Bush's Big Bluff by Marc Cooper - Page 4

JOHNY CA$H · #31 10-21-2006, 08:57 PM

Yeah, but how? the two super power thing led to the cold war. the 5 super power thing led to a series of intricate alliances that made the first World War inevitable.

What is the best way to do it? Therin lies the rub.

JOHNY CA$H · #32 10-21-2006, 09:02 PM

That being said, Bush is still a donkey's ass, and should be ridiculed at every turn.

JOHNY CA$H · #33 10-21-2006, 09:06 PM

Bush doesn't need a voter base anymore.

TomVeil · #34 10-21-2006, 09:15 PM

The two people who mentioned this before were right, but I wanted to chime in to agree with them. The first day that harrahs.com opens, it instantly has more players than Party. Americans will trust American companies with their money more than offshore companies. Add to that the media rush that you'd see, and everybody would know that it was fine to play on Harrahs.com! (They wouldn't mention the offshore sites at all)

Megenoita · #35 10-21-2006, 09:49 PM

Sorry, Bush was not behind the bill. A journalist can say what he likes, but he stated no warrants. Neither did you. It's all baseless assumptions. And if you think Republicans are going to run Frist, you're crazy. He's done as far as that goes.

Cooper says to "expect" a carve-out for online poker. Although that would be phenomenal, it's crazy to expect that. He's a little too pro-gambling to be trusted as an unbiased source, being a devout blackjack player and reporting in Vegas the past couple of years. Just like Cardplayer, things are going to sound slanted coming from him.

jrbick · #36 10-21-2006, 10:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And by Bush he means Frist.

[/ QUOTE ]No- Bush said months ago that he'd sign a bill banning internet gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course he would sign it, lol. What, you think any president would NOT sign it? Take a stand with...internet gambling? LOL. That he said he would sign it (like basically every member of Congress) doesn't mean he pushed it, or had anything whatever to do with pushing it through. In fact, he didn't, and I'm sure would care less if it got done, like most of our nation. There was a small, select few who wanted this done, and it wasn't the "religious right", and it wasn't Bush. You posters' penchant for warrantless babble is irresponsible.

[/ QUOTE ]You don't have even the first beginning of an understanding of American politics. A President has a huge amount of influence over what reaches his desk when his own party controls both houses. When a President comes out saying he wants to sign something, it means he wants to friggin sign it. Otherwise he does not bring the topic up. Frist is trying to get the Bush team (the conservatives) to join him to try to get the '08 nomination (also part of why he snuck the amendment in). This is because McCain has the moderate part of the party locked up. Right now Frist will do absolutely anything Bush tells him.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a reason Bush didn't refuse the bill, two words - "PORT SECURITY" -- I'm not disagreeing w/ you that he WOULDN'T have refused a solo bill at all. But he most assuredly was not behind the passage of this.

Here's a better slant to be taking: "Frist et al legalized online gambling for horse racing, lotteries, and fantasy sports. And Bush obviously had no problem with it."

At the same time this happened, protection for the rail system and other modes of transportation were denied being added to the same bill UIGEA was included on the basis that "THIS IS A BILL FOR PORT SECURITY ONLY." O RLY?

Beavis68 · #37 10-21-2006, 11:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The WTO will have a field day. And it wont be just Antiga. The EU will [censored] create havoc if this scenario occurs.

This means nothing.
The US already completely ignores everything the WTO says.

-Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

As does the rest of the world.

BJK · #38 10-21-2006, 11:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but how? the two super power thing led to the cold war. the 5 super power thing led to a series of intricate alliances that made the first World War inevitable.

What is the best way to do it? Therin lies the rub.

[/ QUOTE ]

you make a very good point, but the one place where I will argue is with the two super power thing leading to a cold war. I believe that The Cold War led to the two super power thing. However, that being said, I also believe that the world was a much better place during the Cold War than it is today. At least we knew that the Soviets were rational people dispite their many shortcomings, and even though they weren't really a force for good in any sense of the word, they did provide a system of checks and balances for the United States.

Tilt-a-Whirl · #39 10-22-2006, 01:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]

you make a very good point, but the one place where I will argue is with the two super power thing leading to a cold war. I believe that The Cold War led to the two super power thing. However, that being said, I also believe that the world was a much better place during the Cold War than it is today. At least we knew that the Soviets were rational people dispite their many shortcomings, and even though they weren't really a force for good in any sense of the word, they did provide a system of checks and balances for the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this quite revolting

AlexM · #40 10-22-2006, 05:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And by Bush he means Frist. No president would veto a bill based on that addendum; he has much greater things to worry about,

[/ QUOTE ]

He has greater thigns to worry about than the corruption and destruction of democracy through irrelevant riders? I really don't think so. Democracy > Terrorists. When we start putting terrorism before democracy, the terrorists win.