Anti Poker Politicians

Conservatives believe “the government that governs best governs least.”

So I find it curious that 27 out of 28 politicians that made the Leach List are republicans. The Leach List, named in "honor" of anti-poker extremist former Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA), is comprised of 24 congressmen and four senators opposed to poker rights who are (were) in tough reelection fights this (last) year.

http://theleachlist.blogspot.com/2008/09/09-11-08.html

The following site grades every member of the congress on their stance regarding online poker. To summarize, 126 Democrats in Congress are FOR poker and 18 are AGAINST while only 25 Republicans in Congress are for and 123 are AGAINST.

http://theengineer.theppa.org/congress-and-internet-poker-rights/

Hypocrisy is present throughout government regardless of party and I would be biased to say that Democrats are innocent. However, hypocrisy seems to be more prevalent in the Republican party. The Republican party supposedly stands for less government, especially when it comes to helping the poor and needy and yet the overwhelming majority of Repbulicans in congress feel it necessary to expand government's role in banning online poker.

Speaking of hypocrisy, Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina, an overwhelmingly republican state, made headlines for getting caught cheating on his wife with an Argentinian mistress named Maria. Sanford is a "fiscal conservative" who actually tried to reject $700 million of federal stimulus money for his own state even though his state is one of the poorest in the country and has the second highest unemployment rate. Sanford refused to use tax dollars to help create jobs, especially among the poor and unemployed, but he used tax payer dollars to fly to Argentina so that he could get some pussy. Worst of all is how he responded to Bill Clinton's affair. Here are some quotes from Mr. Hypocrite himself:

“The bottom line, though, is I am sure there will be a lot of legalistic explanations pointing out that the president lied under oath. His situation was not under oath. The bottom line, though, is he still lied. He lied under a different oath, and that is the oath to his wife. So it’s got to be taken very, very seriously.” [Sanford on Livingston, CNN, 12/18/98]

“I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally (to resign). I come from the business side. If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he’d be gone.” [Sanford on Clinton, The Post and Courier, 9/12/98]

“The issue of lying is probably the biggest harm, if you will, to the system of Democratic government, representatives government, because it undermines trust. And if you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything.” [Sanford on Clinton, CNN, 2/16/99]

I'm sorry but I can't help but rant on two more US politicians.

Marilyn Musgrave was a Republican Congresswoman from Colorado that made the Leach List and thankfully, she lost her bid for re-election. Her political ideology is totally standard conservative platform of anti-poker, anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-labor, pro-gun, and of course she is a religious fanatic. Not only does she feel that it is necessary to ban online poker but she also introduced this amazing bill:

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.con.res.00431:/

In June 2006, Musgrave sponsored a resolution in Congress to declare 2007 as "National Year of the Bible". The resolution text requested that President Bush issue a proclamation calling on all citizens to "rediscover and apply the priceless and timeless message of the Bible" and encourage them to join the U.S. Federal government in celebrating the year with Bible "programs, ceremonies, and activities."

Are you fucking Cereus? WTF happened to the First Amendment that stipulates seperation of church and state? Thankfully Musgrave's bill failed and did not pass. Low and behold in 2009 another clown by the name of Paul Broun sponsored this bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery...amp;summ2=m&|/bss/111search.html|

The title of the bill is "Encouraging the President to designate 2010 as "The National Year of the Bible". Wait there is more. His legislative resume includes his attempt to designate 2010 as the year of the bible, his comparing Obama to Hitler, and finally this magnificent display of intelligence:



BROUN: Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus.

The Republican party hasn't stood for limited government in 50 years.

What's really funny was I was listening to Sean Hannity's radio show (I'm not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination), but it seemed liked every other phrase he or one of his guests stated was "there should be less government." And I was there thinking to myself, why are they clamoring about less governernment control in their lives when they are using the government and politics to ban homosexuals from marrying.

On June 30 2009 02:54 ShadowDrgn wrote: The Republican party hasn't stood for limited government in 50 years.

On June 30 2009 01:44 TenBagger wrote: 126 Democrats in Congress are FOR poker and 18 are AGAINST while only 25 Republicans in Congress are for and 123 are AGAINST.

looks like we're good to go

It's better to not start talking about hypocrisy as we are the ones who only care about that matter because we want to win money off people with gambling problems :o If I wasn't part of this I would honestly care about the rights of gamblers as much as I care about the rights of smokers

well smoking is different in that you are directly forced to smoke with someone if they are right beside you or if you are in a close space. Otherwise, smoking is cool, let people do all the smoking they want, just not anywhere near me since I do not want to smoke. Gambling, it effects no one else directly. These same people who are against online poker are for online horse betting. It's just lobbyist at their best.

On June 30 2009 03:54 Breeze wrote: It's better to not start talking about hypocrisy as we are the ones who only care about that matter because we want to win money off people with gambling problems :o If I wasn't part of this I would honestly care about the rights of gamblers as much as I care about the rights of smokers

uhhhh....no.

I consider poker in which 2 willing participants play a game of cards for money. What makes you assume that all winning players are winning money off of people with gambling problems? I play because I believe I have an edge against the people I'm playing against. If another person believes he/she has an edge against me, and is a willing participant, how is that hypocrisy?

On June 30 2009 03:37 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On June 30 2009 02:54 ShadowDrgn wrote: The Southern Republican party hasn't stood for limited government in 50 years.

Yeah I've never understood how so many "republicans" and "conservatives" will scream about less government when things like health care come up, but they are 100% in support of MORE GOVERNMENT when things like poker come up. Such a lack of consistency.

It also reminds me of the hypocricy that right wingers take in regards to abortion, which George Carlin actually lays out really well (and in a hilarious way):

TenBagger, what do you think about Cap and Trade?

On June 30 2009 04:14 Highcard wrote: well smoking is different in that you are directly forced to smoke with someone if they are right beside you or if you are in a close space. Otherwise, smoking is cool, let people do all the smoking they want, just not anywhere near me since I do not want to smoke. Gambling, it effects no one else directly. These same people who are against online poker are for online horse betting. It's just lobbyist at their best.

Smoking was banned from private property (clubs etc) that, you are not forced to be around smoker, you choose to.

That is like walking in a steam room and wanting the steam to be turned off because you dont like it, its fucking PRIVATE property, you dont like smoke? get the fuck out.

Its exactly the same and people who think that smoking bans and poker restrictions are different are hypocrites.

On June 30 2009 20:13 Baal wrote: That is like walking in a steam room and wanting the steam to be turned off because you dont like it, its fucking PRIVATE property, you dont like smoke? get the fuck out. Its exactly the same and people who think that smoking bans and poker restrictions are different are hypocrites.

No. You want to smoke in public? Then go to a designated smoking house. The whole goddamn world is not your personal playpen to do whatever the fuck you want and everyone else just has to deal with it. You dont see people breaking out a deck of cards and playing poker next to you in the bar, as awesome as that would be. You want to gamble? Then you go to a casino.

On June 30 2009 20:26 NewbSaibot wrote: Show nested quote + On June 30 2009 20:13 Baal wrote: That is like walking in a steam room and wanting the steam to be turned off because you dont like it, its fucking PRIVATE property, you dont like smoke? get the fuck out. Its exactly the same and people who think that smoking bans and poker restrictions are different are hypocrites. No. You want to smoke in public? Then go to a designated smoking house. The whole goddamn world is not your personal playpen to do whatever the fuck you want and everyone else just has to deal with it. You dont see people breaking out a deck of cards and playing poker next to you in the bar, as awesome as that would be. You want to gamble? Then you go to a casino.

Your an idiot. His point was it's now against the law for many private establishments to designate themselves smoking areas. It's also illegally for people to start gambling in most bars. Doesn't make it a good thing

On June 30 2009 20:26 NewbSaibot wrote: Show nested quote + On June 30 2009 20:13 Baal wrote: That is like walking in a steam room and wanting the steam to be turned off because you dont like it, its fucking PRIVATE property, you dont like smoke? get the fuck out. Its exactly the same and people who think that smoking bans and poker restrictions are different are hypocrites. No. You want to smoke in public? Then go to a designated smoking house. The whole goddamn world is not your personal playpen to do whatever the fuck you want and everyone else just has to deal with it. You dont see people breaking out a deck of cards and playing poker next to you in the bar, as awesome as that would be. You want to gamble? Then you go to a casino.

Narious already ripped you a new one but do you see people? this is the kind of inconsistent hypocrite im talking about, you better start making your own mind and get your values instead of choosing them on your own personal convenience.

When i go to a property and the owner tells me it is ok for him for me to smoke in his property i should be able to do so... but no, you non-smoker willingly go into this guys private property and you want us to stop smoking, because you are there? are you fucking serious?

Then the owner of the property decides that to please everyone he will divide it into two zones, smoking and non-smoking... but the non-smoking douchebag isnt happy with that, he must make the whole place non-smoking, what in the fuck.


That is the whole thing about gambling ban, we are defending our right to do as we choose with OUR PROPERTY (our money), and to not allow people who are against our way of life (gambling, or smoking) to force their views on us

"BROUN: Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus."

[x] i agree with this to some extent.

On June 30 2009 01:44 TenBagger wrote: Conservatives believe “the government that governs best governs least.” So I find it curious that 27 out of 28 politicians that made the Leach List are republicans. The Leach List, named in "honor" of anti-poker extremist former Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA), is comprised of 24 congressmen and four senators opposed to poker rights who are (were) in tough reelection fights this (last) year. hypocrisy seems to be more prevalent in the Republican party. Speaking of hypocrisy, Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina, an overwhelmingly republican state, made headlines for getting caught cheating on his wife with an Argentinian mistress named Maria. Worst of all is how he responded to Bill Clinton's affair. Here are some quotes from Mr. Hypocrite himself: “The bottom line, though, is I am sure there will be a lot of legalistic explanations pointing out that the president lied under oath. His situation was not under oath. The bottom line, though, is he still lied. He lied under a different oath, and that is the oath to his wife. So it’s got to be taken very, very seriously.” [Sanford on Livingston, CNN, 12/18/98]

Wow!

You know, regardless of which side of the ideological spectrum you find yourself on, there are no doubt going to be instances where your own interests diverge from the party platform. While it is true that Conservatives believe “that government is best which governs least" (this is a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson, which was quoted by H.D. Thoreau, paraphrasing the motto of The United States Magazine and Democratic Review), that is not to say that government has no place. Obviously some governance is necessary in a civilized society. I obviously support our rights to play poker online, and am disappointed the GOP seems so dead against it. Such is the problem with partisan politics, especially when we are unwilling to find common ground rather than dig in our heals for the fight. That is why it is up to us, the citizens, to let our officials know how their constituents feel about the issue. That is the beauty of American politics. We can get involved. But bashing the other side and name calling and demonizing those that disagree with us is a pointless exercise.

Hypocrisy is primarily on the right, or so you assert. Let me say this. None of us are perfect, no matter how hard we try. Some of us fall victim to human failings such as infidelity. That crosses party lines. What makes the republican a hypocrite is that he believes it's wrong to cheat on his wife, while the democrat does not. If I say it's wrong to cheat on your wife, and I then cheat on mine, that makes me a hypocrite. That you cheated on your wife is just as bad as me cheating on mine, yet you claim a higher ground by not being a hypocrite, simply because you don't believe it's important to be faithful. Even if you are unable to be good all the time yourself, don't you think it is important to encourage others to be good? If nobody takes a stand where right and wrong are concerned, where does that leave us? Also, in most cases when a republican has been caught in a sex scandal, he promptly resigns in disgrace, and gets himself and his family off the front page, while the democrat will fight to the end with any technical and legal tactic at his disposal. This is not always the case, but most often it is.

And finally, why is it that the left is still so ardently bashing on the right? Is it that beating a fallen enemy is just the easiest thing to do? The left has the White House, a huge majority in the House of Reps, and now a filibuster proof Senate. Now is the time for action, the time for solving our problems that the left assures us they have the best solutions for.

It's put up or shut up time for the Democrats. Show us what you've got.

Theyve got nothing sadly, they are in essense the same shit as the GOP, ones allow you to have abortions others dont, one allow to have guns others dont... so which of them do you want to rape you in the ass for the next 4 years?

Baal, when you're saying private property are you talking about like someones apartment or are you talking about a restaurant?

On July 01 2009 11:39 k2o4 wrote: Baal, when you're saying private property are you talking about like someones apartment or are you talking about a restaurant?

Isnt it obvious? restaurants, bars, clubs, etcetera