Fred Thompson for Poker?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot be brought around to vote for the party* of Goodlatte and Abramoff (about the latter: B&M casinos drive the anti-online gambling in part).

[/ QUOTE ]

The B&M casinos would prefer to keep out the competition, no doubt. I agree they're part of the problem. In fact, I initially suspected that was a bigger player. However, the data seems to indicate that the primary driver is groups like FoF.

If you check out Early House Report Card, you'll note most of our opposition comes from the Bible Belt:

[ QUOTE ]
8/5 Update, by Region:

<font color="white">.....................</font> With Us<font color="white">.....</font>Neutral/Unknown<font color="white">.....</font>Against us
Northeast<font color="white">............</font>40%<font color="white">.....................</font>49%<font color="white">..................</font>11%
West<font color="white">...................</font>41%<font color="white">.....................</font>41%<font color="white">..................</font>18%
Midwest<font color="white">..............</font>25%<font color="white">.....................</font>45%<font color="white">..................</font>30%
Territories<font color="white">............</font>25%<font color="white">.....................</font>25%<font color="white">..................</font>50%
South<font color="white">..................</font>18%<font color="white">.....................</font>34%<font color="white">..................</font>47%

The Northeast has 83 reps (plus one vacant seat), the West has 97 reps (plus the other vacant seat), the Midwest has 100 reps, the territories (Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) have four delegates, and the South has 154 reps.

As can be readily seen, the South is strongly against us. There are 284 non-Southern reps: 35% with us, 45% neutral/unknown, and only 20% against us. Of the 131 congressmen rated F, F*, or F-, 73 are Southern (56%).




[/ QUOTE ]

Looking at the map, it seems we're strongest where casino gaming is legal, and weakest otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
The two candidates I see best for poker are Bill Richardson and Ron Paul. Ron Paul needs no introduction here. Richardson is the most libertarian of the democrats, and beats out all other republicans in that respect. He's not looking to tax new sources, and Westerners do not like to be told what to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. In fact, Richardson has spoken in favor of allowing Internet gaming.

[Gregatron]

Okay, re: Mason's topic -

The thing we have to understand about internet poker is that it is not a salient issue. Most of the top candidates have much more to lose than to gain from taking a position on the issue at this point.

That said, I don't think Thompson would be very pro-poker. Thompson is more or less a political chameleon, and the people he needs to cater to to be successful tend to be against the agenda of online poker. That said, he might be pro free trade enough to embrace WTO decisions, so who knows. So while I think he will take a more "conservative" (note the quotes please -- don't flame) stance on the issue, politicians are notorious for selling out their base on certain issues.

Cliff notes version: FT is probably not pro internet poker, at least not on the surface, but who knows what he might do if it were politically expedient.

[oldbookguy]

Very nice, the link provides some really good historical reading.

obg

[Poker Clif]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do agree though that the influence of evangelical Christianity on American politics did not begin with GWB. It didn't begin with William Jennings Bryan either. It has been a constant throughout our history as has the resistance to it by more secular factions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But it became a much bigger problem in this country starting with GWB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much bigger problem than when? 1918? Like FoF has anywhere near the power of, say the WCTU. Do you honestly think that the UIGEA is a bigger threat to individual freedom than amending the constitution to criminalize alcoholic beverages?

Christian evangelicals are nowhere near as powerful as they were 100 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, Kurn. There were thousands of people working in past administrations from Pat Robertson's box top law school helping to shape policy. Now there are only a hundred or so in W's administration. Things are much better now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know anything about Pat Robertson's "box top law school", but I do know a little about academia, including both state and Christian colleges and universities.

I have been to three different colleges, with two community college degrees, and I'm closing in on two degress (economics and political science) at a major state university. I have also taken a few grad courses

Two of my three sons chose to go to Christian colleges, the other went to a state school.

I'm getting very tired of Christian beliefs, Christian schools, and Christians in general being portrayed as anti-American and stupid.

For what it's worth, I don't think that Christianity and poker are incompatible (neither does Doyle Brunson, by the way). I have played in chess tournaments, and run 10K races, that had money prizes. What's the difference?

But back to the main topic, Christians as stupid and anti-American.

How do you know Pat Robertson's school gave out boxtop degress? Both of my sons found their Christian schools very challenging.

Son #1--13th in his high school class of 300, all-state in jazz band competion (both my son and the band as a whole). He was used to success, but found his school challenging enough that he needed help to get through a couple of his physics classes.

Son #2--another high achiever. The only freshman in his high school to get the scholar athelete award (varsity letter and &gt;= 3.5 GPA).

Son 2 also found his school very challenging, and I was very impressed with the academic atmosphere of this unabashedly conservative Christian school.

Over 90% of the faculty were PhDs, published and respected in their various fields (science, business, arts, social sciences, etc).

I don't know what kind of boxtops Pat Robertson is alledgedly handing out, but I really wish that you would just accept that the people you so despise are intelligent, concerned Americans who you just happen to disagree with, and who have as much write to their opinions as you do.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know anything about Pat Robertson's "box top law school", but I do know a little about academia, including both state and Christian colleges and universities.

I have been to three different colleges, with two community college degrees, and I'm closing in on two degress (economics and political science) at a major state university. I have also taken a few grad courses

Two of my three sons chose to go to Christian colleges, the other went to a state school.

I'm getting very tired of Christian beliefs, Christian schools, and Christians in general being portrayed as anti-American and stupid.

For what it's worth, I don't think that Christianity and poker are incompatible (neither does Doyle Brunson, by the way). I have played in chess tournaments, and run 10K races, that had money prizes. What's the difference?

But back to the main topic, Christians as stupid and anti-American.

How do you know Pat Robertson's school gave out boxtop degress? Both of my sons found their Christian schools very challenging.

Son #1--13th in his high school class of 300, all-state in jazz band competion (both my son and the band as a whole). He was used to success, but found his school challenging enough that he needed help to get through a couple of his physics classes.

Son #2--another high achiever. The only freshman in his high school to get the scholar athelete award (varsity letter and &gt;= 3.5 GPA).

Son 2 also found his school very challenging, and I was very impressed with the academic atmosphere of this unabashedly conservative Christian school.

Over 90% of the faculty were PhDs, published and respected in their various fields (science, business, arts, social sciences, etc).

I don't know what kind of boxtops Pat Robertson is alledgedly handing out, but I really wish that you would just accept that the people you so despise are intelligent, concerned Americans who you just happen to disagree with, and who have as much write to their opinions as you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally think most here on the Legislation forum merely have issues with the beliefs and tactics of groups like FoF who would force their beliefs on others.

The issue with Robertson's school is that this administration is disproportionately hiring ideologues into civil service postitions. The initial post on that didn't seem to be on the intelligence of the grads, but on the fact that they were likely given preference based on ideology.

[Skallagrim]

PokerClif, you are being a bit thin-skinned here. The vast majority of folks in this forum (some other 2+2 forums have a different set of regulars) are not anti-christian in any way. In fact, most of them ARE Christian. But they resent other christians LEGISLATING how to live their lives based on faith. I have a lot of admiration for most christians, its theocrats that I despise.

When a "christian" says to me they support banning internet gambling because its dangerous to children, encourages addictive behavior, etc... I consider that a "reasoned" opinion and respond with reason (if thats your real concern than there are much better ways of controlling those problems than prohibition, etc...). But when a "christian" says to me they support banning gambling because "its a sin" and against the will of god" I know I am dealing with someone who is both uninformed (the bible says no such thing) and dangerous. Dangerous, precisely because they think matters of secular, public policy should be decided by appeals to faith. Even if they dont realize it they are theocrats whose only difference from the Taliban is their religion. And theocracy is un-American.

Skallagrim

[Legislurker]

Running a university for turning out troops for the culture wars is rather despicable, which a lot of modern "Christian" schools do. Used to be, Christian schools had rigorous academic standards, and some still do. Most of the new ones are some kind of perceived counterstroke to a conspiracy to "remove God from the Pledge" or "the homosexual agenda". They make these kids sign pledges to not drink, to not have sex outside marriage, to condemn homosexuals, and other political garbage. They are ALL appearance. 99% of an education is just learning to learn, not being indoctrinated in the FORMS of faith. They teach [censored] to reinforce things like that creation museum in Kentucky with Eve and dinosaurs. There are NOT two teams in the world, one Christian, one non-Christian. But there is a propaganda machine telling people that and having people vote and donate money to that. What we hate are those false premises driving the modern overarching Christian terror groups like FoF.

[TheEngineer]

Scandal puts spotlight on Christian law school Grads influential in Justice Dept

[ QUOTE ]
Scandal puts spotlight on Christian law school
Grads influential in Justice Dept.
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 8, 2007

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- The title of the course was Constitutional Law, but the subject was sin. Before any casebooks were opened, a student led his classmates in a 10-minute devotional talk, completed with "amens," about the need to preserve their Christian values.

"Sin is so appealing because it's easy and because it's fun," the law student warned.


[/ QUOTE ]

and

[ QUOTE ]
In a recent Regent law school newsletter, a 2004 graduate described being interviewed for a job as a trial attorney at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in October 2003. Asked to name the Supreme Court decision from the past 20 years with which he most disagreed, he cited Lawrence v. Texas, the ruling striking down a law against sodomy because it violated gay people's civil rights.

"When one of the interviewers agreed and said that decision in Lawrence was 'maddening,' I knew I correctly answered the question," wrote the Regent graduate . The administration hired him for the Civil Rights Division's housing section -- the only employment offer he received after graduation, he said.

[/ QUOTE ]

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, that guy Dole used Viagra and he only has one good arm, too, and he uses Visa. And Thompson never seems to use that other arm, and he could be buying Viagra with a Visa too for all anybody here knows. It's just sickening when you put all the facts together and see the big picture. You'll never get this kind of analysis from the ChristianNazi douchebags at the FoF for sure!

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't understand why you're so upset. Are you suggesting that we cannot even mention FoF, as if speaking negatively about one particular Christian group = speaking negatively about all of Christianity? They are our primary opposition, you know. Perhaps you could clarify, as none of us yet understand.

As for me, my only problem with FoF is that they wish to force their opinions on me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't understand why you think I'm upset. That's your perception, but it's not accurate, and I imagine that it reflects more on your viewpoint than anything else.

My sole agenda is to call attention to an infantile posting that seems to be utterly without merit, and appears to be directly in violation of the guidelines posted by the moderator.

You would probably be surprised to learn that I agree with you on the issue. But I just don't think it's acceptable for the rules to work only one way. Mindless Hillary or Obama bashing isn't any better than mindless Bush bashing. Also, the gutter language and the gratuitous insults aimed at Christians greatly reduce the value of this thread.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
Scandal puts spotlight on Christian law school Grads influential in Justice Dept

[ QUOTE ]
Scandal puts spotlight on Christian law school
Grads influential in Justice Dept.
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 8, 2007

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- The title of the course was Constitutional Law, but the subject was sin. Before any casebooks were opened, a student led his classmates in a 10-minute devotional talk, completed with "amens," about the need to preserve their Christian values.

"Sin is so appealing because it's easy and because it's fun," the law student warned.


[/ QUOTE ]

and

[ QUOTE ]
In a recent Regent law school newsletter, a 2004 graduate described being interviewed for a job as a trial attorney at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division in October 2003. Asked to name the Supreme Court decision from the past 20 years with which he most disagreed, he cited Lawrence v. Texas, the ruling striking down a law against sodomy because it violated gay people's civil rights.

"When one of the interviewers agreed and said that decision in Lawrence was 'maddening,' I knew I correctly answered the question," wrote the Regent graduate . The administration hired him for the Civil Rights Division's housing section -- the only employment offer he received after graduation, he said.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

And we are stuck with these people because they can't be fired politically. Most career Justice jobs have been stocked with low talent, but not that low, and that gratuitously political. Judges barely make any money in the legal world, and Justice people make less, maybe its time to clean house, raise the pay, and hire better.