Where's Our Statement

[Lawman007]

Mason will be issuing the statement as soon as he can find his way to his lawyer's office and back again, which should be sometime around the middle of next year.

Mason and his mysterious statement. Sklansky suggesting that we fund our poker accounts with cash sent through the United States Mail. WTF is going on at 2+2? LOL

[mpethybridge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not his opinions, it's the way he got his opinions passed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Artsemis:

I don't like the way the bill was passed either, but that is the way many bills are passed in our system of government. Also, whether we like it or not, the bill was approved by an overwhelming majority in the house. So it's very clear to me that there was virtually no one in our legislative side of government who was going to oppose it. So someone like Frist coule argue, and correctly so, that there was no need to consider this bill seperately and waste time debating it when everyone was going to agree with it anyway.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason:

Of course, a deceitful politician could argue anything. But the near unanimous vote was for the Port Security Bill, not for UIGEA. Indeed, UIGEA was appended to the Port Security Bill precisely because it was dead on arrival in the Senate as a stand alone bill.

Any suggestion that the vote for the port security bill implies support for the UIGEA is disingenuous in the extreme. No politician could dare vote against port security because it also outlawed gambling transactions. That was precisely the point why UIGEA was appended to what everybody in congress described as "must pass" legisation

[goodgrief]

I think it's clear that President Truman aside, you can be a terrific poker player and still know [censored]-all about politics. There is no way UIGEA would have passed stand alone, because it simply would have been endlessly delayed and ignored as a stand alone, as it has for all these years and beers previously. The Senate had real business to conduct, such as giving Louisiana its fair share of offshore realities after our many years of supplying and refining oil to this nation. Did the good Senator Frist attach a bill to the port security act to fund coastal restoration or to repay Louisiana for the billions in product taken from our state? That would be a no, Alex.

It is naive in the extreme to think the UIGEA would have been passed without Frist's intervention. Everyone can't be an expert on everything -- and now I understand why Plato was skeptical about democracy. Because even smart people, if they're focused on something else, don't have even a tiny clue.

Mason, I love your work but this argument is ridiculous. Do you see why?






[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not his opinions, it's the way he got his opinions passed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Artsemis:

I don't like the way the bill was passed either, but that is the way many bills are passed in our system of government. Also, whether we like it or not, the bill was approved by an overwhelming majority in the house. So it's very clear to me that there was virtually no one in our legislative side of government who was going to oppose it. So someone like Frist coule argue, and correctly so, that there was no need to consider this bill seperately and waste time debating it when everyone was going to agree with it anyway.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason:

Of course, a deceitful politician could argue anything. But the near unanimous vote was for the Port Security Bill, not for UIGEA. Indeed, UIGEA was appended to the Port Security Bill precisely because it was dead on arrival in the Senate as a stand alone bill.

Any suggestion that the vote for the port security bill implies support for the UIGEA is disingenuous in the extreme. No politician could dare vote against port security because it also outlawed gambling transactions. That was precisely the point why UIGEA was appended to what everybody in congress described as "must pass" legisation

[/ QUOTE ]

[DrewOnTilt]

Would somebody just shoot and kill this thread already, and put it out of my misery?

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
Would somebody just shoot and kill this thread already, and put it out of my misery?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this thread should never die. It should live forever..........or at least until we finally get to see that damn statement that we've been waiting months for.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact of the matter is that Frist has a point of view that is very unpopular here, but in our system of government opposing views are welcome. We just vote against them.

[/ QUOTE ]
1. If a person's views are idiotic, I would say that we should tolerate those views, but not welcome them. I think there is a difference.

2. It's not Frist's views that people are objecting to. It's his actions. He is using the threat of coercive force to prevent consenting adults from engaging in voluntary, peaceful, entertaining transactions with each other. That makes him a fart-knocker.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that those who call Frist a Nazi because his political opinions are different from theirs . . .

[/ QUOTE ]
The notion that people are calling Frist a Nazi "because his political opinions are different from theirs" is an easily testable prediction. If it were true, they'd be calling Jimmy Carter or Milton Friedman Nazis as well (since no person can agree with the political opinions of both Carter and Friedman). But in fact, nobody is calling Carter or Freidman a Nazi.

I suspect that the people calling Frist a Nazi are doing so because they find something about his political actions to be at least slightly Nazi-ish in some respect*, but that those same people could easily name ten other politicians with views different from their own whom they would not call Nazis. It is therefore not the case that they are calling him a Nazi simply because his political opinions differ from theirs.

____
*I'm not saying that Frist's actions are Nazi-ish -- just that the people calling him a Nazi probably think they are.

[jlkrusty]

[ QUOTE ]
It's really easy for me this election. I hate the Dems as much as the Republicans, and would prefer to vote Libertarian like I did last election cycle. Unfortunately, I'm going to be voting for Dems across the board this year.

Why?

I want gridlock in Congress. Get the Democrats in control of one side of Congress, with the Republicans on the other side, and only the most pressing issues will actually get passed through. No more of this "three men in a room deciding what's best for us" BS. I just want them to get nothing done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post! Agree 100%

[ericicecream]

[ QUOTE ]


Mason and his mysterious statement. Sklansky suggesting that we fund our poker accounts with cash sent through the United States Mail. WTF is going on at 2+2? LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

And don't forget David asking us to contact his second cousin for him. How bizzare is all this?

[uncleshady]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Mason and his mysterious statement. Sklansky suggesting that we fund our poker accounts with cash sent through the United States Mail. WTF is going on at 2+2? LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

And don't forget David asking us to contact his second cousin for him. How bizzare is all this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah its all bizarre. Like two dudes laughing at a funeral because they cant cope.

[j2zooted]

i was watching washington journal on cspan this morning and they were discussing the potential takeover of congress by the dems. someone called in talking about how voting for democrats was choosing the lesser of two evils, then claimed his support for the libretarians. he also voiced his opinion that cspan shouldgive more coverage to the gaming bill that the "fuhrer" would be signing later today. brian lamb almost hung up on him on the spot.

i got my kleenex box ready, feels like im about to go to a funeral.