Anti Poker Politicians - Page 3

On July 01 2009 18:25 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On July 01 2009 17:44 NewbSaibot wrote:   On July 01 2009 13:22 curtinsea wrote:   On June 30 2009 13:08 k2o4 wrote: 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. Personally, I don't see how banning poker takes MORE GOVERNMENT. It's not a question of how much effort it takes, it's simply a question of why the gov't is telling you what you can and cant do. It's obvious that conservatives wish to ban poker because they just plain ole dont like it, they think everyone should be like them, and it offends their delicate sensibilities. Whereas a democratically pushed ban on smoking is trying to prevent dumb fucks (no offense k2o, I know you smoke lol) from committing suicide to the tunes of thousands per year. Sorry if you cant see the difference. You realize that the vast majority of people are "damaged" by gambling right? only a bunch of us make money out of it, most people loose, it also causes serious problems to families and it leads to suicide often. But its our god damn right to do what we wish with our money, its our god damn right to choose what to do with your lungs. If you ban smoking you must ban alcohol, you must ban dangerous sports, they are all detrimental to society and as you just said they are "committing suicide". The government must baby sit your ass, so you dont do anything dangerous for you, even if its your own choice, willingly and knowing the risks right? Your hypocrisy is disgusting, please tell me what is the difference between smoking and extreme biking?, its an activity that you choose to do because you enjoy it, you put yourself at risk of death or injury making you more costly to society, so tell me why should the government allow people to do crazy stunts in bikes?

I don't support a ban on smoking. I do support efforts to reduce smoking (ie advertising restrictions). I smoke, but not like a pack a day. I smoke at parties and occasionally I'll have a month where I smoke a cig a day, then I have a month where I don't smoke a single cig. That's my approach and I think that it should be legal for me as an adult to take that approach.

But I also totally agree that I shouldn't be allowed to smoke in a restaurant. If they call it a "cigar lounge" and it's a place designated for people to smoke, that's fine with me. We have those here. But I think that the norm should be that public places which are indoors should default as smoke free. Why? Cause of second hand smoke. I don't think someone who hates cigarettes should be forced to deal with my smoke. That's not cool.

As for comparing a ban on smoking in public places to a ban on extreme sports, I think the key difference is that you aren't affecting other people. I smoke right next to you in a restaurant and you're getting my smoke in your face, food, clothes, etc. I jump off a cliff and I'm not hurting anyone in any way other than potentially myself. This is why I think it's overall ok for people to smoke outside, as long as they're not running around exhaling in peoples faces.

The republican bashing was well deserved. I wrote that post because I myself was surprised at how overwhelming partisan the poker issue is and how the vast majority of republicans are anti poker.

Second thing is that I am not so much pro democrat as I am anti republican. My ideologies are closely aligned with Noam Chomsky's in that we both are skeptical to those who have power, both democrats and republicans. Notice that my rants are never praises of the dems. But things like the anti poker issue, year of the bible legislation, calling global warming a hoax, banning teaching of evolution, not to mention a highly regressive tax code are all things that have pushed me to be fiercely anti republican.

"Just shut up until election year"?

Well excuse me for exposing the fraud that is the republican party and offending the three republicans on this site. You guys constantly talk about the virtues of less government and how government should stay out of day to day life of citizens and yet when it is exposed that the republican party is the one that is fucking with poker in the US, the best you can do is tell me to shut up or make Hitler comparisions?

Well, I'm not really a republican. My views are pragmatic and it often puts me at odds with both sides. I believe in practical solutions instead of political contests. Nothing is as simple as left or right, nor is anything so unproductive as digging in left or right. That you are more anti republican than pro democrat solidifies my point that you are only about bashing the right and not productive solutions. As for myself, I am not constantly talking up the republican platform as I do not agree with so much of it. I have only ever offered another point of view in response to your republican bashing. It wasn't me making the Hitler comparisons, which I agree are over the top, but as for telling you to shut up, what I meant is get over the republican bashing for a while, you have the ball. Let's see what the alternative is to the evil republicans you despise so much.

You start a thread about how the left is pro poker and the republican is anti, then go on a full page rant against the republicans using extreme examples and painting all republicans with one brush. Do a better job illustrating the point of the thread instead of hating on the right. Why don't you take look at how Washington state is so anti poker and how it is because the democrats made it that way. All democrats aren't our (poker players) friends, nor are all republicans against us.

curtinsea brings up some good points about civility, but I think the big difference between how democrats and republicans attack each other is one side uses examples, facts and evidence to attract attention towards their flaws, and the other users disgusting spineless smear tactics, misdirection and manipulation of the facts and evidence, and outright lies. Guess who is who. While this thread may or may not have been a vice to just bash republicans in general, these goddamn rovian tactics they have been using for the last decade fucking deserve it.

On July 02 2009 13:15 NewbSaibot wrote: one side uses examples, facts and evidence to attract attention towards their flaws, and the other users disgusting spineless smear tactics, misdirection and manipulation of the facts and evidence, and outright lies. Guess who is who.

ya guess who is who -.-


k2 the question is do you think that restaurants are public property to the extent that the choice of smoking or not smoking should be taken completely out of the owners hands and be placed into a governmental decision as a black and white / one size fits all conclusion?
Do you think that you, the consumer, should have the choice prechosen for you, that you or I can not make up our own mind to say "Hey you know what? This restaurant has smoking in it I'd rather spend my time and money elsewhere that doesn't."
Self serving interests aside, that is how it is supposed to work in an actual free society (with money).
Ultimately the war on drugs and repression doesn't work. It is just too bad those self serving interests do not see this nor even actually care to. That's not evolved, it's very primitive.


And while I think that TenBagger is definitely right about a republican hypocrite bashing being well deserved, I personally do not like to be deluded, even subtly. This thread's theme is about hypocrites is it not? Well we can call my picture post above whatever you wish, but the point will remain that if my picture post rubbed you wrong I'd suggest maybe taking a good look in the mirror then. Everyone is a hypocrite in same way shape or form and if you haven't noticed or corrected some form of hypocrosy in your life, in a small way or big way, well then you are either very young or very delusional and you are outright lying to yourself - which to me is the worst a person can do and what I ultimately tried to point out here.

As for global warming, a few things on a now big issue:
That list you post of every single scientific body agreeing TenBagger... are any of those NOT government funded?
But aside from that, the main problem I have with it all and what is more important imo is the fact trying to be presented that all the scientific community or better the government is trying to say that global warming is man made. Get over yourselves people.

Also just encase you missed it TenBagger, dwbranch asked what you thought about Cap and Trade.
I don't care about being ignored but I see no reason to ignore him or a good question.

On July 02 2009 00:24 NewbSaibot wrote: The difference between extreme mountain biking and cage fighting and sky diving and being a stuntman is that you are not guaranteed to die performing these. The burden of these occupations on our healthcare system and society in general doesnt hold a candle to the cost of smokers. When someone breaks their ankle snowboarding they are in the hospital for about a day. When a smoker develops terminal lung cancer they are in the hospital for about the rest of their life. Now multiply this by the 60 or so million smokers in our country alone and compare it against the oh I dunno, maybe a few hundred thousand "extreme lifestyles" people live, and you can see the disproportionate effect of this one hourly habit compared to the few months in season someone can do the aforementioned things and endanger themselves.

Neither smoking guarantees your death duh, you just increase your chances of lung (and other) kind of cancers.

Everything you said is true, there are more smokers than bikers, so restriction on smoking affects MORE people than restricting biking so it should make no difference, therefore your argument of quantity is absolutely void and makes no sense.

If you still want to go that route (of quantity) what about motor bikes? They are a extremely dangerous and unnecesary transportation Devide, the risks of death are ridiculously higher than in a car so answer me this, should we ban motor bikes? (millions drive them too)

On July 02 2009 12:12 TenBagger wrote: The republican bashing was well deserved. I wrote that post because I myself was surprised at how overwhelming partisan the poker issue is and how the vast majority of republicans are anti poker. Second thing is that I am not so much pro democrat as I am anti republican. My ideologies are closely aligned with Noam Chomsky's in that we both are skeptical to those who have power, both democrats and republicans. Notice that my rants are never praises of the dems. But things like the anti poker issue, year of the bible legislation, calling global warming a hoax, banning teaching of evolution, not to mention a highly regressive tax code are all things that have pushed me to be fiercely anti republican. "Just shut up until election year"? Well excuse me for exposing the fraud that is the republican party and offending the three republicans on this site. You guys constantly talk about the virtues of less government and how government should stay out of day to day life of citizens and yet when it is exposed that the republican party is the one that is fucking with poker in the US, the best you can do is tell me to shut up or make Hitler comparisions?

why do you say "you guys", i am not telling you to shut up or anything, i dont like republicans they are scum, worse than democrats imo, which are also really shitty.

What im saying is that the hypocrisy is not only in the politicians but even in "us", as i were having a discussion on people supporting government control on tobacco and other substances which is absolutely contradictory to believing online poker should be legal.

baal, I wasn't referring to you. =)

I actually agree with you on your smoking point but I don't feel so strongly about it to comment on it. But the "you guys" statement was not at all directed at you.

also I don't respond to you toteheastside because I don't like your tone and I rather not carry on a discussion with you and I have no obligation to do so.

as for the cap and trade, to be honest, I'm not so sure and that is why I have not responded. I think global warming is a major threat but I am otherwise by no means an environmentalist and I do think policies should be considered with a balance of economic considerations as well as environmental considerations. I think reductions of greenhouse gases should be a priority but it must be done efficiently and I have doubts that cap and trade is the best way. But I am not informed enough to make a determination either way and since it is a complex issue, I will do some research on it and I when I feel qualified to make an informed opinion, I will share my opinion then.

I never meant to imply you (or anyone) has an obligation to respond to me ^^
as for my tone...*shrug*

I just felt the C&T q was a good question directed to you is all
I mean it's easily a much better question towards you than one directed at me
if you get what I mean =P

fair enough, I will do more research on cap and trade and I will share my views on it when I am competent enough to speak intelligently about the subject.

On July 02 2009 20:03 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On July 02 2009 00:24 NewbSaibot wrote: The difference between extreme mountain biking and cage fighting and sky diving and being a stuntman is that you are not guaranteed to die performing these. The burden of these occupations on our healthcare system and society in general doesnt hold a candle to the cost of smokers. When someone breaks their ankle snowboarding they are in the hospital for about a day. When a smoker develops terminal lung cancer they are in the hospital for about the rest of their life. Now multiply this by the 60 or so million smokers in our country alone and compare it against the oh I dunno, maybe a few hundred thousand "extreme lifestyles" people live, and you can see the disproportionate effect of this one hourly habit compared to the few months in season someone can do the aforementioned things and endanger themselves. Neither smoking guarantees your death duh, you just increase your chances of lung (and other) kind of cancers. Everything you said is true, there are more smokers than bikers, so restriction on smoking affects MORE people than restricting biking so it should make no difference, therefore your argument of quantity is absolutely void and makes no sense. If you still want to go that route (of quantity) what about motor bikes? They are a extremely dangerous and unnecesary transportation Devide, the risks of death are ridiculously higher than in a car so answer me this, should we ban motor bikes? (millions drive them too)

Im not so much concerned about risk as I am about cold hard numbers. People can play russian roulette all day long as far as I'm concerned, but once it reached epidemic levels, regardless of the danger, it becomes a problem and needs to be addressed. Besides, cigarette smoking is something commonly learned at an impressionable age and then becomes addictive to the point they cant stop. Motorcycle riding or whatever else is typically learned in your adulthood and practiced because someone wants to, not because they have a physical compulsion to. I mean honestly, what adult in their right mind would just grab a pack of cigarettes and say "hey, I want to do this now". The very nature that cigarettes are likely introduced to children to start the addiction at a young age is so awful that these companies can really go fuck themselves.