|
|
#61
11-15-2007, 06:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: CNN Article putting Poker in a more positive light, highlighting s
-Edited out the call for Jay Cohen to clarify WTO position on state opt outs, because he answered it before I could ask him to.
On your other point we are not really in disagreement except that I am more optimistic about what the PPA can accomplish, especially in light of their recent efforts and successes, but your time frames are not that far from mine (excluding WTO forcing something) - I see/hope that Wexler gets through end of 08 or early 09 to be signed by the new Democratic President, after an election we have some influence on. I dont see anything good happening while Bush remains in office, though, unless the WTO sets a truly staggering price - otherwise its too easy for him to punt it till when he is gone. And, of course, all of your hope for an earlier result depends on the WTO setting that staggering price - I can only hope that occurs. I am not willing to give up other efforts in the meantime, just because it may not. A Democratic Congress still approves 300+ billion a year for a war 70% of Americans want out of. A few billion to maintain our current gambling laws pales in comparison. Skallagrim 
|
|
#63
11-15-2007, 06:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: CNN Article putting Poker in a more positive light, highlighting s
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] ... Foe of Fun ... [/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] I started calling them Foes of Fun, along with the reason, on a conservative site. Hopefully it will catch on. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
|
#64
11-15-2007, 06:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: CNN Article putting Poker in a more positive light, highlighting s
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] ... Foe of Fun ... [/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] I started calling them Foes of Fun, along with the reason, on a conservative site. Hopefully it will catch on. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Agreed, "Foes of Fun" from here on [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] .
|
|
#65
11-15-2007, 06:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: CNN Article putting Poker in a more positive light, highlighting s
Here's the post:
FoF = Foes of Fun The social cons are going too far in the advocacy of big government to force their vision of what America should be. The latest assault on our freedoms, of course, was UIGEA, a bill that purported to ban Internet gaming. Focus on the Family has pushed hard for a national gaming prohibition, of course, because they think our values come from D.C. Like the mullahs in Iran, they look to government to strip us of our freedoms. Yesterday, a House committee held a hearing on Internet poker, at http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=396 (click "video webcast). An amusing dialog occurred between FoF's Tom McClusky and Rep. Steven Cohen of Tennessee (at around 3:33:45 of the video): [following McClusky's advocacy of a total gaming prohibition in the U.S.] Rep. Steven Cohen: Is there any fun that you’re for? [laughter in background] Tom McClusky: Any what? Rep. Steven Cohen: Fun. Tom McClusky: Umm...well, we’re for this, and this seems like a lot of fun. Rep. Steven Cohen: Hearings? Tom McClusky: [no response...laughter in background] Rep. Steven Cohen: Good, good. I'll start calling FoF Foes of Fun! LOL. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
|
#66
11-15-2007, 07:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: CNN Article putting Poker in a more positive light, highlighting s
The good news is that we will know what the WTO will within 90 days and probably sooner. Somehow I think that the panel decision on the request for sanctions by Antiqua will leak out before Christmas.
Anyone think that the WTO decision and the iMEGA ruling come out about the same time and mirror each other, just speculating not predicting?
|
|
#67
11-15-2007, 11:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: CNN Article putting Poker in a more positive light, highlighting s
[ QUOTE ]
. . despite all this work, poker's best hope is still having its water carried by sports-betting. . . grab a bucket and start carrying. Start with a highly publisized rally on Capitol Hill.. . . More sports bettors would be willing AND able to donate and act politically as they tend to be older and wealthier. . . money talks, actions talk louder.. BS walks.. . . . [/ QUOTE ] Tuff
|
|
#68
11-15-2007, 11:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: CNN Article putting Poker in a more positive light, highlighting s
Engineer et al.,
Glad you're having fun with Foes of Fun. However I would like to say, as I have in the past, that it's a lot more productive to our cause to attack the baseless arguments of our FOF foes, than to attack directly their organizations or motivations. We don't want them to thus be able to energize their own base by claiming we are attacking moral values. Rather, by demonstrating the flaws in their arguments, we will de-energize their base. attacking stupid arguments > attacking the stupid arguer
|
|
#69
11-16-2007, 12:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: CNN Article putting Poker in a more positive light, highlighting s
Calling FOF, Foes of Fun, does attack their arguments. It implies that they oppose gambling for the sole reason that they do not like it and not for any other real reason.
|
|
#70
11-16-2007, 12:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: CNN Article putting Poker in a more positive light, highlighting s
JPF,
I do actually agree with that label, as ridicule is a great rhetorical method *if properly used* (not overused). I just mean that beyond that, it is more productive to attack their side arguments which are flawed, and which after such rebuttals, make it clear that they are really only seeking to have their moral standards/views on gambling imposed on others by force of law. And the argument that we should be able to spend our money as we wish, just as do shopaholics, is also a better tactic than attacking the motivations of FoF.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
