What % Of The Population Wants Online Poker banned?

[ekdikeo]

runner4life: who are we talking about? Get me the names, and I'll do as much of the dirty work as to finding out their official positions on things, as much as I can. Also, are democrats precluded from being religious zealots? I recognise that the vast majority of the vocal zealots are Repubs, but ... eh, whatever..

[Brad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
Please stop lumping in "Christians" and "evangelicals" with the crowd that is "down with poker".

I am a strong, right-wing, conservative Christian.

Obviously I am against this ban. Many people of my same creed and political beliefs feel the same way.

Stop pinning on us what a small minority is doing. Please. I'm sick of hearing my religious and political beliefs attacked because of what a few people did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen

[Brad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
You Americans should be a lot less concerned about the original right wing Christian origin of the pressure, and a lot more concerned that the legislation was pushed through in the most underhanded way without manifest political support for it.

You can't blame a lobby group for lobbying on an issue of conscience, regardless of how much you disagree with them. You have to hold the politicans accountable for the legislation, and to an extent the system which allows for such unrelated riders to be tacked on to bills.

Bill Frist's greed of personal ambition should be seen as the real cause of the legislation, not the lobbyists who had been against online gambling for many years.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is American politics at its finest. ALL politicians in the good ole' USA are douchebags. They always have been. Always will be.

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The religious bigotry is a response to the persecution that is perpetuated by these religous groups, who want to apply their values to you. Part of the evalgelical philosophy is to proselytize the masses. Who else does this to the same degree?

To confuse racism with a reaction to proselytizing is assymmetric.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well put.

[/ QUOTE ]

no it wasn't.
i hate the religious right as a political entity just as much as the next two plus two liberal yahoo, but when people start calling all evangelicals idiots and bad people it is going to far

[/ QUOTE ]

but they are. how is the truth going to far?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, no question about it.

And please, righties, a little Christian honesty here - it is false to claim that anybody initially posted that ALL 50 bazillion evangelicals are hateful. Nobody here is that stupid.

[walkertullaris]

I am not from America and don't know your political system that well. But sometimes when we hear something totally crazy, with the first thought is no way that must be a "urban legend". But when we hear it happen in US it is like ok then [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
That is both a good and a bad thing.


It depends on how you ask the question.
If you asked the qustion something like (Maybe not the best formulated questions but could not find the correct words since english is not my native language):
"Was it ok to ban online poker by sleasing it onto a totally unrelated issue?"
or
"Should the goverment be allowed to decide what activities performed in your own home should be imoral or not?"

Then i guess very few would answer no.

But if the question was asked something like this:
"Should the goverment help families where the parent have gambling problems by baning online gambling?"


My point is never trust statistics if you don't know the exact questions. You can proved whatever you like (almost) with statistics, as long as you ask the correct questions.


I have a favorite quote (i think Matk Twain said it).
"There are three kinds of a lie. Lie, Bloody Lie and Statistics"

[solucky]

I am not in the US but i think 85% are not really interested in this. The only reason to make it legal...yeah a few make easy money. If you see it outside from a winning pokerplayer.

1. no tax from the companys
2. young intelligent people waste there time
3. addicted ruin there live ( yes some people must pay our winnings )

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, loathing people who want to impose their religious views on others by using the power of the state is a good thing

[/ QUOTE ]

These people that are so powerful when it comes time to "impose their religious views" on the rest of us unsuspecting citizens should be stopped from voting so they can't use the power of the state, right? How do we segregate them to end their impositions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about segregating them? I just want most people to accept that it is wrong to impose a value on others by threat of arrest and jail (or worse) SOLELY because your religion tells you it is wrong.

Things do overlap, of course, some religious values (like 'dont steal') also make good public policy. But that is how they should be debated in politics, as good or bad policy. I am sometimes amazed that the extreme christians seem to be OK with divorce and adultry (both highly condemned in the bible) as non-criminal offenses. It seems on those issues they realize that putting people in jail for these "moral lapses" is bad policy. But putting people in jail for gambling is OK?

My main point is that you cannot make public policy based solely on religion. They do that in Iran, and from what I hear it does not work very pleasantly. We either have to tolerate different religious views and thus make policy based on reason, or we have to kill or subjugate everyone who has a different religion.

I think the choice there is pretty easy, and thats why I loathe people who believe that simply becasue their religion states doing something is sinful, there ought to be a law against it. Unfortunately, there are a good number of those people in the US (and elsewhere) and here they are called "right-wing christians." In the middle east they are called "islamo-fascists."

Skallagrim

[cmillard]

What does QFT mean? I have seen it on here a few times.

[questions]

Thank you, skallagrim - excellent points. I won't even bring up Wall Street.

[GoRedBirds]

Don't usually post here, but it's fairly easy to see that an innocuous population guess thread that digresses into both religion and politics is going to devolve into name-calling and accusations from both sides. Seems sorta silly...

I live in the midwest (albeit a liberal area of the midwest) and in my opinion, we as poker plpayers are way behind the rest of the country as far as support for overriding this bill. I think many of us relate to our environments, either in college or arround our logically thinking friends that we choose to surround ourselves with, and think that this is the way most people think. I need to look no further than to my grandparents, who, although just short of brilliant in many respects would absolutely vote for making internet poker illegal. There are large groups of people who are ignorant to the facts, not just because they are blinded by faith (I'm not saying all religious people are blind), but also because they knew that one guy back in '84 who lost his house playing slots. I think if we broke down the pop. into generations, we would see that the vast majority of people over a certain age (65?) wouldn't like the idea of using computer technology to throw millions of $$ around. Add on the younger generations who think it is immoral or a conduit for laundering or any of a number of other horrible things, and I think it's more like 60/40 against us. I'd like to see a poll.