An Interesting Conversation

[hollaballa]

I like to be as optimistic as the next guy, but it's hard when people in real high places are too confident.

This article is from February, but thinking much has changed is just wishful thinking.

Chances of legislation being overturned = "no chance in hell" according to the American Gaming Association.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/st...566626844.html

[JPFisher55]

I did not mean to infer anything about your beliefs. It was the person to whom you are speaking that brings up the fact that most people only care about a freedom that directly affect them that is so sad but true.
I think all the posters to this forum are in the minority on this point.

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
The US voting population consistently breaks down like this:

Vast majority does not give a damn about gambling one way or another (as long as you dont build a casino next to their house/neighborhood).

A sizable group believes in personal freedom or just plain likes to gamble.

Another sizable group believes gambling is dangerous (nanny staters) or sinful (FoF types) and should be stopped.

Its all about getting that vast majority to either go with you or to not care when a politician pulls a fast one to get the support of one of the sizable groups (thats how the UIGEA got passed - and thats most likely how it will get reversed, if it does).

Your conversation partner is simply too influenced by the success of the religious right in recent years; they are not the majority however, and their power is fading fast thanks to all the things their republican panderers have messed up over the last 6-7 years.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to depressingly disagree. I think that there's a totalitarian streak running through most people that causes them to have few problems with prohibiting things if:

1) They don't plan on doing those things themselves.
2) There might be some harm caused, somewhere, if this thing is allowed. Or, the thing in question is generally distasteful.

I think this guy got it exactly right on almost all counts. Most people couldn't give a [censored] about online gambling before, but now that elements of it are illegal, they won't actively support repealing those elements without a good reason.

[TheEngineer]

Interesting post. First of all, the opinion of an intern is meaningless with regards to Obama's position, as I'm sure you know. Many assume their preconceived notions are the truth by definition....no data required. Just read a few threads here for proof of that.

As for the questions posed by the young intern, let's look at the facts. First of all, gambling of some form is permitted in 48 states, and casinos continue to expand into new states. Some may BELIEVE that everyone hates gambling (for example, I'll bet everyone the intern in question knows hates gambling), but the facts say otherwise. I think the way we attack this is by proudly championing poker. Poker has come a long way in public acceptance over the last few years. We should keep this trend going. Next, we should work to win the 2007 KY gubernatorial election. This will demonstrate that an openly pro-casino candidate can win the statehouse in a Southern/Midwestern state, running against a rabidly anti-gaming incumbent. Finally, we should just keep playing online. Next, we should keep our letters flowing to Congress. Let them know there's a price to pay for taking our freedoms. Finally, always point out the Frank's bill requires age verification and methods for preventing compulsive gambling while funding treatment for the 0.4% of those unfortunate enough to develop problems.

[ QUOTE ]
With all the said, he ended the conversation saying that any politician will gladly bring all this up saying "we don't need more boken homes and broken people in our nation" or something to that effect. Applause would surely come from this and his potnetial voters will probably go up, sadly.

[/ QUOTE ]

The political climate right now is perfect for us, relative to this type of attitude. Few people trust the nanny-staters, and even fewer want government to control their lives.

[ArtieFish]

[ QUOTE ]
I did not mean to infer anything about your beliefs. It was the person to whom you are speaking that brings up the fact that most people only care about a freedom that directly affect them that is so sad but true.
I think all the posters to this forum are in the minority on this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I know. The point I wanted to bring across was that this guy was making some sad truths. How come there hasn't been more of an uproar about the government being able to listen in on anyone's conversation if they deem them a possible a threat. People don't care about their freedoms until they are directly affected. The average joe who does not play online is not affected. So why should he care.

Oh yea, and he def. did mention Opera or Morri or some other BS daytime show. He was a pretty down to earth guy though, he never was saying any of this was truly his view he was just telling me what the cookie cutter politician sees.

Anyway, i enjoyed reading all the responses. After that conversation I really started thinking what the hell can I do to contribute? I've done the basics, joined and donated to PPA, sent letters to my [censored] congressmen and so and so forth, but what's the next step?

[ArtieFish]

I posted before i saw your post TheEngineer.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

we may be able to play the freedom card

Did he actually use the phrase "the freedom card" or is that your way of recounting the conversation?

It just reminds me that even when we think we may be allying ourselves with someone who can help, they may have a completely different perspective on the role of government than we do (or the Constitution does)

[ArtieFish]

[ QUOTE ]
we may be able to play the freedom card

Did he actually use the phrase "the freedom card" or is that your way of recounting the conversation?


[/ QUOTE ]

He used the term card, I wasn't sure if he was trying to make a pun or not, but I kinda just ignored it.

[Skallagrim]

Grisgra, I too am appalled by the creeping totalitarianism that is present in modern America ... citing examples would produce a book, not a post.

But polls consistently show that when asked, the majority of americans believe it should be legal to play poker on the internet (around 70% IIRC). That same majority does not believe it to be an important issue.

This is where hope lies: once the politicians realize that the number of "anti-online poker votes" they lose will be offset by the number of "pro-online poker" votes they gain, and that their overall votes will be mostly unaffected, then they can do pro-online poker things and get away with it: like supporting the Wexler or Frank bill, especially if they see some money in it for them, oops, I mean their constituents.

Also, thanks to mostly the efforts of Engineer (and those who follow his advice) we can already see a number of politicians from a number of places (mostly the heathen northeast and the lawless west) who see that being pro-online poker actually gets them a few more votes (and money) than the opposite position.

Your words of caution are warranted, Gris, but we are far from losing this fight.

Skallagrim

PS - the guys who give the chance in hell are probably right so long as GWB holds the Whitehouse, but remember these are the same guys who predicted that the UIGEA would never get out of the Senate.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
Opera or Morri

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're just taunting us, right?