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

WA state, virtually completely controlled by Democrats, is the only state with an outright ban on online poker. It is in fact a 'C' felony. The same level of crime as molesting young children. This is also a state with a huge lottery business going on, so the hypocrisy is palatable. It's a case of state politicians, especially the governor herself, caving to special interest groups, in this case the tribal casinos who donated large amounts of cash to the governor and other dems in the state.

http://www.aintluck.com/internet-poker-illegal-washington/

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.

The part about climate change is true. There are plenty of scientists who say that man-made climate change is not supported by scientific evidence.

On July 01 2009 13:48 phexac wrote: The part about climate change is true. There are plenty of scientists who say that man-made climate change is not supported by scientific evidence.

links to credible sources please. credible being the key word

EDIT - nevermind, this thread is supposed to be about anti-poker politicians, and it's not about discrediting silly statements made by some. no need to derail a thread

On July 01 2009 11:45 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + 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

These establishments are not protected under the concept of private property. Your decision to keep the doors wide open and let anyone enter establishes a precedent of public property. Wal-Mart cant host an orgy in the center of the store just because the building belongs to them. You dont like a certain ethnicity? You have the right to refuse them entrance into your home. Can a restaurant do this?

On July 01 2009 13:22 curtinsea wrote: Show nested quote + 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.

ah very good of u to bring it up TenBagger
hypocrisies eh?
funny because I find the more things change .....



"Hitler, who loathed tobacco (which he called "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man", instituted the world's strongest anti-tobacco policies, including bans on indoor smoking and restrictions on advertising." -The Boston Globe




The text translates: "Health, child protection, fighting poverty, aiding travellers, people's community, helping mothers: These are the tasks of the National Socialist People's Charity: Join up"




The text translates: ""With Adolf Hitler "Yes" for equal rights and peace"


Here is a full view picture

The banner is alongside a billboard that translates as "With Hitler against the armaments madness of the world".



Wait. Am I saying Obama is Hitler? No.
I am saying there is definitely a similarity in ideology and our direction and that I believe the hard lefts like TenBagger who attempt to distance themselves and/or their party or views from this notion (as they like to think/dream government genocide could never ever happen here) are innocently hypocritical or lying manipulatively.
I also think that the hard lefts that attempt to make this separation in other minds happen, whether knowingly or not, do so by using their classic weapon of choice of, "anyone that thinks this of me about our belief is just obviously crazy."
You see, that's what the hard lefts do either directly or by subtly implying. You yell fire on someone else and then logically berate that fellow to direct the attention off of yourselves as you move on. It's like your best tactic and curiously enough, it is very hypocritical. A nationalized socialization of everything as the masses ideology is the real reasoning behind the direction we are heading, it's no longer a Republican or Democrat thing. The real Republicans are long gone. If you want to continue to insist there are no parallels in Obama and Hitler or use the tactic that anyone who thinks this of your systematic view is crazy then fine by me I'll just sum you up as uneducated, a hypocrite, or a politician until proven otherwise.
Also, if we have evolved since then like so many of the bigtime hypocrites love to point out, then why have we not come up with a better solution than socialism, communism or fascism as an answer to capitalism? If you can actually see the big picture and realize money is the root of it all, socialism and crew is an obvious stagnant step backwards in comparison to actual capitalism in terms of creativity and productivity. I'm not a crazy fan of capitalism but it is surely a better system than socialism and I don't want to to go back in time and end up having to fight a real revolution from an overreaching government.



Apparently one of the most popular posters

The text translates as: "National Socialism -- the organized will of the nation".




"With Germany AGAINST capitalism"




The text translates: “The Marshall and the corporal fight alongside us for peace and equal rights”



I wish I had more time.
link linky & linkage

"You are nothing. Your people is everything!" -Adolf Hitler

also real quick to include the poker related stuff fwiw yes the Republicans who are supposed to keep the balance of our country by cutting back government are in total shambles and practically nonexistent and so these hypocrites you mention here are realistically and sadly the best thing the people of this country do have towards whats actually imo right as if you actually look at it from an unbiased perspective you would realize ALL republicans should be voting against the PPA or REGULATION & GOVERNMENT LICENSING and TAXATION of online poker as well as the total removal of the UIGEA. But alas it is the hypocrisies or religious beliefs instead of principles of the people that keep winning out for sure. Ron Paul has pointed this out with manner and I bet tons of money he would jump ship in a heartbeat if the people changed their tune and tried to get total removal of government involvement out of how they use their money completely.
A nice big subtle and jumbling slant was made here by the OP to get what he wants tho
well played

and Newb lol...
so standard
you guys have fun with him

On July 01 2009 17:44 NewbSaibot wrote: Show nested quote + 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?

but why elaborate on your hypocrisy, the poster totheeastside posted speaks more than 1000 words:

On July 01 2009 14:00 Racist Dragon wrote: Show nested quote + On July 01 2009 13:48 phexac wrote: The part about climate change is true. There are plenty of scientists who say that man-made climate change is not supported by scientific evidence. links to credible sources please. credible being the key word EDIT - nevermind, this thread is supposed to be about anti-poker politicians, and it's not about discrediting silly statements made by some. no need to derail a thread

this thread is about a whole bunch of crap and the global warming/hoax debate was just one of the many things found in the OP
as for credible sources on the hoax side of the AGW matter I do not know what you define as credible but you could start your rabbit hole here
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870
warning tho, while I found this video worthwhile, this whole issue is a big one and is very back and forth

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.

By the way eastside, thanks for another classic example of your rightwing lunacy pushed out by the underground extremists out there in lala land, you do your party a great service with such demonstrations of idiocy. I love how the fringe right goes from defining the democratic party as pussies and cowards to iron fisted tyrants bent on enslaving mankind. So fucking which is it? You cant have it both ways. This especially coming from a political party which has long aligned itself with groups that promote slavery, racism, warmongering, and the right to own guns. Your ridiculous comparisons to the democratic agenda and hitler have about as much merit as agreeing that both Obama and Hitler wore a tie when they spoke.


Tell me, how old are you? Have you ever even voted before?

toteheastside yet again only deliveres guilt by association arguments.

ah Saki... "yet again" huh... "only" eh....? ok
That is really a laughable statement as this is coming from the guy who in reference to me posting a story about the correct principle of appropriations of US tax dollars, his first statement to me ever was, "I dont understand this unconditional love some of you americans seem to have towards the constitution and/or freedom."
"You seem to read the constitution like you read the bible. Seperation of chuch and state anyone?".
Obviously Saki has a very clear understanding of me and there is absolutely no guilt by association views from within you over there Saki -.-;;
[x]sarc

I guess I gotta ask... where u coming from this time Saki? Even if you might have a point, I'm not going to presume it for you. So if u actually wanna tango and get somewhere then plz get specific, otherwise don't "waste your time" and do your standard dodge like statement now thx

and Newb lol do you even know which party I am?
I've told you and said it more than once but I bet the moment you read this you still don't know correctly
The lines I drew in my post and what they meant I am not going to attempt to educate you on Newb; it really goes nowhere with you and our posts are constant reminders of that i.e. your last one here. With me, you are definitely way to one way in thinking; all I will ever do is waste my breath. If Obama had his own zealots, I'd crown you his first one. You're welcome.

Mayyyyybe if Saki actually deems it worthwhile to be more than his std opinionated hating self you can read something from there but I wouldn't bet on that happening

I should have known this thread would degrade to this and taken a more neutral stance. I totally knew it but I couldn't since I am just filled with such disgust. I should have just focused on the fact that the overwhelming majority of republicans are anti poker and the majority of democrats support poker which was my main point.

But this whole "year of the bible" thing and related issues such as politicians supporting creationism and banning the teaching of evolution or calling global warming a hoax just gets me so riled up. I know I shouldn't go off topic but I can't help myself and I must respond to the following:

On July 01 2009 13:48 phexac wrote: The part about climate change is true. There are plenty of scientists who say that man-made climate change is not supported by scientific evidence.

For the sake of fairness, there are some scientists that dispute gloabl warming, but to call it plenty is far from the truth. There are only a few dozen reputable scientists that dispute gloabl warming out of many thousands and you can see them listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...ientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Not only are they only a tiny fraction of the entire scientific community, NOT A SINGLE scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change. NOT EVEN ONE. On the other hand, all of the following organizations concur with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability:

- Federal Climate Change Science Program (commissioned by Bush)
- Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
- European Academy of Sciences and Arts
- InterAcademy Council
- International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
- Joint science academies' statements
(The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.)
- Network of African Science Academies
- Royal Society of New Zealand
- Polish Academy of Sciences
- American Association for the Advancement of Science
- European Science Foundation
- National Research Council (US)
- American Geophysical Union
- European Federation of Geologists
- European Geosciences Union
- Geological Society of America
- International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
- Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
- American Meteorological Society
- Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
- Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
- Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
- Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
- World Meteorological Organization
- American Quaternary Association
- International Union for Quaternary Research
- American Astronomical Society
- American Chemical Society
- American Institute of Physics
- American Statistical Association
- Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

So basically every scientific community and organization agree that global warming is attributable to human activities (except for a handful that are non-committal) and there is not a single scientific community or organization that disputes it. HOW is this not a consensus? Thousands upon thousands of reputable scientists and every single scientific organization agree but a few dozen reputable scientists disagree and somehow there is no consensus?

There are still people that believe the earth is flat:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_society

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine ~ Thomas Jefferson

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~ Benjamin Franklin

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. ~ Winston Churchill

Are not laws dangerous which inhibit the passions? Compare the centuries of anarchy with those of the strongest legalism in any country you like and you will see that it is only when the laws are silent that the greatest actions appear. ~ Marquis De Sade

It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. ~ Mark Twain

Some qoutes I thought especially relevant.

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. By the way eastside, thanks for another classic example of your rightwing lunacy pushed out by the underground extremists out there in lala land, you do your party a great service with such demonstrations of idiocy. I love how the fringe right goes from defining the democratic party as pussies and cowards to iron fisted tyrants bent on enslaving mankind. So fucking which is it? You cant have it both ways. This especially coming from a political party which has long aligned itself with groups that promote slavery, racism, warmongering, and the right to own guns. Your ridiculous comparisons to the democratic agenda and hitler have about as much merit as agreeing that both Obama and Hitler wore a tie when they spoke. Tell me, how old are you? Have you ever even voted before?

Please allow me to suggest that both the right and the left are pushing towards tyranny with the only differene being the sort.

The right for the most seems to want to inflict their "Moral" "family" "Traditional" "Religious" What have you values on the people. They also want to inflict our or "There" values on the rest of the world.

The left seems to want to inflict their values of "forced tolerance", "Egalitarian economics", "paternalism of saftey and health" ect.

In fact, the one thing both sides in practice seem to agree with is that tyranny ought be the order of the day. God help us if they ever agree on the form of it they ought to institute.

On July 02 2009 01:32 ToTehEastSide wrote: ah Saki... "yet again" huh... "only" eh....? ok That is really a laughable statement as this is coming from the guy who in reference to me posting a story about the correct principle of appropriations of US tax dollars, his first statement to me ever was, "I dont understand this unconditional love some of you americans seem to have towards the constitution and/or freedom." "You seem to read the constitution like you read the bible. Seperation of chuch and state anyone?". Obviously Saki has a very clear understanding of me and there is absolutely no guilt by association views from within you over there Saki -.-;; [x]sarc I guess I gotta ask... where u coming from this time Saki? Even if you might have a point, I'm not going to presume it for you. So if u actually wanna tango and get somewhere then plz get specific, otherwise don't "waste your time" and do your standard dodge like statement now thx and Newb lol do you even know which party I am? I've told you and said it more than once but I bet the moment you read this you still don't know correctly The lines I drew in my post and what they meant I am not going to attempt to educate you on Newb; it really goes nowhere with you and our posts are constant reminders of that i.e. your last one here. With me, you are definitely way to one way in thinking; all I will ever do is waste my breath. If Obama had his own zealots, I'd crown you his first one. You're welcome. Mayyyyybe if Saki actually deems it worthwhile to be more than his std opinionated hating self you can read something from there but I wouldn't bet on that happening

My point is that you argue your points in a dirty way that is all.

On July 02 2009 02:30 TenBagger wrote: I should have known this thread would degrade to this and taken a more neutral stance. I totally knew it but I couldn't since I am just filled with such disgust. I should have just focused on the fact that the overwhelming majority of republicans are anti poker and the majority of democrats support poker which was my main point.

yes, you should have known, since it was just another republican-bashing piece disguised as a poker related issue.

Why do you have such blind love for your democrats? They have all the power and can do whatever they want, yet you still spend your time campaigning against republicans. The Dems won, alright. Get over it, get on with it, let's see what they can do. Just shut up until election year and defend what they've done with control.

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.