Bush or Gore
Lee Munzer
dissociative disorders) is better for the country and Bush (lord help us) is
better for me.
Any thoughts on who is better for gaming (poker players in particular)?
Lee
mredge
I would guess that the Republican Party may be the lesser of the two evils.
RMITCHCOLL
>I've decided Gore (suffering from identity, memory, and consciousness
>dissociative disorders) is better for the country
I am sorry to say that this post has caused me to cancel my subscription to
"The Lee Munzer Shirt of the Month Club."
Randy Collack
Jaeger T. Cat
Lee Munzer <luck...@lvdi.net> wrote:
>I've decided Gore (suffering from identity, memory, and consciousness
>better for me.
>
>Any thoughts on who is better for gaming (poker players in particular)?
>
>Lee
>
>
Harry Browne.
Bjorn Luser
to be a better poker player than Gore. Although it would be
rather difficult to read any tells from Gore; he wouldn't have
a poker face, just a blank face. ;)
--
... and this time, I mean it!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steve BIA
>Any thoughts on who is better for gaming (poker players in particular)?
That's an easy one. Poker players are capitalists and are hurt by onerous
taxation. A Republican President/Congress would benefit anyone who is in
"business" and would gain from lower tax rates, fees, etc. A Democrat
President/Congress would benefit those who extensively utilize
government/social services and whose income brackets are low enough to make
them immune from higher tax rates.
So, unless you're on welfare, food stamps or some other government program, as
a poker player you'll benefit more financially from the Republican philosophy.
Steve N
Linda Sherman
>
> I've decided Gore (suffering from identity, memory, and consciousness
> dissociative disorders) is better for the country and Bush (lord help us) is
> better for me.
>
Nobody who depends on the Christian Right to get elected is good for
gaming.
Lin
--
Linda K Sherman <lins...@gte.net>
Learn Welsh - http://www.dalati.com
JohnnyD
Each one chooses a candidate. That does not mean the candidate agrees with
every thing that group stands for. This applies to Gore and Bush. I'm sure
there are lots of groups on Gore's side of the ledger that he would rather
they not become too public. I'm not a member of the Christain Right, but I
do find it somewhat offensive that it's okay to bash them (and I'm not
saying Linda is doing this, but many do), but if you say anything about
other religions, a negative label is put on you. If you disagree with an
issue associated with the Christain Right, then discuss that issue, don't
just attact the group.
As far as their affect on gaming.....gaming will not be affected by either
candidate.
JohnnyD
"Linda Sherman" <lins...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:39F75271...@gte.net...
Ed Hill
even willing to pass legislation that tells a woman what to do with
her own body. Get real, if the KYL Bill was in front of Bush he would
sign it without hesitation. Why in the world would anybody want
somebody in office, whose opinion of you is that you don't have enough
sense to run your own life and wants to pass legislation for you to
follow so that all you have to do is abide by the rules and you will
be a happy citizen? I would stand in the rain all day to vote against
Bush, he is a younger version of Dole.
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 21:39:09 GMT, Linda Sherman <lins...@gte.net>
wrote:
JohnnyD
control more of the money, because he doesn't think we have enough sense to
run our own lives.....he doesn't want school choice, because he doesn't
think we have enough sense to run our own lives, he wants gun control
because he doesn't think we have enough sense to control our own lives, etc,
etc.
JohnnyD
"Ed Hill" wrote:
> Why in the world would anybody want
> somebody in office, whose opinion of you is that you don't have enough
> sense to run your own life.
Billy Burwick
I need to as it seems that George W is very close to becoming our next
president. While these quotes shouldn't be used as a sole basis for
determining your choice, I do believe they illustrate a lack of a)mental
quickness b) a sharp thought process c) command of the English language d) >
intellect needed to be President.
billy b>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >
> >
> > "Actually, I-this may sound a little West
> > Texan to
> > you, but
> > I like it. When I'm talking about-when I'm
> > talking
> > about myself,
> > and when he's talking about myself, all of us are
> > talking
> > about me."
> > --Hardball, MSNBC, May 31, 2000
> >
> > "It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of
> > numbers in
> > it."
> > --Reuters, May 5, 2000
> >
> > "I think we agree, the past is over."
> > --On his meeting with John McCain, Dallas Morning
> > News, May
> > 10, 2000
> >
> > "Laura and I really don't realize how bright
> > our
> > children is sometime
> > until we get an objective analysis."
> > --Meet the Press, April 15, 2000
> >
> > "I was raised in the West. The west of Texas.
> > It's
> > pretty close to
> > California. In more ways than Washington,
> > D.C., is
> > close to
> > California."
> > --Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2000
> >
> > "We want our teachers to be trained so they can
> > meet
> > the obligations;
> > their obligations as teachers. We want them to
> > know
> > how to teach
> > the science of reading. In order to make sure
> > there's
> > not this kind
> > of federal cufflink."
> > --Fritsche Middle School, Milwaukee, March 30, 2000
> >
> > "The fact that he relies on facts-says
> > things that
> > are not factual
> > -- are going to undermine his campaign."
> > --New York Times, March 4, 2000
> >
> > "It is not Reaganesque to support a tax plan
> > that is
> > Clinton in nature."
> > --Los Angeles, Feb. 23, 2000
> >
> > "I understand small business growth. I was
> > one."
> > --New York Daily News, Feb. 19, 2000
> >
> > "The senator has got to understand if he's
> > going to
> > have he can't
> > have it both ways. He can't take the high
> > horse and
> > then claim the
> > low road."
> > --To reporters in Florence, S.C., Feb. 17, 2000
> >
> > "If you're sick and tired of the politics of
> > cynicism
> > and polls and
> > principles, come and join this campaign."
> > --Hilton Head, S.C., Feb. 16, 2000
> >
> > "How do you know if you don't measure if you
> > have a
> > system that
> > simply suckles kids through?"
> > --Explaining the need for educational
> > accountability,
> > Beaufort, S.C., Feb.
> > 16, 2000
> >
> > "We ought to make the pie higher."
> > --South Carolina Republican Debate, Feb. 15, 2000
> >
> > "I've changed my style somewhat, as you know.
> > I'm
> > less, I
> > pontificate less, although it may be hard to
> > tell it
> > from this show.
> > And I'm more interacting with people."
> > --Meet The Press, Feb. 13, 2000
> >
> > "I think we need not only to eliminate the
> > tollbooth
> > to the middle
> > class, I think we should knock down the tollbooth."
> > --Nashua, N.H., as quoted by Gail Collins, New York
> > Times,
> > Feb. 1, 2000
> >
> > "The most important job is not to be governor,
> > or
> > first lady in my case."
> > --Pella, Iowa, as quoted in the San Antonio Express
> > News,
> > Jan. 30, 2000"
> >
> > "Will the highways on the Internet become more
> > few?"
> > --Concord, N.H., Jan. 29, 2000
> >
> > "This is Preservation Month. I appreciate
> > preservation. It's what
> > you do when you run for president. You gotta
> > preserve."
> > --Speaking during Perseverance Month at Fairgrounds
> > Elementary School in
> > Nashua, N.H.
> >
> > "I know how hard it is for you to put food on
> > your
> > family."
> > --Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan.
> > 27, 2000
> >
> > "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world
> > of
> > madmen and
> > uncertainty and potential mental losses."
> > --At a South Carolina oyster roast; quoted in the
> > Financial
> > Times, Jan. 14,
> > 2000
> >
> > "We must all hear the universal call to like
> > your
> > neighbor just like
> > you like to be liked yourself."
> > --At a South Carolina oyster roast; quoted in the
> > Financial
> > Times, Jan. 14,
> > 2000
> >
> > "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children
> >
> > learning?"
> > --Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000
> >
> > "There needs to be debates, like we're going
> > through.
> > There needs
> > to be townhall meetings. There needs to be
> > travel.
> > This is a huge
> > country."
> > --Larry King Live, Dec. 16, 1999
> >
> > "The important question is, How many hands have
> > I
> > shaked?"
> > --Answering a question about why he hasn't spent
> > more time
> > in New Hampshire;
> > quoted in the New York Times, Oct. 23, 1999
> >
> > "Keep good relations with the Grecians."
> > --Quoted in the Economist, June 12, 1999
> >
> > "I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart
> > enough to
> > handle the job
> > is underestimating."
> > --U.S. News & World Report, April 3, 2000
> >
>
]
"Lee Munzer" <luck...@lvdi.net> wrote in message
news:3nHJ5.14996$TC6.6...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
> I've decided Gore (suffering from identity, memory, and consciousness
> dissociative disorders) is better for the country and Bush (lord help us)
is
> better for me.
>
> Any thoughts on who is better for gaming (poker players in particular)?
>
> Lee
>
>
Wade Coody
for quotation taken out of context.
Billy Burwick <wwo...@ix.netcom.com*> wrote in message
news:sveqa2t...@corp.supernews.com...
Billy Burwick
billy b
"Wade Coody" <wco...@primetech.net> wrote in message
news:sver2l5...@corp.supernews.com...
Badger
> I've decided Gore (suffering from identity, memory, and consciousness
> dissociative disorders) is better for the country and Bush (lord help us)
is
> better for me.
> Any thoughts on who is better for gaming (poker players in particular)?
American history tells us of a minor political party formed many years ago
to combat an insidious problem plaguing society. This Anti-Masonic party
was also known as the "Know-Nothing Party". Anti-"Mason"ic....
Know-Nothing....
...so obviously Carson is voting for Millard Fillmore.
Badger
> Bush is a bible beater that wants to tell us all how to live. He is
> even willing to pass legislation that tells a woman what to do with
> her own body. Get real, if the KYL Bill was in front of Bush he would
> sign it without hesitation.
Neither of these guys is worth a bucket of warm spit.
But anybody whose criteria for choosing was who was better for gaming, who
would make it an easier thing to play poker in a casino or online... any
such person who would vote for Bush is a fool.
Who is better for the country is another thing. Poker and gaming it's a
slam dunk.
Thats_hersh_foll...@tc.umn.edu
Billy Burwick <wwo...@ix.netcom.com*> wrote:
>Hi folks, I hope I don't offend any of you for sending this, however I feel
>I need to as it seems that George W is very close to becoming our next
>president.
You "feel that you need to"? How silly. While these are kind of funny,
the imperative tone that you attach to this message is laughable.
Public speaking is hard. Most people who do it say a few goofy things
now and then. This stuff is about as relevant to the current election as
that bloopers and practical jokes show.
The thing that really makes me laugh is this. Most of these are off the
cuff remarks and generally perfectly understandable flubs. They were
made in the heat of a public speech, often in answer to a reporter's
question. Bush had little time to think about what he was saying and no
opportunity to change what he had said. You, on the other hand,
received this list in a very poorly edited state. You had all the time
in the world to edit it so that the lines were of reasonable length and
the whole thing was readable. Instead you posted this:
>> > "Actually, I-this may sound a little West
>
>> > Texan to
>
>> > you, but
>
>> > I like it. When I'm talking about-when I'm
>
>> > talking
>
>> > about myself,
>
>> > and when he's talking about myself, all of us are
>
>> > talking
>
>> > about me."
Honestly, after posting in such an unreadable format, you are criticizing
Bush because he happened to mangle a few syllables? This is third grade
material.
I'm not necessarily a Bush supporter. I'm one of those undecided
voters that you keep hearing about. I tend to agree with Lee. I think
that the country would be better off with Gore, paying down the
national debt and appointing liberal justices to the supreme court. But
I will definitely be better off with Bush. I do hope that this election
will be about relevant issues, not about who tells better jokes.
Gary Carson
--
Gary Carson
www.garycarson.com
Badger wrote in message <8t7t54$bpf$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>...
Daniel P Contreras, Jr
I am sick and tired of all this "having a good job and making a lot of
money" crap I have had to put up with under Clinton/Gore.
Under the Republican philosophy, I would have paid a LOT less in
taxes...That is if I had been able to find a job in 1990.
Steve BIA wrote:
>
> Lee wrote:
>
> >Any thoughts on who is better for gaming (poker players in particular)?
>
Jaeger T. Cat
>dissociative disorders) is better for the country and Bush (lord help us) is
>better for me.
>
>
>
>
Well, the casino lobby has Bush already bought and paid for,
so I don't really see him as a threat. Sure, he might back
an Internet gambling ban, but hey, who gives a shit? Like
the Man would be able to stop IP traffic.
gamman
"RazzO" <ra...@pokerworld.comSPAMLESS> wrote in message
news:39f77841...@news.lvcm.com...
> -change topic-
>
> Question for Lee, Mike, or anyone.(NON-POKER)
>
> This question deals with a possible technicality.
> Let's say that in 1976, as a debater for Penn State I shake Al Gore,
> Jr.'s hand afterwards.
> 25 years later he is elected President of the United States.
>
> Can I boast that I shook the hand of a US President?
>
>
> razzo
>
>
Hopefully so
Jim Geary
level, GWB was pretty unfriendly, spiking any legal poker in
Texas and thereby forcing my future wife to sell her house and
move to Arizona. The only venue where they might have some
impact would be online. Gore seems more of a handsoff guy
w.r.t. I-gambling.
Jim Geary
jimgeary.com - something to bore everyone
RazzO
Question for Lee, Mike, or anyone.(NON-POKER)
This question deals with a possible technicality.
Let's say that in 1976, as a debater for Penn State I shake Al Gore,
Jr.'s hand afterwards.
25 years later he is elected President of the United States.
Can I boast that I shook the hand of a US President?
razzo
>I've decided Gore (suffering from identity, memory, and consciousness
>dissociative disorders) is better for the country and Bush (lord help us) is
>better for me.
>
>Any thoughts on who is better for gaming (poker players in particular)?
>
>Lee
>
>
________________________________________________________
|* POKERWORLD.COM
|* POKERwwwORLD by RazzO - http://www.pokerworld.com
|* The Poker Show - http://www.poker2000.com
|* RazzOFlasH.Com - http://www.razzoflash.com
| EMAIL ra...@pokerworld.com or ra...@lvmc.com
| ADVERTISE @ http://www.pokerworld.com/spaceavail.html
__________________________________________________
JSwinson
<john_...@ultimatesoftware.com> wrote:
> I'm not a member of the Christain Right, but I do find it somewhat offensive
>that it's okay to bash them
I'm willing to "bash" the Christain Right as long as they are willing
to "bash" personal freedom.
*** REMOVE "DIAL" TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL ***
JSwinson
<john_...@ultimatesoftware.com> wrote:
>This could have been written about Gore also.....he wants the government to
>control more of the money, because he doesn't think we have enough sense to
>run our own lives.....he doesn't want school choice, because he doesn't
>think we have enough sense to run our own lives,
What he doesn't want is taxpayer money going to finance private
religious schools.
>he wants gun control because he doesn't think we have enough sense to
>control our own lives, etc, etc.
He wants gun control because he doesn't think people should be able to
buy a gun without submitting to a background check. I am amazed by the
pro gun lobby screaming for tougher laws for crooks who use guns to
commit crimes but fight like mad whenever the government tries to make
it harder for the criminals to buy the guns.
NolanDalla
Several months ago (during the primaries), I posted a collection of thoughts on
each major presidential candidate vis-a-vis his stand on gambling issues, as
well as his pubic record (when applicable). I later publically endorsed John
McCain in a column that appeared in February (which unfortunately came back to
haunt me somewhat when Sen. McCain became a co-sponsor of legislation to outlaw
gambling on college sports).
Without extrapolating this dicussion into other areas (suitablity to be
President, issues, policies, etc.) one canddiate appears to be neutral on
gambling. The other candidate appears to be anti-gambling (in general).
AL GORE: Publically endorsed the foundation of the notorious Gambling Impact
Study Commission (a monumental waste of time and energy that produced
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of value when the final report was released in 1999). Gore,
when asked the question, has stated he believes gambling is a "states' rights"
issue (which is the answer most pro-gambling interests want to hear). However,
Gore also represented Tennessee in the U.S. Senate for two terms and went on
record voting against Indian initiatives to open tribal lands to gambling. He
also opposed a referendum that was introduced in Tennessee to launch a state
lottery (not really a "negative" in the view of some, but neverltheless an
indication of where his moral attitudes on gambling may be). Overall, Gore
appears to be a neutral on the gambling issue, although leaning slightly
negative.
GEORGE W. BUSH: Has moved to the center politically following Republican
National Convention -- which provides no clear indication of his stand on
gambling issues. If President, his hardline stance against pro-gambling issues
may win him some affectons of the far-right (at a minimal political cost --
since gambling is the easy scapegoat for criticism and rarely has any public
defenders). Most assuredly Bush would sign either Kyl Bill (online gambling
ban) and/or the anti-sports gambling bill if it reaches his desk. Furthermore,
Bush has an ugly track record in Texas on two important gambling matters.
First, he pressured the state Attorney General's office to shut down a
legalized casino in West Texas on Indian land (which had not negotiated a
settlement with the state -- which was the primary reason for state
intervention). Pro-gambling interests would like to have seen the Governor
take a neutral and generally more accommodating position in this controvery, by
agreeing to intervene to help the Indian tribe to reach a proper settlement
with the state. According to reports, the tribe lost a great deal of money
fighting the case in court (not to mention investments made in the property)
that were ultimately the responsibility of the Governor. In short, the Gov.
handled this issue very poorly, refusing to act an an intermediary on an
economic issue important to many people). On the other major issue in Texas on
gambling, Gov. Bush publically stated he would not sign any measure whatsoever
to allow other forms of gambling to expand in the state (including legalized
poker at the racetracks in Houston and Grand Prairie). I am not sure of Bush's
track record on the introduction of legislation to allow "cruises to nowhere"
out of Galveston (gambling ships, basically), but assume it was not
affirmative.
As to the two (major) parties controlling Congress:
Nevada gambling interests have contributed heavily to Democratic candidates
(through the DNC). Many casinos feel the Democrats would be better for
business since the Democratic Party is not influenced by the rabid
(anti-gambling) religious right. Since many Nevada casinos have economic
interests in other states (large corporations primarily), they are concerned
about legalities and tax matters on the federal level and pending and potential
legislation in that address these issues in some states. Some casino
proponents have expressed concerns, however, that Democratic tax policies) on
the federal level) may not be good for gambling, since Democrats generally
favor higher levels of taxation to support more government programs (and there
are fears that one of the next groups Congress will come after are gamblers --
e.g. bill introduced to tax ALL gambling winnings without loss writeoffs)
Naturally, there has always been a pro-business, laisez faire, corporate-backed
wing within the Republican Party (what used to be called "Rockefeller
Republicans") which many believe would be good for gambling and for the casino
industry. Unfortunately, this element of the party has seen diminshing numbers
in recent years and may no longer be a factor in a party that has set its curse
on addressing some of the moral and ethical questions that affect this country
(which inexplicably includes gambling).
Of course, there is also a viable argument which can be made that gambling
interests (casinos) and the interest of poker players are not necessarily one
and the same.
I leave it up to each of you to draw your own conclusions on this final
question.
Nolan Dalla
*********************************************
ADV Scottro
Personally, I think anyone who even considers voting for a socialist tree is
a moron, but I have no clue on how either would affect the game of poker.
Aces,
Scottro
"Badger" <stevebadg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8t7u0q$o3i$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
ADV Scottro
Besides the fact that he will not get elected, you have to look at it in a
bio-physical way. I'm no doctor or expert. I never even took chemistry in
high school. But I've read in many places that your cells die and
re-generate every day. So rapidly, in fact, that the cells that made up
your body 25 years ago are not the cells that make up your body today.
Perhaps someone here who actually knows what they're talking about (as
opposed to my ignorance of the subject) can shed some light on this.
There is a lot of this I don't understand, of course, such as the existence
of scars that last for years. But, if it is true, then you didn't actually
shake the hand of a Prez. (or wannabe prez who lost the election he thought
he had locked up).
By the way, if Gore does win, I implore someone to come to my house, get the
money I'll owe Andy Latto for our bet, and shoot me. I'd be better off
dead.
Aces,
Scottro
"RazzO" <ra...@pokerworld.comSPAMLESS> wrote in message
news:39f77841...@news.lvcm.com...
Linda Sherman
> > dissociative disorders) is better for the country and Bush (lord help us)
> is
> > better for me.
> > Any thoughts on who is better for gaming (poker players in particular)?
>
> to combat an insidious problem plaguing society. This Anti-Masonic party
> was also known as the "Know-Nothing Party". Anti-"Mason"ic....
> Know-Nothing....
>
> ...so obviously Carson is voting for Millard Fillmore.
Good one, Steve.
Linda Sherman
>
> I'm not a member of the Christain Right, but I
> saying Linda is doing this, but many do)
Just for the record, I only bash the Christian Right when they try to
stomp on my rights. Since that's just about all the time, I guess you'll
just have to be offended.
But I digress. The point I was trying to make is that the C.R., though
not as powerful as it used to be, still exerts a tremendous influence on
Republican Party and out-and-out controls the party machinery in many
states and local districts. Regardless of Bush's personal views on
gaming, he has to keep the C.R. happy, and legalized gambling is one of
their push-button issues. Because they control the party apparatus in so
many areas, having their support is crucial because it's the party
members who do the grunt work, especially of getting loyal supporters to
the polls on election day.
Sean Duffy
<sc...@spintheglobe.com> wrote:
>Why? What data do you have to back this up Steve?
Uh, you could have tried reading Nolan Dalla's post that was posted an
hour before yours, which contained plenty of "data." Bush has a
lengthy record of being opposed to gambling, which isn't surprising
due to his political affiliation. Anyone who thinks that most
republicans are social libertarians because they believe in "less
government" is delusional.
>Personally, I think anyone who even considers voting for a socialist tree is
>a moron, but I have no clue on how either would affect the game of poker.
Personally, I think anyone who doesn't bother to read all the posts in
a thread before posting is a moron.
-Sean
Fromtherail
much but Bush is worse.
Max Roman
news:5qmevsokph8hfrdiv...@4ax.com...
> Bush is a bible beater that wants to tell us all how to live. He is
> even willing to pass legislation that tells a woman what to do with
> her own body. Get real, if the KYL Bill was in front of Bush he would
> somebody in office, whose opinion of you is that you don't have enough
> sense to run your own life and wants to pass legislation for you to
> follow so that all you have to do is abide by the rules and you will
> be a happy citizen? I would stand in the rain all day to vote against
> Bush, he is a younger version of Dole.
>
I don't think you're giving Bob Dole nearly enough credit--he is practically
an order of magnitude more intelligent than Bush.
Funnier, too (compare their performances on various late night shows).
I am, of course, excluding his ill-advised decision to hawk Viagra after his
election defeat. =).
Max
Abdul Jalib
slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral
questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the
voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but
I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am
willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never
exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing
for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should
prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance,
nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but
little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall
at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they
are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery
left to be abolished by their vote. *They* will then be the only
slaves. Only *his* vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts
his own freedom by his vote.
I hear of a convention to be held at Baltimore, or elsewhere, for
the selection of a candidate for the Presidency, made up chiefly of
editors, and men who are politicians by profession; but I think, what
is it to any independent, intelligent, and respectable man what
decision they may come to? Shall we not have the advantage of this
wisdom and honesty, nevertheless? Can we not count upon some
independent votes? Are there not many individuals in the country who
do not attend conventions? But no: I find that the respectable man,
so called, has immediately drifted from his position, and despairs of
his country, when his country has more reasons to despair of him. He
forthwith adopts one of the candidates thus selected as the only
available one, thus proving that he is himself available for any
purposes of the demagogue.
[The above is from Henry David Thoreau's essay "Civil Disobedience",
1849.]
--
Abdul
Max Roman
news:1qOJ5.972$Qw.2...@typhoon.neo.rr.com...
> By the way, if Gore does win, I implore someone to come to my house, get
the
> money I'll owe Andy Latto for our bet, and shoot me. I'd be better off
> dead.
>
> Aces,
> Scottro
>
Sounds like you have bigger problems then the election.
Max
Badger
> Why? What data do you have to back this up Steve?
>
> Personally, I think anyone who even considers voting for a socialist tree
is
> a moron, but I have no clue on how either would affect the game of poker.
Passing up the opportunity to not dialogue with someone who thinks Al Bore
is a socialist...
1/3 of Bush's constituency -- and more than half his core -- is virulently
anti-gambling as part of their anti-everything-they-don't-like philosophy.
The religious right is steamed about the spread of gambling (though not to
the degree they are steamed about peeping in other people's bedrooms and
such). Bush would sign an Internet gaming ban. Gore might too, but his
positions on these free-living things (abortion, homosexuality, gaming) are
far more libertarian and/or states rights oriented (meaning at least some
gaming will happen somewhere) than Bush and his moral fascist supporters who
love the idea of blanket bans, constitutional amendments and that sort of
iron fist garbage.
Once again, this is only a minor issue over who would be a better President.
IMO, they are both pretty much useless dips. The amazing thing is it's the
best (least useless) pair of dudes since at least 1976.
The gambling explosion of the 1990s occurred primarily under Clinton. This
is not totally a coincidence.
Terrence Chan
wrote:
>I've decided Gore (suffering from identity, memory, and consciousness
>dissociative disorders) is better for the country and Bush (lord help us) is
>better for me.
>
>Any thoughts on who is better for gaming (poker players in particular)?
>
>Lee
>
I think this whole voting thing is ridiculous.
Just put them at opposite ends of the table, give them each 5 or 6
racks with 1-2 blinds and the whole bullshit is done with in less than
a day.
--
Terrence Chan
http://www.sfu.ca/~tchand/
"It profiteth the wise, to be deemed a fool."
-Oceanus, Aeschylus' _Prometheus Bound_
RazzO
>racks with 1-2 blinds and the whole bullshit is done with in less than
>a day.
This would put the GOP at an advantage.
Bore seems he would have more table presence and I bet willing to
shove booth racks in. Whereas the Gush seems like he would try and
wait for A-A and get blinded away, while glaring at the dealer. I
don't know, maybe it's just me.
In other news...
I think this election will top the Dolphin vs Jet game!
razzo
________________________________________________________
RazzO
>As far as college betting is concerned, we need Gore. Which may still not be
>much but Bush is worse.
Not to worry!
Here is my Presidential Election Forecast:
TOTAL ELECTORIAL VOTES: 538
Gov. George W. Bush - 133
V.P. Al Gore, Jr. - 134
Mike Ditka - 271
Hope you are happy now!
razzo
Ken M
responses. I find 37 responses to this thread.
I guess this is now rec.bullshit. No wonder I see less and less poker players
posting here.
A. Prock
mredge
Linda Sherman wrote in message <39F7B467...@gte.net>...
Regardless of Bush's personal views on
>gaming, he has to keep the C.R. happy, and legalized gambling is one of
>their push-button issues. Because they control the party apparatus in so
>many areas, having their support is crucial because it's the party
>members who do the grunt work, especially of getting loyal supporters to
>the polls on election day.
Gaming interests control Trent Lott just as much or more than the Christian
Right. Follow the money from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians to
Washington. They gave over a million dollars to conservative mainly
Republican Congresspersons.
Harry Browne is the Man.
Steve BIA
>Gov. George W. Bush - 133
>V.P. Al Gore, Jr. - 134
>Mike Ditka - 271
Gee, I didn't realize Illinois had 271 electoral college votes. Now I'm really
scared!
Steve N
Steve BIA
>I think this whole voting thing is ridiculous.
>
>Just put them at opposite ends of the table, give them each 5 or 6
>racks with 1-2 blinds and the whole bullshit is done with in less than
>a day.
Speaking of poker and the presidency, let us not forget that Richard Nixon
financed his early political campaigns to a large extent with his poker
winnings, so, indirectly, poker played no small part in his becoming
President.
Steve N
Lee Munzer
"RMITCHCOLL":
> Lee Munzer wrote:
>
> >I've decided Gore (suffering from identity, memory, and consciousness
> >dissociative disorders) is better for the country
>
> I am sorry to say that this post has caused me to cancel my subscription
to
> "The Lee Munzer Shirt of the Month Club."
>
> Randy Collack
Of course, we will honor your request, but you should know, with the recent
movement in our industry, I was able to secure some Badger "Zebras" in your
size. Good choice of collars (black and white). All "Zebras" come in extra
long shirtails and have high necks.
Lee (we appreciated your business)
Jeff Wilder
>
> I am sick and tired of all this "having a good job and making a
lot of
> money" crap I have had to put up with under Clinton/Gore.
>
> Under the Republican philosophy, I would have paid a LOT less
in
> taxes...That is if I had been able to find a job in 1990.
Daniel, this is a little too subtle for most Republicans. (The
rest of us liked it, though.)
Jeff
Lee Munzer
"Steve BIA" ...
> Lee wrote:
>
> >Any thoughts on who is better for gaming (poker players in particular)?
>
> taxation. A Republican President/Congress would benefit anyone who is in
> "business" and would gain from lower tax rates, fees, etc. A Democrat
> President/Congress would benefit those who extensively utilize
> government/social services and whose income brackets are low enough to
make
> them immune from higher tax rates.
>
> So, unless you're on welfare, food stamps or some other government
program, as
> a poker player you'll benefit more financially from the Republican
philosophy.
>
> Steve N
That's what I would have guessed from my cursory knowledge of the two
parties' philosophies. Hope the electoral vote is 269-269 (there is a
not-so-remote possibility)
Thx,
Lee
Jeff Wilder
government program, as
> a poker player you'll benefit more financially from the
Republican philosophy.
Except, of course (among many other exceptions), that the
Republican party has been captured by the Religious Right, which
is rabidly anti-gambling.
Jeff
Lee Munzer
"JohnnyD"
> As far as their affect on gaming.....gaming will not be affected by either
> candidate.
>
> JohnnyD
Including the push to ban legalized betting on sports?
Lee
Jaeger T. Cat
Well, you can theorize all you want, or you can actually
follow the money..... the casino lobby gives most of their
support to.....
the Republicans.
Steve BIA
>Daniel, this is a little too subtle for most Republicans. (The
>rest of us liked it, though.)
>
No, not too subtle for most Republicans. We just shrug our shoulders and sigh
when we encounter Democrats who think Bill Clinton is responsible for the
economic boom of the 90's. Oh, and Gore too, since he invented the internet :)
Steve N
Steve BIA
>That's what I would have guessed from my cursory knowledge of the two
>parties' philosophies. Hope the electoral vote is 269-269 (there is a
>not-so-remote possibility)
What's really scary is that electoral college members are not legally obligated
to vote for the peoples' choice of candidates. So, if it is that close, which
is definitely possible, a couple of electors could swing their votes to the
candidate who lost the popular vote, and the losing candidate at the polls
could be elected President. It has happened before.
Steve N
Steve BIA
>Except, of course (among many other exceptions), that the
>Republican party has been captured by the Religious Right, which
>is rabidly anti-gambling.
I am not a member of the religious right, and I haven't been captured by
anyone. Oh, and btw, I don't consider poker gambling, and my response to Lee's
question regarded my opinion of how "poker players" would fare under each
candidate. Poker players are interested in their net win rate, which is
impacted by game selection, rake, skill, and, oh yeah.... TAXES
Steve N
Lee Munzer
"Badger" ...
> American history tells us of a minor political party formed many years ago
> to combat an insidious problem plaguing society. This Anti-Masonic party
> was also known as the "Know-Nothing Party". Anti-"Mason"ic....
> Know-Nothing....
>
> ...so obviously Carson is voting for Millard Fillmore.
This is just another of the many examples that show Badger lives in the past
... Millard Fillmore (lucky 13) pulled out of the race yesterday.
Lee
P.S. For those unfamiliar with Badgerism:
Our 13th president, Fillmore began his political career in the mid-1820s.
He was one of the many young men swept up in the anti-masonic movement of
western New York. In 1832 he was elected to the U.S. Congress as an
Anti-Mason. In Congress Fillmore joined the WHIG PARTY, the coalition
opposed to Andrew Jackson.
When Zach Taylor died unexpectedly on July 9, 1850, then veep Fillmore,
became president. Not one of our best presidents ... his administration
strictly enforced the Fugitive Slave Law, which required Northerners to
collaborate in the return of escaped slaves to their Southern owners.
Glen Coyle
Bush or Gore? ...What happened to Pat Paulson???
Steve BIA
>Well, you can theorize all you want, or you can actually
>follow the money..... the casino lobby gives most of their
>support to.....
the Republicans.
You'll need to document your sources for that statement, since it definitely
has not been the case here in California where I live, or in Connecticut where
I used to live.
And since these are two of the largest gambling states in the nation (based on
gaming revenues) your statement is hard to justify.
Steve N
Lee Munzer
"Terrence Chan"
> Just put them at opposite ends of the table, give them each 5 or 6
> racks with 1-2 blinds and the whole bullshit is done with in less than
> a day.
Nah, it would take Bush until 11/8 to learn the rules. I truly believe the
average RGPer is more intelligent than the man who received a bachelor's
degree from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School.
Lee (who has great faith in RGP)
bill vanek
<stevebadg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Once again, this is only a minor issue over who would be a better President.
>IMO, they are both pretty much useless dips. The amazing thing is it's the
>best (least useless) pair of dudes since at least 1976.
And now that Gus Hall has passed away, there's really no one
left who's worthy of the presidency. Poor Badger.
frank...@my-deja.com
of the most powerful country in the world, you are the most powerful
voters in the world. Your vote affects lives all over the planet, much
more than anyone else's does. Wow!
But the whole philosophy of your nation, and indeed the root of its
success, lies in looking after number one. So now you can all tell my
meddling ass to sod off AND feel virtuous about it. Brilliant!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mike_...@my-deja.com
> I posted a question a few days ago on how to play loose-aggressive
players. No
"Ken M" wrote ...
> I posted a question a few days ago on how to play loose-aggressive
players. No
> responses. I find 37 responses to this thread ...
I see some reasons. They may not be justifiable. As to why Bush-Gore
received 37 this subject hasn't been discussed previously and it's
current. It seems people feel confident in expressing opinions on the
subject. The question was easy to understand and comment on I think.
Your post was one I didn't feel I could answer from the information I
saw and my 2 years experience playing. I thought there were many "it
depends". You had a maniac in the short-handed game, but, I didn't know
what effect he had on the three tight players. It's been my experience
that one maniac loosens up the game a lot at $20/40. Then, there was a
loose aggressive player. Where were these players sitting in relation
to you? Could they be used to create dead money from the tight players.
Who was defending their blinds? Who was stealing and did others know?
Who was able to play well from the flop on? I didn't think the labels
gave me enough to answer. I guess the concept is to use their
individual weaknesses and your knowledge of how they react in different
situations, but, I thought that would be obvious.
M>N>
Jaeger T. Cat
Steve BIA <stev...@aol.comnotrash> wrote:
>Jaeger T. Cat wrote:
>
>>Well, you can theorize all you want, or you can actually
>>follow the money..... the casino lobby gives most of their
>>support to.....
> the Republicans.
>
>You'll need to document your sources for that statement, since it definitely
>has not been the case here in California where I live, or in Connecticut where
>I used to live.
Well, let's start with
http://www.citizen.org/congress/reform/betting.htm
here's two bullet point exerpts...
During the 1990s, the gambling industry's overall contributions to
federal elections (soft money, PACs, individuals) increased a
whopping 447 percent. Big chunks of soft money have become the
dominant form of political giving, rising from 38 percent of total
gambling industry contributions in the 1991-92 election cycle to
64 percent by 1997-98.
During the two election cycles from 1995 through 1998, the casino
gambling industry provided 68 percent of all gambling industry soft
money to the parties. The bulk of that soft money, 65 percent, went
to the Republican Party, which controlled the Congress. Contributions
to the three national Republican Party committees totaled $4.23
million; Democratic Party committees received $2.29 million.
JohnnyD
know many, many Bush supporters. None of them are supporting Bush based on
the CR issues. In fact, most of the Bush supporters I know, are pro choice.
I am. But most of us don't think Bush has a passion about that issue and is
not about to push for a change to the current laws. The Republican party is
NOT captured by the CR....that just happens to be a popular thing to say in
an attempt to put down the Republican party and the CR. Just like I don't
think the Democratic Party has been taken over by the unions, gay groups,
black groups, but they support the Democrats because they feel they better
represent their views. Same thing with the CR.
JohnnyD
"Jeff Wilder" <wild...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:IQXJ5.10$VE4....@news.pacbell.net...
Topset
betting stopped in Nevada! Second, will be Casino's over all, except on
Indian Reservations.
Gore has had 8 years to at least influence the fixing of all these problems
in social Security, Medicare, etc., that he indicated needed fixing in 92'
and 96'. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me! I an not
voting for gore to fool me a third time.
Economy--gore blasts GWB on his daring plan to help the young workers plan
for their retirement. The Stock market is too risky, says gore. Yet gore
says the economy is fabulous "and you haven't seen nothing yet!" Well,
either gore believes in the economy or he doesn't! If he does then GWB's
plan is a good investment, if gore thinks the economy (especially without
any domestic energy plan and 40% dependence on foreign oil) is too risky for
GWB's plan, then there is something wrong with gore's view of the economy.
I do not trust gore to do anything that he says and if he does you can
believe the 2.2 trillion dollar budget he will spend is true. and that is
your tax dollars! You can believe the rich will get richer with gore's big
government and those that need help will get table scrapes.
Why can't the public sector have access to the multitude of health programs
the Federal workers and Federal officials have access to too? Why does the
Federal Workers have a separate retirement plan from Social Security? They
only pay into medicare not Social Security, at least under the old
retirement plan. The new plan I believe allows the Federal workers to invest
into the stock market to increase their retirement benefits. but no Social
Security. Why can't all Americans have these choices? Bush says we all
should, Gore says the government will take care of you from cradle to grave,
and the government will decide what is best for you!
You want to see gambling in general get worked over, vote bore! The liberals
don't like gambling! And poker is gambling to them.
GWB isn't a champion of gambling either but isn't going to take away what
we currently have. And I believe just like on the Ledderman show, GWB
indicated his willingness to listen at least, like he indicated to David, "
if you can show me the death penalty is not a deterrent, then I would be
willing to change my mind."
And that is my opinion on the matter of "bore v. Bush!"
Topset
"Lee Munzer" <luck...@lvdi.net> wrote in message
news:3nHJ5.14996$TC6.6...@news-east.usenetserver.com...
> I've decided Gore (suffering from identity, memory, and consciousness
> dissociative disorders) is better for the country and Bush (lord help us)
is
> better for me.
>
> Any thoughts on who is better for gaming (poker players in particular)?
>
> Lee
>
>
Topset
there is one here for you. and you can play poker in your spare time!
Topset
"Jeff Wilder" <wild...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:NNXJ5.6$VE4...@news.pacbell.net...
Derek Opitz
could get 200,000 RGPers to sign so we could get on the ballot?
bill vanek <bilv...@softcom.net> wrote in message
news:39f83690...@news.softcom.net...
frank...@my-deja.com
will be made from completely different atoms due to natural cycling.
All of you, your bones, your muscles, your brain. But you know as well
as I do that YOU will still be YOU. Spooky.
For me this is compelling evidence of my immortal soul and the
overwhelming power of Jesus.
Topset
better than gore will even try to. The loss of Sports book betting in
Nevada (and only Nevada is targeted [so far])) will have a tremendous impact
on the Vegas casinos. Poker rooms in Nevada may have to be replaced with
slots to make up for the revenue loss of sports betting. If McCain/gore get
it together this will be a reality.
Topset
"Linda Sherman" <lins...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:39F7B467...@gte.net...
> JohnnyD wrote:
> >
> > I'm not a member of the Christain Right, but I
> > do find it somewhat offensive that it's okay to bash them (and I'm not
> > saying Linda is doing this, but many do)
>
> Just for the record, I only bash the Christian Right when they try to
> stomp on my rights. Since that's just about all the time, I guess you'll
> just have to be offended.
>
> But I digress. The point I was trying to make is that the C.R., though
> not as powerful as it used to be, still exerts a tremendous influence on
> Republican Party and out-and-out controls the party machinery in many
> states and local districts. Regardless of Bush's personal views on
> gaming, he has to keep the C.R. happy, and legalized gambling is one of
> their push-button issues. Because they control the party apparatus in so
> many areas, having their support is crucial because it's the party
> members who do the grunt work, especially of getting loyal supporters to
> the polls on election day.
>
> Lin
> --
> Linda K Sherman <lins...@gte.net>
> Learn Welsh - http://www.dalati.com
>
>
Steve BIA
<snip>
> The bulk of that soft money, 65 percent, went
>to the Republican Party, which controlled the Congress.
So, wouldn't you agree that the reason for those figures is that they were
contributing to sitting congressmen, and if the Democrats represented the
majority in the Senate and the House, the bulk of the contributions would have
gone to Democrats? My point is that this has nothing to do with political
parties, but has to do with influencing legislators, regardless of their
affiliation.
Steve N
Lee Munzer
"Steve BIA" ...
Yes, and I recall both times the winner received less 'popular' vote.
Lee
Lee Munzer
"Derek Opitz" wrote ...
> Maybe RGP could start its own ticket. I say lets nominate Badger. Think
we
> could get 200,000 RGPers to sign so we could get on the ballot?
No, he's too flexible. Candidates must stick to their viewpoints and not
allow others to persuade them :<).
Lee
Jaeger T. Cat
Nice beckpedal there, Steve. Watch out for the cliff.
I said: "Republicans get the lion's share of the money"
You said: "That's bullshit, cite, please"
I provided a cite.
You said: "Well, that's not what I meant."
Maybe _you_ should run for office. You've got the requisite
debating "skills".
Topset
There is more issues here than a woman having a baby or not having a baby,
Ed! But, I too use to be for abortion. I am not against it in some
situations like rape. But women have every choice in the world before having
sex. Taking the "mistake" of not having protected sex out on the baby on the
operating table, abortion, is not a very good decision women are making,
IMO.
Other issue I consider,
I don't want DOJ taking over local police departments like in LA and
Colombus Ohio.
I want gun laws enforced not more gun laws!
I don't want "carnivore" looking at my e-mail! Do I have anything to hide?
No. But private business is just that private.
I don't want to see America soldiers serving under the UN Flag.
How many remember the big flap with the IRS the Binion's went through a few
years back, which almost canceled the Hall of Fame Tournament and threatened
to effect all tournaments? Who should we thank for this IRS intrusion? Well
the Democrats love to tax and spend!!
I want to see more domestic oil exploration. How many remember 1973 and the
oil embargo? Long lines. We were only 20% dependent on foreign oil then, now
we are 40% dependent.
The economy can only get better with tax cuts. more money to invest. more
money at the poker tables. more money in the tournaments.
Gore says investing in the stock market is risky. Why? either the economy is
fine and will continue to be fine or gore knows the economy is in trouble.
Which is it, good for gore self serving agenda, or bad for the young workers
and GWB's plan?
I would hope American women see more in this election than just the world of
sex and choosing to have an abortion or not!!!! No one is preventing women
from choosing when, where and with whom to have sex, are they?
IMHO, women need to be making better decisions before having sex and not
have such an easy out for "disposing" of the mistake, by abortion.
Topset
"Ed Hill" <EdH...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:5qmevsokph8hfrdiv...@4ax.com...
> Bush is a bible beater that wants to tell us all how to live. He is
> even willing to pass legislation that tells a woman what to do with
> her own body. Get real, if the KYL Bill was in front of Bush he would
> sign it without hesitation. Why in the world would anybody want
> somebody in office, whose opinion of you is that you don't have enough
> sense to run your own life and wants to pass legislation for you to
> follow so that all you have to do is abide by the rules and you will
> be a happy citizen? I would stand in the rain all day to vote against
> Bush, he is a younger version of Dole.
>
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 21:39:09 GMT, Linda Sherman <lins...@gte.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Lee Munzer wrote:
> >>
> >> I've decided Gore (suffering from identity, memory, and consciousness
> >> dissociative disorders) is better for the country and Bush (lord help
us) is
> >> better for me.
> >>
> >> Any thoughts on who is better for gaming (poker players in particular)?
> >
> >Nobody who depends on the Christian Right to get elected is good for
> >gaming.
> >
> >Lin
>
Topset
pot is not being cut, or so I was told by a Judge.
I have already voted, which we can do in Nevada. I as a registered Democrat
and my mom too voted Democrat for fifty years now, we both voted for Bush.
Why? Because I don't believe Gore will do anything other than what he is
told to do!
Topset
"Jim Geary" <jay...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.3.96.100102...@usr05.primenet.com...
> Most gaming decisions are made at the state level. And at that
> level, GWB was pretty unfriendly, spiking any legal poker in
> Texas and thereby forcing my future wife to sell her house and
> move to Arizona. The only venue where they might have some
> impact would be online. Gore seems more of a handsoff guy
> w.r.t. I-gambling.
>
> Jim Geary
> jimgeary.com - something to bore everyone
>
Derek Opitz
I have noticed that about Badger.
>
> Lee
>
>
roGER
nothing to do with his administration right?
Yeah right!
- roGER
Glee Club Member
>
> Harry Browne.
>
Browne gets my vote--not only for gaming, but for our grandchildren.
(Of course,he won't win; the vote is to remind the government of our
principles.)
DW
--
MMGC: "Quiet Service...Joyful Noise"
Do you know a member?
roGER
Nolan, when it comes to serious poker-related issues, you're in a class of your
own.
Thanks,
- roGER
roGER
that displaying these qualities meant that Gore lost each of the debates - the
opinion polls seem to indicate that in order to be President, you have to be a
fuckwit.
Fortunately, RGP has (or had) the perfect candidate, a man who would make
George Bush seem akin to Einstien (not to mention Sklansky).
Ladies and Gentleman, I proudly present RGP's candidate, the next President of
the United States of America...
Mr Doug Grant!
<Cue 5 minutes of "spontanous" applause>
- roGER
Jaeger T. Cat
roGER <Roger_...@Datawatch.com> wrote:
>
>Ladies and Gentleman, I proudly present RGP's candidate, the next President of
>the United States of America...
>
>Mr Doug Grant!
>
><Cue 5 minutes of "spontanous" applause>
>
Please... we all know Doug can't win. There's too much preferential voting.
Steve BIA
>So, let me get this right - if under Clinton the economy had bombed that
>would be
>nothing to do with his administration right?
Correct. Presidents have little to no effect on economic cycles.
Steve N
mredge
Mississippi is the third largest gaming state in dollars. Look at the
campaign contributions to our Republican Senators Trent Lott and Thad
Cochran. Trent and Thad are not about to do anything to mess up a good
thing in Mississippi. In addition, Lott holds a rather powerful position in
the Senate. In fact, he can pretty much determine if any bill before the
Senate sees the light of day. The Choctaw Indians have the most successful
casino in the state. Their tribe alone has dropped over One million dollars
in Washington mainly on conservative Congresspersons.
So, there you go again. Follow the money.
Disclaimer: I'm sick of Repubicans and Demoncrats. Looks like I'm voting
Libertarian again.
mredge
JohnnyD wrote in message ...
>I think everybody is overestimating the power of the Christain Right. I
>know many, many Bush supporters. None of them are supporting Bush based on
>the CR issues. In fact, most of the Bush supporters I know, are pro
choice.
>I am. But most of us don't think Bush has a passion about that issue and
is
>not about to push for a change to the current laws. The Republican party
is
>NOT captured by the CR....that just happens to be a popular thing to say in
>an attempt to put down the Republican party and the CR. Just like I don't
>think the Democratic Party has been taken over by the unions, gay groups,
>black groups, but they support the Democrats because they feel they better
>represent their views. Same thing with the CR.
>
>JohnnyD
Can I get a big AMEN for Johnny D!
Steve BIA
>Nice beckpedal there, Steve. Watch out for the cliff.
Not at all.
>I said: "Republicans get the lion's share of the money"
>You said: "That's bullshit, cite, please"
>I provided a cite.
>You said: "Well, that's not what I meant."
First of all, I would never use words like that in a public forum, so you know
that's not what I said. Second of all, your post was clearly implying that
gaming interests donated more money to Replublicans BECAUSE they were
Republicans, which, as you know, is not true. I didn't have time to research
the link you posted, but I don't dispute your facts. And I think my post was
quite clear on what I meant, and I haven't changed it.
>Maybe _you_ should run for office. You've got the requisite
>debating "skills".
I already have, I used to be an elected official where I used to live, but I
decided political office was too frustrating and I declined to continue after a
while.
Steve N
Steve BIA
>Maybe RGP could start its own ticket. I say lets nominate Badger. Think we
>could get 200,000 RGPers to sign so we could get on the ballot?
Sorry, as much as I might like Badger, I could never bring myself to vote for
an Omaha player for President.
Steve N
Iceman
> > racks with 1-2 blinds and the whole bullshit is done with in less than
> > a day.
Bush can't beat anything higher than 3-6, but his daddy gives him black chips
to play in games he's totally unqualified for. Don't bother trying to trick
him; he can't read hands.
Gore is scared to play above 3-6, but Tipper is helping him overcome his fears
and bluff sometimes. Accuses the Bellagio of catering to the richest 1%. Puts
his winnings in a lock box.
Nader blames corporate greed for the rake and lack of unionization for lousy
dealer quality. Refuses to play above 3-6 on principle.
Buchanan only tips white dealers. Considers Omaha to be a symbol of moral
decline.
Harry Browne refuses to only act in turn, and chainsmokes at the table.
Jon Corzine keeps trying to buy the pot.
Hillary Clinton is learning stud so she can pretend to be a New Yorker.
Bob Franks wants to play 80-160 but doesn't have the money.
And Rick Lazio plays whatever he's told, and doesn't deviate from the hand
rankings.
> Nah, it would take Bush until 11/8 to learn the rules. I truly believe the
> average RGPer is more intelligent than the man who received a bachelor's
> degree from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School.
He wasn't admitted on his own merit, that's for sure.
Jaeger T. Cat
Steve BIA <stev...@aol.comnotrash> wrote:
>Jaeger T. Cat wrote:
>
>>Nice beckpedal there, Steve. Watch out for the cliff.
>
>Not at all.
>
>>I said: "Republicans get the lion's share of the money"
>>You said: "That's bullshit, cite, please"
>>I provided a cite.
>>You said: "Well, that's not what I meant."
>
>First of all, I would never use words like that in a public forum, so you know
>that's not what I said. Second of all, your post was clearly implying that
>gaming interests donated more money to Replublicans BECAUSE they were
>Republicans, which, as you know, is not true. I didn't have time to research
Ahhh.... so _you're_ allowed to discern what my posts might imply,
but I'm not allowed to do the same for your posts.
How...... convenient.
Steve BIA
>Ahhh.... so _you're_ allowed to discern what my posts might imply,
>but I'm not allowed to do the same for your posts.
>How...... convenient.
I don't have time for this nonsense. If you want to discuss this
intelligently, fine, otherwise we're wasting each other's time.
Steve N
Paul E. Stine
like to see Gary Carson as Govenor of Texas. At least for as long as
it takes him to legalize 'for-profit' card clubs. After that he can
resign in disgrace to retirement on the shores of Lake Travis nad
write his memoirs.
Paul Stine
College Station, TX
Jack Diamond
tight and aggressive. Thus Bush would probably be "better for poker."
Jack
Lee Munzer wrote:
>
> I've decided Gore (suffering from identity, memory, and consciousness
> dissociative disorders) is better for the country and Bush (lord help us) is
> better for me.
>
> Any thoughts on who is better for gaming (poker players in particular)?
>
> Lee
Jaeger T. Cat
And, the final move.... retreating from the field. You forgot to
declare victory while doing so. Perhaps you should re-read that
part of the debating manual.
Amazing, folks.... show some facts, and watch the
opposition turn tail and run.
mredge
Gang.
Lee Munzer
"Steve BIA" <...
I think that's a fair statement. But, IMO economic cycles (which existed
for hundreds of years) may not exist --at least as we knew them -- any
longer. I realize this is a minority opinion.
The Clinton appointment of (Republican) Alan Greenspan was significant,
however.
Lee
Lee Munzer
"roGER" wrote ...
> Steve Badger also far too intelligent, and far too elequent - since we're
told
> that displaying these qualities meant that Gore lost each of the debates -
the
> opinion polls seem to indicate that in order to be President, you have to
be a
> fuckwit.
Gore won debate #1 pretty clearly (on issues), but he really struggled with
winning over the undecided in 2 and 3 I thought. He had the ability to win
all three very easily.
By the way, we need something in the FAQ to outlaw praising Badger in any
way.
I can't comment on Doug -- I ploinked him.
Lee
Lee Munzer
"NolanDalla" ...
> Several months ago (during the primaries), I posted a collection of
thoughts on
> each major presidential candidate vis-a-vis his stand on gambling issues,
as
> well as his pubic record (when applicable).
Yes, I recalled that great post, but couldn't remember the specifics --
Ginko-Biloba can do just so much you know. Thanks for the info below:
Lee
> McCain in a column that appeared in February (which unfortunately came
back to
> haunt me somewhat when Sen. McCain became a co-sponsor of legislation to
outlaw
> gambling on college sports).
>
> Without extrapolating this dicussion into other areas (suitablity to be
> President, issues, policies, etc.) one canddiate appears to be neutral on
> gambling. The other candidate appears to be anti-gambling (in general).
>
> AL GORE: Publically endorsed the foundation of the notorious Gambling
Impact
> Study Commission (a monumental waste of time and energy that produced
> ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of value when the final report was released in 1999).
Gore,
> when asked the question, has stated he believes gambling is a "states'
rights"
> issue (which is the answer most pro-gambling interests want to hear).
However,
> Gore also represented Tennessee in the U.S. Senate for two terms and went
on
> record voting against Indian initiatives to open tribal lands to gambling.
He
> also opposed a referendum that was introduced in Tennessee to launch a
state
> lottery (not really a "negative" in the view of some, but neverltheless an
> indication of where his moral attitudes on gambling may be). Overall,
Gore
> appears to be a neutral on the gambling issue, although leaning slightly
> negative.
>
> GEORGE W. BUSH: Has moved to the center politically following Republican
> National Convention -- which provides no clear indication of his stand on
> gambling issues. If President, his hardline stance against pro-gambling
issues
> may win him some affectons of the far-right (at a minimal political
cost --
> since gambling is the easy scapegoat for criticism and rarely has any
public
> defenders). Most assuredly Bush would sign either Kyl Bill (online
gambling
> ban) and/or the anti-sports gambling bill if it reaches his desk.
Furthermore,
> Bush has an ugly track record in Texas on two important gambling matters.
> First, he pressured the state Attorney General's office to shut down a
> legalized casino in West Texas on Indian land (which had not negotiated a
> settlement with the state -- which was the primary reason for state
> intervention). Pro-gambling interests would like to have seen the
Governor
> take a neutral and generally more accommodating position in this
controvery, by
> agreeing to intervene to help the Indian tribe to reach a proper
settlement
> with the state. According to reports, the tribe lost a great deal of
money
> fighting the case in court (not to mention investments made in the
property)
> that were ultimately the responsibility of the Governor. In short, the
Gov.
> handled this issue very poorly, refusing to act an an intermediary on an
> economic issue important to many people). On the other major issue in
Texas on
> gambling, Gov. Bush publically stated he would not sign any measure
whatsoever
> to allow other forms of gambling to expand in the state (including
legalized
> poker at the racetracks in Houston and Grand Prairie). I am not sure of
Bush's
> track record on the introduction of legislation to allow "cruises to
nowhere"
> out of Galveston (gambling ships, basically), but assume it was not
> affirmative.
>
> As to the two (major) parties controlling Congress:
>
> Nevada gambling interests have contributed heavily to Democratic
candidates
> (through the DNC). Many casinos feel the Democrats would be better for
> business since the Democratic Party is not influenced by the rabid
> (anti-gambling) religious right. Since many Nevada casinos have economic
> interests in other states (large corporations primarily), they are
concerned
> about legalities and tax matters on the federal level and pending and
potential
> legislation in that address these issues in some states. Some casino
> proponents have expressed concerns, however, that Democratic tax policies)
on
> the federal level) may not be good for gambling, since Democrats generally
> favor higher levels of taxation to support more government programs (and
there
> are fears that one of the next groups Congress will come after are
gamblers --
> e.g. bill introduced to tax ALL gambling winnings without loss writeoffs)
>
> Naturally, there has always been a pro-business, laisez faire,
corporate-backed
> wing within the Republican Party (what used to be called "Rockefeller
> Republicans") which many believe would be good for gambling and for the
casino
> industry. Unfortunately, this element of the party has seen diminshing
numbers
> in recent years and may no longer be a factor in a party that has set its
curse
> on addressing some of the moral and ethical questions that affect this
country
> (which inexplicably includes gambling).
>
> Of course, there is also a viable argument which can be made that gambling
> interests (casinos) and the interest of poker players are not necessarily
one
> and the same.
>
> I leave it up to each of you to draw your own conclusions on this final
> question.
>
> Nolan Dalla
>
> *********************************************
Steve BIA
>And, the final move.... retreating from the field. You forgot to
>declare victory while doing so. Perhaps you should re-read that
>part of the debating manual.
>
>Amazing, folks.... show some facts, and watch the
>opposition turn tail and run.
Since this is the only way you seem to be able to communicate.... end of
conversation.
Steve N
JohnnyD
him on?
JohnnyD
Thats_hersh_foll...@tc.umn.edu
Lee Munzer <luck...@lvdi.net> wrote:
>The Clinton appointment of (Republican) Alan Greenspan was significant,
>however.
Reagan, was the first to appoint Greenspan. If anyone should get credit
for it, he should. Bush kept him around so he deserves as much credit
as Clinton. About the best that you can say about Clinton is that he
didn't make what everyone knew would be a really stupid error by
replacing Greenspan. That is to say, he didn't screw up a good thing.
I wish that I got that much credit for not screwing things up.
Doug's Boss: "Well Doug, did you write any code today?"
Doug: "No, but I didn't introduce any bugs either."
Doug's Boss: "Hooray for you. Let me take you out to dinner!"
Linda Sherman
>
> Ahhh.... so _you're_ allowed to discern what my posts might imply,
> but I'm not allowed to do the same for your posts.
You're free to start any time. Nobody's stopping you.
Lin
--
Linda K Sherman <lins...@gte.net>
Learn Welsh - http://www.dalati.com
Lee Munzer
<Thats_hersh_wrote
> Lee Munzer <luck...@lvdi.net> wrote:
>
> >The Clinton appointment of (Republican) Alan Greenspan was significant,
> >however.
>
> Reagan, was the first to appoint Greenspan. If anyone should get credit
> for it, he should. Bush kept him around so he deserves as much credit
> as Clinton. About the best that you can say about Clinton is that he
> didn't make what everyone knew would be a really stupid error by
> replacing Greenspan. That is to say, he didn't screw up a good thing.
I meant reappoint the four termer of course (as you and Johnny D caught).
Pardon my irrational exuberance. But, to say, "Bush kept him around so he
deserves as much credit as Clinton" downplays Clinton's 'against party
lines' move. What else could Bush do that would make any sense ... bring
Paul Volcker back :<). I think Volcker was actually appointed by a dem -
Carter and reappointed by a Rep - Reagan.
Not just me ... Clinton's reappointment of 'Greenspeak' was
recognized/commended by smarties like Chris Mathews and Russet.
Lee
David Frier
term or two.
--David
> > Vote as if your freedom depends on it. It does.
JohnnyD
economy is to have a Republician in positions that matter.
JohnnyD