Poker Players Alliance ForumsPoker Is Not A Crime: Discuss The Fight

Poker Players Alliance Forums » Poker Players Alliance

1. Skallagrim
   Moderator

   The majority of this post was first made over at the Pocket5s Legislation forum. There I was responding to one person in particular. I have changed that part of the post to make it relevant to all non-religious right Republicans. With the McCain choice of religious right cheerleader Palin for VP, what I say here is all the more obvious.

   Its pretty clear that a lot of life-long small-government, individual freedoms loving republicans who also play poker are unsure about the upcoming election. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a small government Republican and being proud of that. But I want all of you who feel that way to note just a few things: the last 8 years of this Republican administration have seen the biggest growth in government since LBJ - almost ALL of it coming while they held the majority in Congress; also, the last 8 years of Republican government has seen NO advance in individual freedoms, in fact quite the opposite: they have been consistently attacked (poker being the most obvious example) because of the stranglehold of the religious right on the Republican party.

   I mention these points because I want to ask every small government, low taxes, individual freedom and responsibility, long time republican TO NOT VOTE REPUBLICAN THIS TIME, especially if you also love the game of poker. And I emphasize THIS TIME.

   For the sake of poker, the country and the Republican party, the nanny-state moralists have to be beaten back. The only way to beat them back is to make the Republican party pay a significant price this November. Only a loss will make the leaders rethink their pandering to this small segment of the population. Only a real loss will make them return to the core Republican values of the past. Only a loss will stop the Republican slide towards bigger and more intrusive government.

   If they can pull off a victory this time they will know that the votes of libertarian leaning small government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility types are unimportant and that the fat cats feeding at the trow and the legislating of religious values can continue without hesitation. There must be a price to pay ....

   If you really can't bring yourself to vote for a Democrat even one time, so be it. Vote Libertarian or write-in a candidate. Or just don't vote. But if the alliance of big government interests and religious theocrats is to be stopped, it must be stopped now.

   And note that this is also the best long term outcome for the Republican party; getting slapped hard in November will FORCE them to rethink how they have governed and, hopefully, insure they never again get in the spot they are in now. And THEN you can start voting Republican again, and not hold your nose while you do it.

   Plus, it is important to note, the vast majority of poker's allies in Congress are Democrats. It will clearly take a Democratic majority and a Democratic administration to insure a pro online poker bill is passed and not vetoed.

   This is the election for poker players to stand up and be counted. Please do not vote Republican this time (unless. of course, you are lucky enough to live in one of the handful of districts with Republicans who support us like Sessions or Paul) and be sure to send a letter to every Republican you do not vote for telling them that they lost your vote by pandering to the religious right and taking away your freedom to enjoy the great American game of poker (among other things).

   Skallagrim

   Posted 3 months ago #

2. JPFisher55
   Member

   Skall, I can't vote for Democrats. They started this big government, nanny state for their beliefs, which are just as faith based as the RRR beliefs. Voting Libetarian is a waste of time until their Presidential candidate can get close to 10%.
   So like 2006, I will refrain from voting. I am afraid that Sen. McCain is going to win the Presidency, but the Dems will control Congress. Despite McCain's VP pick, which is a pander to the RRR, I do not believe that he will continue the policies of the Bush administration concerning online gambling and online poker.

   Posted 3 months ago #

3. Skallagrim
   Moderator

   I understand your position JPFisher and respect it. I am glad to hear you will not vote for McCain in 2008, neither will I (and I did vote for him in the 2000 New Hampshrie primary BTW). I think you are wrong about McCain not continuing the Bush policies against internet poker, however, and the VP pick sealed that conclusion for me. We are the obvious scapegoat for McCain to show his "social conservative" bone fides. I hope though, that you are right and I am wrong on that one, but I am not taking the chance and will vote Obama THIS TIME.

   Skallagrim

   Posted 3 months ago #

4. TheEngineer
   Administrator

   Skall,

   Excellent post, both here and the original P5s version. Thanks for writing and posting it.

   Posted 3 months ago #

5. TheEngineer
   Administrator

   JPFisher55 wrote:
   Skall, I can't vote for Democrats. They started this big government, nanny state for their beliefs, which are just as faith based as the RRR beliefs. Voting Libetarian is a waste of time until their Presidential candidate can get close to 10%. So like 2006, I will refrain from voting.

   I think a good way to help them get to 10% would be to vote for them. :-) Barr obviously won't win this year, but I don't think a vote for him is wasted. Rather, it's a good way to send both parties a message of our feelings regarding our individual liberties.

   Posted 3 months ago #

6. LAZRUS
   Member

   Guvmint-in a way it's like dealers choice-a game I would choose not to play myself.
   OK yeah-for the 'couples' social gathering pot luck penny ante affair-
   but even then I find it somewhat, well boring?
   I prefer to us decide on the rules of the game before it starts.
   And isn't it remarkable that the game takes on greater importance and
   meaning when you actually have a "serious" stake involved?

   Any rational reading of modern history will show that both parties,
   but especially republicans have 'grown' the government.
   I guess if it benefits you, then its all good.

   It was the republicans that put 'god' on the money, and into the pledge,
   turning the coin of our realm into the sacrament, and our nations oath of civic faith
   into a 'publican' prayer. Jesus warned against this. And threw the moneychangers
   out of the temple. But you won't hear these Bible stories from the RRR preachers on the TV. Or radio. Or in the newspapers.

   All of the "Fristian" and so called Christian morality only applies to us
   little peasents and not to the wealthy, well connected diaper wearing fetishists, or big business lobbyist fellating globalist traitors, or the facist police state imperial war profiteers in charge right now.

   That the republicans have been aided and abetted by their DemocraticInNameOnly 'friends' on the other 'side' is
   no mistake or mystery. They are both serving the same master.

   I find it very amusing that the PPA would send me an email suggesting that I 'petition'
   the republicans to NOT include a plank in their platform outlawing online poker.
   Why should an action junkie craps shooter with 100 million dollars to play off
   care that I might not be able to enjoy some internet poker? It won't keep him from private jetting to another 14 hour highroller session whenever he feels like it-after the elections, of course. And really, how he spends his time and wifes money is his business. But it does bring the whole plutocratic 'holier than thou' ruling elite hypocrisy into stark contrast with how they actually live.

   So I won't be asking republicans for anything, and I dearly hope they continue to self destruct into the minority regional party that is their so very much deserved destiny.
   Kind of sad, really for the party of Lincoln, and preserving the union and emancipation and all, but the Bible says "As you sow, so shall you reap".

   Government is us, really. Our goverment is big because WE are big. And deciding on the size and scope and place of it in our national and business and personal lives is politics. And politics can be messy. It is all of our many different agendas, and our competeing representitives, discussing, debating, wheeling and dealing, and compromising, about all that affects us in our nation and our lives.

   The alternative to this is brute force, might makes right, law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, and other similar correctly rejected as less than ideal strategies for co-existence.

   Well, not so rejected as far as our historical and present day foreign policies go.

   Looking back through history, just the fact that we managed to get away from most of the "isms" indicates some progress has been made. Some would dearly love to return to the days when the church was the state, human slavery was business, and the wealthy men and their sires ran everything. Some would argue that not much has really changed.

   But even just to get to the mess where we are right now took the sacrifice of a lot of blood and treasure, so I don't really blame anyone for not wanting to go through all that again, even though it is our historical legacy, and moral birthright. But we can also avoid all that by participating in the civic affairs of our society as best we are able.

   I don't believe I have ever met anyone that I agreed totally with about everything. This is normal as we all are different. But we do also have so very much in common.
   And don't we all resent someone telling us to not do this or that because
   it is against their faith, or religion, and then watch them do whatever they please?
   Usually the very same thing they told us not to do? Think about it now, if you can't tolerate this, then what should be the best course of action? Shut up and just take it?
   Or maybe fight back?

   Nowadays we fight back by voting. If you don't want to or can't lead, then find someone who you think can do the job. To find that someone will take some effort, research, and study. Inform yourself. And if you discover that you actually disagree with them on something important, is it really the big picture? A deal breaker? If not-work it out, debate it, compromise. Support them with your time and money and effort.

   I understand if you are too busy or too poor or too lazy. Progress is hard work. Change requires it. Turning your poker 'skills' around from losing to winning
   can't be done by ignoring what you see at the table, or how others are playing.
   But it is YOUR choice, and your right to do as you feel best. That is freedom.

   So go ahead and sit out this hand-or all of them, if you so choose. There is a very small minority that is betting and really hoping you will. But if you want to play, you must buy in, and ante up. But just remember how you feel when you are still in the game and you can hear all the railbirds who never even sat down and played whining.
   About everything.

   Posted 3 months ago #

7. TheEngineer
   Administrator

   LAZRUS writes
   I find it very amusing that the PPA would send me an email suggesting that I 'petition'
   the republicans to NOT include a plank in their platform outlawing online poker.
   Why should an action junkie craps shooter with 100 million dollars to play off
   care that I might not be able to enjoy some internet poker?

   What's amusing about it? We need to tell politicians where we stand. Surely we shouldn't just say nothing when an anti-online poker plank is added to a party's platform. You think the NRA would just sit back and do nothing if a party added a gun ban provision to its platform, hoping that the other party would help them out out of good will?

   You do realize neither Obama nor the Democratic Party Platform have said one word endorsing the right to play poker on the Internet, right? We have to earn that. They'll need to know we took votes from those opposed to us and moved them to those in favor of our rights to get anything. Otherwise, we'll find ourselves at the back of the line begging for our rights.

   We poker players tried sitting back and hoping for magic support from Congress. While doing this, our opponents made so much noise that politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle thought most of America wanted to ban online poker. When it came to a vote, we lost in the House 317-93 (HR 4411 in 2006, the bill that became UIGEA)! In a Senate vote in the late 90's, we actually lost 90-10 (S 474)! I've spoken to some staffers myself. They told me the GOP leadership actually thought all of America would cheer their effort to remove this "scourge" from the Internet. That's what doing nothing got us.

   We're not asking McCain for a favor. We're telling him and the GOP that we demand our rights. That's what we have to do.

   Posted 3 months ago #

8. OldBookGuy
   Member

   JPFisher55
   Member
   Skall, I can't vote for Democrats. They started this big government, nanny state for their beliefs, which are just as faith based as the RRR beliefs. Voting Libetarian is a waste of time until their Presidential candidate can get close to 10%.
   So like 2006, I will refrain from voting. I am afraid that Sen. McCain is going to win the Presidency, but the Dems will control Congress. Despite McCain's VP pick, which is a pander to the RRR, I do not believe that he will continue the policies of the Bush administration concerning online gambling and online poker.

   JP, like I have told many who make this argument and the one where "it is a waisted vote", no, that is not the case.

   Consider a poor man who can only save 1.00 per week, is it a waist to do so or is he better off investing something, no matter how small in his future.

   So it is with a single vote and if everyone who was unhappy and wanted a third party would invest that one vote........

   It however has to start with each one investing the one and encouraging one other to do the same. It is your future, invest in it.

   obg

   Posted 3 months ago #

9. JPFisher55
   Member

   OBG, a third party is a wasted vote until a substantial part of the voting public express interest in voting for a third party candidate. This last occurred in 1992 with Mr. Ross Perot. I voted for Mr. Perot because I thought that the more votes that he received the more likely that the policitians would do something about the deficit. Indeed, the 1990's was the best decade for less federal government spending.
   When a third party candidate receives the polling support that Mr. Perot received, then I would consider voting for him or her.
   This year a non-vote is as useful as a vote for Libertarian Party.

   Posted 3 months ago #

10. machetero
    Member

    Great post Skallagrim from an independent but lately Republican-leaning libertarian type. Not that I needed convincing, but you articulated many of my thoughts better than perhaps I myself would have.

    Mr. JPF seems hell-bent on not expressing himself, which is the only way your opinion gets counted in any way, 10% polling rate or not. Waiting for other people that may never get asked their opinion in a poll to decide to vote makes zero sense to me, but we are all entitled to our opinion, and if you're not convinced already to vote Libertarian, nothing I can say will change that.

    As for me, I'm pretty sure I will vote that way. Add my vote to whatever percentage the polls say Mr. Barr is getting, since no poll has asked my opinion as of yet. I also agree with The Engineer here, especially when he points out that the Democratic Party and Obama have not endorsed our cause either. While there were a few things to like about Obama's speech at the DNC even for a small-government type like myself, like the bipartisan themes, we heard those from Pelosi before, and they were lies. I need something more positive, specific, and concrete, a reason to vote for him other than voting against McCain and the Republicans. Voting Libertarian serves that purpose just as well, or perhaps even better, because a Democratic vote gets lumped with everyone else who vote Democratic anyway. A Libertarian vote will correctly get interpreted as a loss by the Republicans of a small government, Libertarian type voter.

    Posted 3 months ago #

11. ObviousJack
    Member

    Already on board. Obama holdin' the Nutz.

    Posted 2 months ago #

12. Abe3689
    Member

    There is no evidence to suggest that McCain is opposed to internet gambling and Obama will legalize it. Furthermore, the stakes are to high for this country to vote for someone who has no bi-partisan experience, or any real experience for that matter. My vote goes to McCain.

    Posted 2 months ago #

13. TheEngineer
    Administrator

    There is no evidence to suggest that McCain is opposed to internet gambling and Obama will legalize it. Furthermore, the stakes are to high for this country to vote for someone who has no bi-partisan experience, or any real experience for that matter. My vote goes to McCain.

    You already saw my blog on this. This is from the GOP platform:

    Internet Gambling
    Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support the law prohibiting gambling over the Internet.

    Over 10,000 poker players sent McCain letters over the last week regarding this hostile platform language. I guess we'll see if he refutes this language or not.

    Posted 2 months ago #

14. Millercrew5
    Member

    The largest growth in the government was on the security side of things. Democrates are the ones responsible for more spending on porkbarrel projects. Democrates pushed into the port security bill the part about internet gambling. Besides the President cannot do anything without Congress and vice versa. I do not believe that either canidate gives a crap about changing internet poker. They are all too busy trying to say whatever you want to hear just to get elected just like John Kerry. I will vote for McCain but I will not vote for my local officals that voted against the latest rounds in congress to change the unlawful internet gambling act. I am sure that is the right way to go since they are the ones that tacted that crappy portion on to the end of a bill that they knew was going to get passed through congress.

    Posted 2 months ago #

15. Skallagrim
    Moderator

    "The largest growth in the government was on the security side of things. Democrates are the ones responsible for more spending on porkbarrel projects. Democrates pushed into the port security bill the part about internet gambling."

    All 3 of these assertions are just plain wrong: the largest expansion of the government came (money-wise) in the Medicaid drug benefit; how much security is in Homeland security department is questionable, but that it was just another layer of bureaucracy added by REPUBLICANS is not. The single biggest porkbarrelers are the REPUBLICANS from Alaska, and the amount of pork barrel projects DOUBLED from 2000 to 2006 when the REPUBLICANS controlled Congress and the White House. And it was REPUBLICAN Bill Frist who put the UIGEA into the Port Security act, no Democrat had ANYTHING to do with that.

    I know how hard it is to admit when "friends" turn on you, but they (the Republicans) have turned on you. You only hurt your self and the cause of individual liberty when you refuse to recognize facts and insist on asserting things you would like to be true, but are not.

    There are some valid reasons to vote for McCain (not enough IMHO, but thats for elsewhere), but dont fool yourself: a vote for McCain is a vote against openly legal online poker.

    Skallagrim

    Posted 2 months ago #

16. Abe3689
    Member

    Forgive me because I'm not sure how to quote on this forum.

    TheEngineer: Candidates have gone against their party platforms before. Rudy Guiliani is pro-choice, and Ron Paul is sponsoring to regulate internet gambling. To suggest that McCain not altering the language within the platform shows his support for a ban, doesn't prove anything to me. I imagine he has a lot more going on right now than whether or not internet gambling will be included in the platform language.

    At this point I'm just not convinced that either candidate will guarantee our right to play. If I had to guess I would say Obama, but again just a guess not based on much. Therefore I have to judge each candidate by other policies, or vote Bob Barr.

    Posted 2 months ago #

17. TheEngineer
    Administrator

    Forgive me because I'm not sure how to quote on this forum.

    TheEngineer: Candidates have gone against their party platforms before. Rudy Guiliani is pro-choice, and Ron Paul is sponsoring to regulate internet gambling. To suggest that McCain not altering the language within the platform shows his support for a ban, doesn't prove anything to me. I imagine he has a lot more going on right now than whether or not internet gambling will be included in the platform language.

    At this point I'm just not convinced that either candidate will guarantee our right to play. If I had to guess I would say Obama, but again just a guess not based on much. Therefore I have to judge each candidate by other policies, or vote Bob Barr.

    You can quote with the B-quote button.

    You are correct that politicians can go against their party's platform. However, the nominee has some influence over the final document. Clearly he didn't take a stand. Also, in the examples you cited, we know the politicians in question oppose parts of the platform because they made public statements saying so. If McCain does that, I'll gladly bump him up...all the way to A+ if it's a sufficiently strong statement. Unfortunately, he's refused to do this so far. I do believe the platform has shifted the burden of proof to him, as he's running under that banner.

    I can't guarantee how Obama will vote, either, of course. He's made no statements either, aside from saying he supports a study. I believe he's more likely to not veto something from Frank or Wexler than McCain would be, though. This is all reflected in his C rating. We just sent over 10,000 letters to McCain, as I mentioned in the last post. I'm working up a similar letter to Obama. Hopefully 10,000+ letters to him will help generate some sort of response.

    Bob Barr is certainly on our side, and a vote for him has a benefit of telling the other two parties that some people are rejecting their big government ways. I think it's an easy choice for poker players in non-swing states like Mass. or Kentucky. For me (in Kentucky), a vote for Obama is a wasted vote, as he can't win here and as I don't support much of his positions outside of poker. Likewise, a vote for McCain does little good, except signify support for the big government nanny-statism of the FFF wing of the party. As a small government conservative who's horrified at the direction my party has taken, I personally have a nice shot at a protest vote by casting my ballot for Bob Barr. Others will look at the data and will come to their own conclusions. My goal was to put together guides to facilitate this by providing data poker players can use to make their decisions.

    Posted 2 months ago #

18. Millercrew5
    Member

    In response to voter outrage over earmark scandals, the House Democratic leadership pledged to bring transparency to the earmark process. Specifically, the House rewrote its rules to require that earmarks be included in the reports that accompany spending bills so that lawmakers can debate earmarks before passing each spending bill. Now, in a remarkable reversal, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) has announced that all earmarks will be kept secret from the American people until after the spending bills have cleared the House of Representatives. Not until soon before spending bills return from the conference committee would the list be released, leaving lawmakers without the chance to debate or amend any earmarks, only to vote up-or-down on entire conference reports. The House Democratic majority should stick to its pledge of transparency and abandon this scheme.

    The $23 billion that the House has added to the budget is set to become part of the permanent discretionary spending baseline. Over ten years, this addition could cost American taxpayers $276 billion, or $2,400 per household. The House Democrats' reversal on earmark transparency suggests that most, if not all, of this new spending will go towards replenishing the reductions in pork-barrel spending that began last year and were set to continue this year. The House Democratic majority should honor its pledge to bring transparency to budgeting by releasing the names of and allocations for pork projects while appropriations bills are being debated on the House floor. Otherwise, President Bush should ready his veto pen to fulfill his pledge to strike down these bloated appropriations bills negotiated in Congress' back rooms.

    Posted 2 months ago #

19. Millercrew5
    Member

    Should have voted for Ron Paul. A real friend of Poker and America!

    Posted 2 months ago #

20. TheEngineer
    Administrator

    Should have voted for Ron Paul. A real friend of Poker and America!

    I did. I wish more poker players would have as well.

    Even if Paul didn't win with those extra votes, a stronger showing would have shown the party that their members want smaller government. It could have helped with the platform, at least. Unfortunately, too many wanted to choose from a frontrunner rather than "wasting their vote". Ironically, they wound up wasting their vote by not voting for what they believed.

    Posted 2 months ago #

21. Tahosa65
    Member

    Anyone, and I mean poker players too, who votes for Obama hasn't looked very hard at the facts. Obama comes from the Chicago/Daily political machine. He has worked for and targeted poker games and anything resembling personal freedom for elimination. His stand on the secong ammendment should show you how he feels about any freedom not directly controlled by government. He is anti personal freedom, pro government control and so far left that Stalin is his best comparison. To those of you who think Ms Palin is against our rights to play online poker, maybe you should ask her? John McCain plays in a poker game of Senators when Congress is in session. That fact has been reported in the Washington Post. We need to have someone give a direct question to both cantidates and get a direct response before we start telling people not to vote republican.

    Posted 2 months ago #

22. Skallagrim
    Moderator

    "He is anti personal freedom, pro government control and so far left that Stalin is his best comparison."

    Anyone who really believes the above statement is beyond rational thought. Clearly, even if Obama promised to make legal online poker his number one priority, there would be no convincing you.

    So I will not try.... But I might ask you, just for a moment, to consider how you would react to a post where someone calls McCain "to the right of Mussolini."

    Anyone interested in an unbiased analysis of the candidates and which is more likely to benefit poker need only look at TheEngineer's guide.

    Skallagrim

    Posted 2 months ago #

23. skeet9999
    Member

    Where i am an avid supporter of online poker ,i find it hard to believe poker would be the deciding factor on who to vote for in the upcoming election.I would rather have McCain keep the fight against terrorism where it is than try to talk the terrorist out of trying to destroy us here. If Obama is elected my fear is chaos here at home,if thats the case ,then the least of our worries is online poker, in fact brick and mortar poker may be at risk as terrrorist have shown they like to blow up high profile targets.My safety at home or online poker ? i choose the first.

    Posted 2 months ago #

24. JPFisher55
    Member

    Skeet, remember Benjamin Franklin's motto: Those who choose security over freedom will get neither and deserve neither.

    Posted 2 months ago #

25. Skallagrim
    Moderator

    Skeet, do you REALLY think there will be any HUGE difference between Obama and McCain when it comes to preventing future terrorist attakcs? On what basis could you say that other than some guess based on their personalities. Both will tell you in no uncertain terms that preventing such attacks is the number one priority. Why believe one and not the other? Dont you realize that our government is full of professionals at the FBI/CIA/DOJ and countless others who have the responsibility to prevent terrorism? Neither McCain nor Obama will make much difference in this area.

    And the same is true on so much else EXCEPT PERSONAL FREEDOM AND LIBERTY.

    Obama nudges the country a little left, McCain nudges the country a little further right. There is a debate to be had there, but it is hardly such a striking contrast that electing one means mass destruction and electing the other means perfect safety.

    To believe otherwise is to believe the campaign hype, never a smart idea.

    But on personal liberty issues the choice is clear: McCain has sold his soul to the religious right (the "agents of intolerance" as he once famously called them) in order to win this election. His selection of Palin confirms that beyond any doubt.

    If you really believe that electing one or the other is going to ruin the country, then yes, online poker is hardly an issue that should decide your vote. But IMHO that belief is an emotional not a rational one. A rational analysis is that on all major issues there will be a slight difference, but on one issue dear to my heart (my personal freedom, both to play whatever games I want to and to live my life according to my moral compass, not Mr. Dobson's) the difference is real and striking.

    So I stand by my original post: even if you are a died in the wool small-government, low taxes, conservative republican, this is the election to not vote for the Republican party because they are no longer the party of you, they are the party of Mr. Dobson and FoF. And so even if you cant vote for a Democrat because of your principles, DONT VOTE REPUBLICAN. America will survive an Obama presidency at worst only slightly worse off, but online poker (and other personal freedom issues) will likely not survive a McCain presidency at all.

    Skallagrim

    Posted 2 months ago #

26. tvzellers
    Member

    Spoken like a true liberal. Me! Me! Me! It's all about you and your personal freedoms. Get a clue...it's not about personal freedoms. Those all come from the conservatives and religious right that have fought for years to guarantee our way of life...the same way of life that allows libs to spout crap about how bad our government is treating them and how the government is always wrong when it doesn't pander to their personal desires.

    Your trying to convince people to vote or not vote based upon one issue...and a minor one at that. As I've said before, when the liberals are in control the economy, national security, and our way or life in general all take a hit. When that happens, there won't be discretionary money to spend for online poker, let alone any of the other "personal" freedoms that you're so concerned about.

    Voting Democrat means bigger government, more taxes, and less "personal freedom". These libs always want to try to tell you that their progressive ideas are better for you, when it reality it's just the opposite.

    For you to try and tell us that you're just interested in furthering online poker is just lame. It's obvious to most on this forum that you're just trying to push your political views and influence our votes.

    I'd really like to see our lobbyist(s) educating and working with legislators, rather than butting heads and trying to bully them into changing their minds. Other organizations (see NRA) have become successful doing so and there is no reason that the PPA can't be just as successful. Of course, it will take some hard work, time and perseverance...concepts that may not be all that familiar to the libs.

    Posted 2 months ago #

27. Skallagrim
    Moderator

    I knew you were out there the moment you called me a liberal ... and threw in that trash about conservatives and the religious right fighting for our "way of life." You, sir, have no idea of what political persuasion I am (of, course, in your mind their are only "right" people and liberals) nor do you have any idea of what ideals this country was truly based on - ever heard of the Enlightenment? .... but there is no use debating with a closed mind.

    I will say this, however, because it is the only real point appropriate for a poker forum: you are both right and wrong about the NRA - its true they have been very successful, but unlike the PPA (at least in your case) they have members willing to vote on their issue and their issue alone if need be. If we can show that, legal online poker would not be far behind.

    Oh, but then the liberals might be in power and the country will self-destruct like it did under the Clinton years ... and then nobody will have the money to play poker just like nobody played poker from 1992 to 2000.

    Point is, you can disagree with liberals all you want (and actually have a few good reasons for disagreeing with their positions) but to claim that you have to ignore the poker issue and vote against liberals because otherwise the country will certainly be ruined is pretty much the political equivalent of "the sky is falling." Get a grip, nothing the liberals will do can be worse than the last 8 years of "conservative" rule; if the country survived that, it can survive anything.

    Skallagrim

    Posted 2 months ago #

28. admin@poker915.com
    Member

    I haven't read EVERY single response word for word here, so I apologize if I am merely echoing. I really don't understand some of the Republican vs Democrat stuff. Skall is just asking that we not vote Republican, not that we vote for a Dem necessarily.

    Truth be told BOTH PARTIES ARE NANNY-STATERS! Republicans want to legislate what goes on in my home, on my internet,in my bedroom, etc. and Democrats want to control my finances from the cradle to the grave and even limit opposing views with bullshit like the "Fairness" Doctrine.

    I am a Libertarian who finds myself agreeing with Republicans far more often than Democrats but, aside form Dr. Paul (a Libertarian in Republican clothing), they can't have my vote this time.

    As for throwing my vote away, I will say it for possibly the hundredth time: If pre-Civil War Americans bought that same line of reasoning REPUBLICANS would still be a third party!

    Until you sheeple wake up and smell the Republicrat coffee, and quit buying into that "lesser of two evils/don't throw away your vote on the good-guy" BS you'll keep getting the same result: Nanny State Government.

    Neither McCain nor Obama have taken a stance on online gaming, but I don't know that I could vote for either one of them if they favored it given that there is a perfectly good non-nanny-stater in Barr for whom I can vote.

    Posted 2 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.