, Mason...where are you?
[ QUOTE ]
How many of you can say in all honesty that you would disapprove of the bill if you didn't play poker? [/ QUOTE ] I can easily say that. In fact. . . if they want to propose a bill to ban the Home Shopping Network, where my sister has donked off the majority of her family's money, I would be very much against it. We should have the ability to make good, as well as bad, decisions with our money. For the most part, the government should stay out of the way. [ QUOTE ] From Rasmussen Reports: Fifty-two percent (52%) of respondents to a recent Rasmussen Reports survey on Internet gambling believe this emerging betting medium should be more strictly regulated than other forms of gambling. Twenty-nine percent (29%) disagree (see crosstabs). Overall, 40% believe online gambling should be illegal and 41% disagree. [/ QUOTE ] Even with all the negative PR concerning online gambling over the years, 41% of those polled by the Rasmussen Group oppose making it illegal. I am quite sure, Mr. Sklansky, that NOT all of those in that group that comprised the 41% were active online gamblers. I do not see where on would HAVE to be an active player to have the common sense to be against this legislation. Thanks for the input, Les 
|
|
#162
10-04-2006, 05:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mat, David, Mason...where are you?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Unlike 99% of the world, I am not going to oppose a bill simply because it might be bad for me. It's like the atheists on the SMP forum who think it would be terrible if God exists. Their arguments for his non existence become suspect (but not those of the neutral scientist). How many of you can say in all honesty that you would disapprove of the bill if you didn't play poker? (Not saying I do.) On the other hand if legislation eventually comes down to showing that poker is a game of skill, I'll probably have more to do with getting laws to be what posters here want, than anyone else. [/ QUOTE ] Bizarre statement. [/ QUOTE ] I am confused??? What does this mean???
|
|
#163
10-04-2006, 05:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mat, David, Mason...where are you?
Why not send out a copy of TOP to everyone in the House and Senate, with a letter arguing for the game to be carved out as an exception.
If Mason won't give the books away, maybe the PPA can buy a cheap case of them. D.,
|
|
#164
10-04-2006, 05:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mat, David, Mason...where are you?
[ QUOTE ]
How many of you can say in all honesty that you would disapprove of the bill if you didn't play poker? (Not saying I do.) [/ QUOTE ] I can, I don't like laws that tell me how to live my life when it has no affect on others. As an example I offer this: Helmet laws are necessary because if a motorcyclist gets hurt the additional cost due to head injury is born by other people through higher insurance payments. If motorcyclists pushed through a law that said they had to pay a premium on top of normal coveage to the insurance companies, so only non-helmet wearing motorcyclists would bear the additional costs of their choice to not wear a helmet, I would not be for helmet laws. If they can show that online gambling has costs to people other than the gambler, and that lesser laws or regulations cannot contain that exposure, then I would support a ban. A ban by the majority because it is against their personal beliefs is not something I want from my government, regardless of whether the basis for the law is consistent with my personal beliefs.
|
|
#165
10-04-2006, 05:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mat, David, Mason...where are you?
[ QUOTE ]
Why not send out a copy of TOP to everyone in the House and Senate, with a letter arguing for the game to be carved out as an exception. If Mason won't give the books away, maybe the PPA can buy a cheap case of them. D., [/ QUOTE ] Youre better off (and it would be cheaper) to send them a ompendium of any laws that are supportive of poker being a a game of skill.
|
|
#166
10-04-2006, 05:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mat, David, Mason...where are you?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Unlike 99% of the world, I am not going to oppose a bill simply because it might be bad for me. It's like the atheists on the SMP forum who think it would be terrible if God exists. Their arguments for his non existence become suspect (but not those of the neutral scientist). How many of you can say in all honesty that you would disapprove of the bill if you didn't play poker? (Not saying I do.) On the other hand if legislation eventually comes down to showing that poker is a game of skill, I'll probably have more to do with getting laws to be what posters here want, than anyone else. [/ QUOTE ] Bizarre statement. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, most people vote with their self interest and are apathetic towards things that don't affect them. Others, like me, care about the principle and would be against this bill even without any interest in gambling, just as I am straight and in favor of gay rights, and not a drug user but in favor of repealing drug laws. But to show apathy toward a bill which does affect one's self interest would be bizarre. (Not saying you are.)
|
|
#167
10-04-2006, 05:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mat, David, Mason...where are you?
[ QUOTE ]
Unlike 99% of the world, I am not going to oppose a bill simply because it might be bad for me. It's like the atheists on the SMP forum who think it would be terrible if God exists. Their arguments for his non existence become suspect (but not those of the neutral scientist). How many of you can say in all honesty that you would disapprove of the bill if you didn't play poker? (Not saying I do.) On the other hand if legislation eventually comes down to showing that poker is a game of skill, I'll probably have more to do with getting laws to be what posters here want, than anyone else. [/ QUOTE ] No I wouldn't be opposed to it at all. Infringement upon global commerce, personal freedoms, censorship, and monitoring my financial transactions is really not much of a big deal at all David. ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR [censored] MIND?!?!? Playing devil's advocate is one thing, but you sound like a moron... Ban my account now or I will... Jerk off...
|
|
#168
10-04-2006, 05:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mat, David, Mason...where are you?
this is where we encounter the slippery slope--the social services, both in government and "private" facilities (like hmo's) are already in place. and we pay for them. and it has been shown that people don't want those services taken away. how do you go about unwinding that infrastructure so that the situation is as you want. that is, individuals alone take responsibility for their actions?......b
|
|
#170
10-04-2006, 05:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mat, David, Mason...where are you?
[ QUOTE ]
Unlike 99% of the world, I am not going to oppose a bill simply because it might be bad for me. It's like the atheists on the SMP forum who think it would be terrible if God exists. Their arguments for his non existence become suspect (but not those of the neutral scientist). How many of you can say in all honesty that you would disapprove of the bill if you didn't play poker? (Not saying I do.) On the other hand if legislation eventually comes down to showing that poker is a game of skill, I'll probably have more to do with getting laws to be what posters here want, than anyone else. [/ QUOTE ] David, Are you asking if non-poker players would disagree with this bill's passage, or ACTIVELY OPPOSE IT as many of those in this forum have done? There's obviously a difference. I don't smoke pot. I've never picked up a hooker, and my wife would be horrified if I did. But I would actively support legislation to legalize both, given my strong preference for personal liberties in this country.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
