Please tell me who I should vote for

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah too bad people are deceived by cheap jokes. seems like the Dem charge here is all newbies all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

If tenure here is the end all, then the to vote against Kyl is fine. Been here since 2002 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] You have been acting bad ass since you signed up a few years back.

In all seriousness you should know, length of time on this site has nothing to do with the strength of your posts and ideology.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah too bad people are deceived by cheap jokes. seems like the Dem charge here is all newbies all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, Republican operative, why did you respond to a joke instead of my previous question regarding your Pederson is no better than Kyl logic. Seems like an awfully Republican operativey thing to do, Republican operative.

If you do answer, please answer those questions specifically. Telling me for the 5th time that Pederson won't fight for us is unrelated to my question regarding the issue of future potential legislation by either candidate.

[cowboyzfan]

poof, feel free to take my words, yes "Democratic Operative" is effective. What questions do you want me to answer specifically? I am honest and fair. You are for a socialist, left wing, anti-American, party. That is your own business, but it has NOTHING TO DO WITH POKER.

I said I dislike Kyl, Frist, and Goodlatte, what more do you want?? The Republican party is split between traditional libertarians and Christian Right do gooders. Yet the Democratic Party is not split, they are for socialism, big governmet, and if you did not go to an Ivy League school you are an inbred. You stand up for Democrats that will NEVER help poker and will at best tax away the winner's advantage. The libertarians, those that believe in liberty, are in the Republican Party. Yes i admit you have the mojo here, but since I have worked on Capitol Hill I think i know what i am saying, hell I worked in the Capitol Building.

What it comes down to is you will win the popularity contest among those not in the know. But kyl will win and then what will you say? I think kyl sucks, but in no way is the Democratic Party for poker. In fact the most famous presidential poker players were Eisenhower (R) and Nixon (R).

For the last time, i am NOT defending Kyl, he is a jerk. But it is a lie to tell non voters on this site that Democrats give a [censored] about them. It is a Democratic operative lie.

[Poofler]

For time #12,649 I never said Dems would fight for poker. I don't think they will. I don't even vote Dem all the time. You grossly mischaracterized the party. It's like if I were to say the new Republican party is for war-mongering, civil liberities stealing, fear pandering, and abandoning of fiscal conservatism. It's just a string of inflammatory statements that would apply drastically different to everyone within that party, and wouldn't apply at all to many. Hell, I can admit Pelosi scares me. So does Ashcroft. But I'm not going to debate broad political philosophy with you, because neither one of us will ever succeed. We can do that on the politics forum. And working on the Hill doesn't make you infallible. I've worked for a Congressmen on the Hill as well. Does that make us both right? This is about poker, and my question was about poker.

I know you denounce Kyl, I'm just trying to get how you can state that having Pederson would be less helpful to us than having Kyl. Here are my questions again:

Kyl's has enacted legislation (not just voted) regarding gambling in the past. He expressed a desire to revise the wire act, which would be a far broader and more effective tool to stop internet gambling. It seems clear that he isn't done yet. In order for us to be no better off with Pederson, you logically must assume one of two things:

1) Kyl is finished with poker, and somehow without Frist, Kyl will cease attacking internet gambling.
or
2) Pederson wants to do as much to poker as Kyl has said he wants to, making both candidates equally dangerous going forward.

I can dig up cites if you need me to. So, can you support either 1) or 2) with some evidence? And again, I concede Pederson, like almost all politicians, will not go out of his way to repeal the CURRENT legislation. This is about future damage.

Let's call a truce on the flaming right now. No one here is an operative. No more side comments about the party philosophy, just logical comparisons between Kyl and Pederson for the future.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet the Democratic Party is not split, they are for socialism, big governmet,

[/ QUOTE ]

Kyl's biggest goal is to stamp out internet gambling. He has said himself he wants to go further and UIGEA is just the first step. I would rather have someone indifferent to online gambling than Kyl. Other races (other than Leach) I have no super strong feelings on.

Further Cowboyz, this probably belongs in politics, but "big government" applies to even the Republicans nowadays. See the budget deficit, see their intrusion into our personal lives in poker, I could go on.

I really wish the Republicans were small government, I know some are, but the overall course of the party has gotten too "religious".

[NorthDakota]

Personally, I would never argue your point about Democrats not saving Poker. Democrats... Republican... it doesn't matter... Poker isn't even a consideration for any of them and that is why we are... where we are... Poker isn't building highways or Museums for any of them... Poker isn't paying for the gas in their Airplanes... I get your point...

I live in a Red State with Blue Congressman and this year I'm Voting Republican(I'll probably lose my Democratic Operative Card for doing so) because I realize that the only way we undo this mess is to vote against those that voted against us... And My Blue Congressmen Voted against us... So I'm Red now...

There are larger issues in the world... And I really don't want to debate any of them with the likes of you (cowboyzfan)... I'm actually ashamed that I've become a single Issue guy because Internet Poker Is so Pale in Comparison to War, Education, Border Security, Taxes, Health Care and everything Else... But, I'm Forced to be single issue because Washington has made an issue of my game with Legislation and the only way to counter the legislation is to Band Together and Show Strength in Numbers otherwise we just bend over and take it... Money and Votes is the only thing any of them understand... If $16,000 Dollars from the NTRA can get a Carve out from Goodlatte... We have the same hope... And that is what it's about... Donating and Banding together toward a common goal... The Goal of removing Kyl is a longshot but the message is there... Kyl is our enemy and maybe we were not ready this time but we can and will be next time... That's what this is about... Kyl is one of the Evil 4(they just happen to be Republicans) and that is why he has been targeted... Even if we fail... And it may be likely... Any Politician will change his tune quickly if they suspected for a second that we could band together and fight... In 2 years if it turns out that a Democrat has picked up the leadership role in Killing Poker... Than I will be there to donate Money to bringing that Blue Guy Down as well...

For GOD's SAKE... YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON ON THIS THREAD THAT IS TRYING TO MAKE IT A PARTISAN ISSUE... We get your point... The Dem's won't help poker and they will let the Brown Guys cross the river enmasse... WE GET YOUR POINT... IT"S JUST NOT OUR POINT... THESE ARE THE LAST WORDS THAT I WILL TYPE IN YOUR DIRECTION...

Signed

NorthDakota
Accused Political Operative

[cowboyzfan]

poofler, yes I am willing to calll a truce. I could take cheap shots but will not, that is what a truce is all about. I know you believe what you are saying, I do too, that should mean something, we shoud be pals when you think of it.

I very much do not defend Kyl, Frist, or Goodlatte. I do truly believe that libertarians in the Republican party will stop the Christian Conervative types. I could be wrong, and ni many ways I hope Kyl goes down even though it is unlikely.


I want to be clear, I did say do not support PEDERSON because I thought i poker pac would be more effective. Hell, i think kyl sucks ass and will cheer with you all ifhe goes down. I just don't think he will. But i do think that big government social Christian Repubs have seen they are playing with fire. The Repub party of Goldwater and Reagan stands for individual freedom. That is what i stand for.

Look, we are all poker players, we are trying to deal with the political times we live in. We all want poker to be open to all that desire to play, I know i am for that, and IO think poofler is for the same.

[Poofler]

Ok... thanks for the truce. But getting back to the question, are you saying that poker is better off with Pederson in office or Kyl in office? All other issues aside, just poker. If your answer is neither, why do you think Pederson is capable of the same degree of future harm that Kyl has expressly stated he wants to achieve?

[Poofler]

Cowboyz?

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
I hear what you are saying. But historically, the Republican party of Goldwater and Reagan has been libertarian in philosophy. There are many Republicans that are conservative/libertarian, check out the Republican Liberty Caucus.

The Libertarian party is simply not serious and can not win elections. libertarian with a small l is a philisophy, not neccessarily a political party. The founder of the modern Libertarian Party supports Republicans.

again, we have several big government types in the Republican party, they need to be purged. But the Dem party is not even worrying about this, big government is their mantra.

[/ QUOTE ]

One can vote for the lesser of two evils or one can vote for no evils at all. The idea that a 3rd party can't win is both false, if you look at history, and a self fulfilling prophesy. I'm not putting forward the thesis that the Libertarian Party can win this election or the next. I'm saying that I'm going to stand up for what I believe in and vote for those that best represent that. If I have money or time to give to a political candidate, it's going to be to someone that stands with me. Maybe they'll never win. Maybe Americans will never get tired of being ruled by morons and degenerates that push policies that have never worked and never will. If that's the case, then they'll get the country they deserve. I'm not going to be a part of that process though.