Election: Kyl vs Pederson. Is Pederson a better choice?

Vee Quiva · #1 10-07-2006, 12:50 PM

I am an Arizona citizen and a registered Republican. I am one of the many that are outraged that Jon Kyl (R) has been one of the senators spearheading the online gaming ban.

He is running for Senate again against Jim Pederson. I went through the trouble of calling Pederson's office to see what his position is on the online gaming bills. A staffer called me back and said that he has not taken a position one way or another.

I was so disgusted by this answer that I did not stop and try and tell her why Pederson should take a stance against Kyl. After some thinking, I decided that it may be more beneficial to get some of the other poker players on this site to contact Pederson's office Pederson website and see if you can get him to take an official stance against this bill. I will try again as well.

Is anybody out there willing to give it a try?

AzDesertRat · #2 10-07-2006, 02:19 PM

Vote for Richard Mack instead--a vote for either candidate affirms that you believe in that candidate's and party's stances.

I have no faith in either Kyl or Pederson to get things done.

Ignignokt · #3 10-07-2006, 02:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Vote for Richard Mack instead--a vote for either candidate affirms that you believe in that candidate's and party's stances.

[/ QUOTE ]

After looking at Mack's website, I think a vote for him affirms that you believe crazy people can do a better job.

Complete repeal of the income tax and doing "whatever it takes" to purge/stop illegal immigrants may sound good to some people, but the fact that both are simply unworkable in practice should be enough to pass over Mack pretty quickly.

AzDesertRat · #4 10-07-2006, 02:39 PM

You also forgot getting rid of the department of education (I would say that should be the tip of the iceberg) and ending the war on drugs. If you take a closer look at his immigration stance, that goes hand in hand with the ending of welfare as we know it. If we end the handouts to everyone, we remove one reason why immigrants come here illegally and are so taxing on our society.

I know these are hardcore stances and not everyone will agree with them. I have no problems with repealing the 16th amendment either to force the federal government to shrink down. Money is much better spent on the local level and you don't have the cases of the feds blackmailing states with things like highway funds in the future to enforce a law which is better left to the states.

cowboyzfan · #5 10-07-2006, 04:45 PM

end income tax, end the department of education, protect our borders?...........hmmmmmmmmmmmmm this guy sounds freaking good to me [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Ignignokt · #6 10-10-2006, 02:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If we end the handouts to everyone, we remove one reason why immigrants come here illegally and are so taxing on our society.

[/ QUOTE ]

To really stop illegal immigration, you'd have to remove the single largest reason for it, but usually voters frown upon a government that causes enormous job losses.

Still, that'd be a fun platform: "I will outlaw all restaurants and hotels."

groo · #7 10-07-2006, 03:00 PM

I have been in contact with Pederson's office both before and after the legislation was passed. I have been told every time that I have called that his stance is that "Internet gambling is based off shore and therefore can not be legislated." When told this after the legislation had been passed, I inquired how this could be his stance since it had been legislated a few days earlier. I was basically told to go away.

I feel that they are telling us that this is not an important issue to them. That is our (his constiuents) fault, as we have not made it an important issue to him. So, yes, we need to continue calling his office and let them know that they need to not only take a stance, but they need to take a stance that specifically legalises and regulates online poker in the U.S.

tangled · #8 10-07-2006, 03:21 PM

I think its a lot to expect for a traditional-party candidate to openly crusade for our position. Even the two liberal democratic senators from CA. dont support our position. The fact the Pederson doesnt have a position is really a good thing because at least he wont crusade against us like Kyl. I know its probably too little too late, but thats still better than the alternative.

cowboyzfan · #9 10-07-2006, 04:37 PM

I do not support Kyl. But i get the feeling that many on this site who are political lefties are using the internet gambling bills as an excuse to bash Republicans. The facts are that liberal Dems in Washington State banned online gambling before this recent stuff ever happened, same with Illinois i believe. Liberals believe not in personal freedom but in goverment control. To blame all our problems on Republicans is a fraudulent belief. Here is a fact, if the votes of only Democrats were counted on this bill, it still would have been passed.

I agree the Republican party has a problem. The Republican party is basically made up of two camps, libertarians and social conservatives. The libertarians in the party are angry about this legislation, they want a smaller government, not a larger one.

However, the Democrats are united, they are all for a larger government nanny state. Even if the Demos approved of online poker (which they do not), they would tax it so badly that skill would no longer be enough to win.

5thStreetHog · #10 10-07-2006, 04:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I do not support Kyl. But i get the feeling that many on this site who are political lefties are using the internet gambling bills as an excuse to bash Republicans. The facts are that liberal Dems in Washington State banned online gambling before this recent stuff ever happened, same with Illinois i believe. Liberals believe not in personal freedom but in goverment control. To blame all our problems on Republicans is a fraudulent belief. Here is a fact, if the votes of only Democrats were counted on this bill, it still would have been passed.

I agree the Republican party has a problem. The Republican party is basically made up of two camps, libertarians and social conservatives. The libertarians in the party are angry about this legislation, they want a smaller government, not a larger one.

However, the Democrats are united, they are all for a larger government nanny state. Even if the Demos approved of online poker (which they do not), they would tax it so badly that skill would no longer be enough to win.

[/ QUOTE ]Most people here arent using this internet battle as an "excuse" to bash republicans.If the shoe fits,you know the concept,so sorry if people in your party have been the bulldogs in this recent attack on our rights.I made the assumption your a conservative republican,if i was wrong i apologize when i said "people in your party".