Dan & Lori problems with the big 3?

[Mark1808 0]

I have been married 24 years and let me tell you something you had better be on the same page as Lori when it comes to polotics, religon and raising kids! Or at least have a deep respect for your differances.Daniel I know you are a liberal and that is great, it means you care for people! You have a big heart, you are a big tipper and you are kind to people. But you play the most capitalist of games, poker, can't you consider the free market approach promoted by conservatives rather than the central planning concepts fostered by liberals?If liberals controlled poker at the end of the game chips would be taken from the winners and be given to the losers. We would have no incentive to become better players because we would get our money in the end no mater how we played. People respond to incentives and that is how our great country came to be. Central planning, no matter how well intentioned, has never worked in human history. Sit down with Lori with a bottle of wine and an open mind and let her try to show you her way of thinking.No matter what, you are great for Poker!A big fan

[sloshr 0]

If liberals controlled poker at the end of the game chips would be taken from the winners and be given to the losers.

Daniel plays mostly tournaments and that is exactly what happens. Does this mean that tournament players should be liberals and cash game players should be conservatives?

[Farnan 0]

Just when i thought i had found a hobby/pastime that couldn't wouldn't be subject to political stereotyping, i see this. Don't get me wrong, i'm a politcial junkie--but this is rediculous. Not only have you dragged politics somewhere it shouldn't be--but you've completely mischaracterized liberal thought. We aren't communists. We aren't anti-capitalists. We don't think liberal ideas/thought is the only correct way of solving a problem. We don't blindly support every democrat. Not every liberal/democrat represents us all. We don't blame all of this country's problems on conservatives and we don't take credit for all that is great about this country. And most of all, we ARE open to other ways of thinking, alternate ideas, etc.---that is a fundamental aspect of liberalism---we seek progressive change, open debate and free thinking.So quit listening to Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, Ann Coulter and the rest of the partisian hacks, think for yourself and play some poker.

[Mark1808 0]

Dan said his favorite author was Michael Moore and he and his girlfriend have political differances. I thought the subject was on the table. But as your brilliant rebuttle indicates, Liberals are progressive and conservatives suck. You are open to other ways of thinking? Then why should I should stop listening to Rush, Ann, Sean etc? Does Michael Moore provide me with the full range of political thought? Isn't forming an opinion based on reading and trying to understand a wide range of political thouight? Or is your progressive mind ridgidly made up?

[Mark1808 0]

If liberals controlled poker at the end of the game chips would be taken from the winners and be given to the losers.

Daniel plays mostly tournaments and that is exactly what happens. Does this mean that tournament players should be liberals and cash game players should be conservatives?

If tournaments were run by liberals all those who busted out early would get half their money back. There would be a racial quota system for those in the money. Each player would have 20% of his winnings put into a retirement and health care system run by the government.

[Farnan 0]

Dan said his favorite author was Michael Moore and he and his girlfriend have political differances. I thought the subject was on the table. But as your brilliant rebuttle indicates, Liberals are progressive and conservatives suck. You are open to other ways of thinking? Then why should I should stop listening to Rush, Ann, Sean etc? Does Michael Moore provide me with the full range of political thought? Isn't forming an opinion based on reading and trying to understand a wide range of political thouight? Or is your progressive mind ridgidly made up?

I did not make any negative comments towards conservatives. Rather, i made comments regarding your use of political stereotypes. I can honestly say that the conservative viewpoint on some issues makes sense to me (in fact, some of my views are considered conservative rather than liberal). In fact--i specifically stated that i do not think that liberal thought is the ONLY way of solving a problem and i don't blame conservatives for all of our problems.The reason you should stop listening to Rush, Ann and Sean is because they are feeding this bull$hit political partisianship that substitutes stereotypes/labels for actual debate. Instead of LISTENING to the others side, you have preconcieved (and erroneous) notions to how "us liberals think" and have already concluded that we are idiots, unamerican, etc. If you read my post and then look at your reply--you'll notice you have done exactly that---you assumed i think conservatives suck and that i have rigidly made my mind up. I can tell you that i get my news/information from CNN, Fox, Drudge, Slate, and various other left and right leaning news sources. And I also take each one of them with a grain of salt because each are trying to do one thing... make money. So instead of just believing everything said by the right, blindly supporting everything proposed by the right--try stepping back from your labels, forget "what you think we think" and listen. I bet we'll make a lot more sense than you'd expect.

If tournaments were run by liberals all those who busted out early would get half their money back. There would be a racial quota system for those in the money. Each player would have 20% of his winnings put into a retirement and health care system run by the government.

Good one. :roll:

[Mark1808 0]

Since I studied economices I am a big believer in free markets. They have proven very effective in distributing a wide variety of goods and services throughout the marketplace. I therefore do not believe in any sort of central palnning or government manipulation to decide what is right for the market. While both sides are guilty of trying to excert their own set of values on the marketplace, it seems to me liberals are more in favor of excerting economic influence on others through taxes, government programs, trade restrictions, quotas and regulation. Conservatives spend too much time worrying about everyone's morals.

[sniper 0]

If liberals controlled poker, the buy-in's would be progressive based on ability to pay, a "luxury tax" would be applied to all winnings, and the winner would be villified because he/she had the most money.This coming from a former liberal who saw the light, and got tired of the whining.

[Paz 0]

Since I studied economices I am a big believer in free markets.  They have proven very effective in distributing a wide variety of goods and services throughout the marketplace.  I therefore do not believe in any sort of central palnning or government manipulation to decide what is right for the market.  While both sides are guilty of trying to excert their own set of values on the marketplace, it seems to me liberals are more in favor of excerting economic influence on others through taxes, government programs, trade restrictions, quotas and regulation.  Conservatives spend too much time worrying about everyone's morals.

Ever think of being a libertarian? :-)

[Farnan 0]

If liberals controlled poker, the buy-in's would be progressive based on ability to pay, a "luxury tax" would be applied to all winnings, and the winner would be villified because he/she had the most money.This coming from a former liberal who saw the light, and got tired of the whining.

Liberals villify the rich? :roll: Hey, i'm all for making lots of money and having lower taxes. But you need to combine that with lower spending. You cannot jack spending double digit percentages and then cut taxes 2 or 3 times and call yourself fiscally responsible.So you're against progressive taxation? OK, well be prepared to dramatically increase the taxes of the middle and lower clases---or you could cut spending---which i think is against the belief of ANY politician--right or left.And Mark---if you studied economics, then you probably learned about the inherent inefficiences of the capitalist structure. Every structure has them. Without some regulation and some degree centralization, the entire economic system could very well fall apart. A pure capitalistic environment w/o controls? We tried that in the past--and it resulted in the broad exercise of monopolistic power and workers being taken advantage of. Ironically, pure capitalism results in reduced competitiveness, increased prices and a lower standard of living for all but the property/business owners.The key is balance---not too much regulation, not completely free markets, not too far left, not too far right. Neither side has it completely correct. The solution lies somewhere in the middle. Maybe some day our politicans will quit being so f-ing partisian and work together---but i assure you, i'm not holding my breath. The only people who can stop this are the citizens of the US---and we can't do that unless we stop buying in to all of this BS partisian rhetoric.

[Mark1808 0]

Liberals villify the rich?  :roll:  Hey, i'm all for making lots of money and having lower taxes.  But you need to combine that with lower spending.  You cannot jack spending double digit percentages and then cut taxes 2 or 3 times and call yourself fiscally responsible.So you're against progressive taxation?  OK, well be prepared to dramatically increase the taxes of the middle and lower clases---or you could cut spending---which i think is against the belief of ANY politician--right or left.And Mark---if you studied economics, then you probably learned about the inherent inefficiences of the capitalist structure.  Every structure has them.  Without some regulation and some degree centralization, the entire economic system could very well fall apart.  A pure capitalistic environment w/o controls?  We tried that in the past--and it resulted in the broad exercise of monopolistic power and workers being taken advantage of.  Ironically, pure capitalism results in reduced competitiveness, increased prices and a lower standard of living for all but the property/business owners.The key is balance---not too much regulation, not completely free markets, not too far left, not too far right.  Neither side has it completely correct.  The solution lies somewhere in the middle.  Maybe some day our politicans will quit being so f-ing partisian and work together---but i assure you, i'm not holding my breath.  The only people who can stop this are the citizens of the US---and we can't do that unless we stop buying in to all of this BS partisian rhetoric.

Granted I studied economics long ago but the points you mentioned regarding monopolies are right out of the communist manifesto promoted by Lenin and Marx:http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/marxism/Cl3.htmlAccording to my studies (University Economics - Allchin & Allen, UCLA) As long as there are not barriers to entry monopolies who make excess profits will attract competition which will take away their monopoly pricing power. Furthermore, monopolies are alot better at distributing goods and services than the Government - USSR? You think the industrial revoloution was a great disservice to the working class? I don't.In terms of fiscal responsibility, you are 100% correct. Poloticians get elected by making promises to constituants that involve government money. I blame Democrats for the vast social spending built in to our system, Republicans can share some of the blame as well. Our current deficts as a percent of GDP are not historically high however. Interest rates are low and the economy is strong.The rich should pay more in taxes than the lower and middle classes. Do you know that currently the top 20% pay about 80% of taxes? Do you think it should be more? http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/Your comments indicate to me that you may not own a business, which is fine. But if you did, and knew the increasing heap of regulation, taxes and the like that were being heaped on business you would see how the trend must be stopped.

[Farnan 0]

"Granted I studied economics long ago but the points you mentioned regarding monopolies are right out of the communist manifesto promoted by Lenin and Marx"

First off, i am not a communist nor a socialist. I don't support wide scale implementation of communist or socialist ideas. Those forms themselves have a significantly large amount of inefficiencies that make them unworkable economic systems---much much more than a fully capitalist system.Just because we share the same argument for supporting our beliefs does not mean we share the same beliefs.

According to my studies (University Economics - Allchin & Allen, UCLA) As long as there are not barriers to entry monopolies who make excess profits will attract competition which will take away their monopoly pricing power. Furthermore, monopolies are alot better at distributing goods and services than the Government - USSR? You think the industrial revoloution was a great disservice to the working class? I don't.  

You've made a rather large assumption there---"so long as there are not barriers to entry"---there always are and monopolies tend to thrive in certain markets where barriers to entry are significant. Think about telephone companies, trains, computer operating systems, steel manufacturing, power companies, cable companies, etc. I don't think analogies to the USSR are appropriate in discussing use of certain characteristics of that form of economic structure. I only argue for select implementation of the principles (such as regulation, etc.), and not its widespread implementation. Like i said above, there are many more inefficiencies in a socialist/communist structure that make it a prohibitive form of economy. The industrial revolution wasn't necessarily a disservice to the working class--but there were problems---they were taken advantage of--children were put to work in horrible circumstances, people were paid shit wages for horrible working conditions, thousands upon thousands died from dangerous conditions. Regulations as simple as requiring emergency exits to open outwards saved thousands of lives.

The rich should pay more in taxes than the lower and middle classes. Do you know that currently the top 20% pay about 80% of taxes? Do you think it should be more?  

And do you know why that is? Because 50% of the US assets are owned by 1% of the population and 75% of the US assets are owned by 10% of the population.http://falcon.arts.cornell.edu/ams3/rich1.htmlI don't think their taxes should go UP. But they shoudl stay the same. If we cut spending then you can cut their taxes. Notice what is going on now--corporate profits are up, but job production is still stagnet. Trickle-down economics just doesn't work.

Your comments indicate to me that you may not own a business, which is fine. But if you did, and knew the increasing heap of regulation, taxes and the like that were being heaped on business you would see how the trend must be stopped.

Actually, i am a corporate attorney who specializes in M&A, capital formation and commercial lending. Believe me, i fully appreciate the heap of regulations and taxes being heaped on buisness. Sounds like you have a shitty attorney/accountant if you are consistantly getting the shaft.I find it quite humorous that people bitch about taxes--hell, i enjoy my tax rate--that means i'm making a good living. This is a wonderful country we live in--and it costs money to live here and i have no problem allocating some of that to our nations defense and social programs for people who need it.That isn't to say that i want to rasie taxes or whatever--i want to cut spending so our taxes aren't so friggin high. But when you compare our tax rates with the rest of the industrialized world--we're in pretty good shape:http://www.worldwide-tax.com/

[Mark1808 0]

I will try to be brief. You are obviously intelligent and respond in a civil manner.I believe trickle down economics works, evidence the 80's turn around and the 90's boom. There is obvious debate here, I side with supply siders.I know you dissent. There is not universal agreement.I have a censored accountant? AMT baby, no getting around it without committing capital to risk that I do not want to take. You are correct, the more taxes you pay, the better off you are! Good sage advice, I give it all the time to tax complainers.There are barriers to entry in many industries, mostly large capital outlays and monopolies are granted. But in capitalisim competition emerges, cable tv monopoly brings in satellite. Telephone monopoly brings in Voice over IP. Just two examples off the top of my head, but you are right, there is room for regulated monopolies in a capitalist system.Workers may have had bad conditions in the industrial revolution, but they were better than the alternative. More importantly because we have a capitalist system workers were allowed to bargain collectively and improve conditions.Job growth again posted a higher than expected number this month, things ain't bad especially if you throw in the undocumented economy.Your cogent argumnets have given me food for thought and I will reflect on them further, but there is one thing we agree on GOVERNMENT SPENDING IS OUT OF CONTROL. Because politicians buy votes with government money, a spending machine has been created that may not be able to be contained. Both sides are at fault here and may be our undoing.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

For the record: I'm not a liberal. I'm not a republican either. I simply try to vote for the best candidate.

[KDawgCometh 2]

For the record: I'm not a liberal.  I'm not a republican either.  I simply try to vote for the best candidate.

do you have american citizenship right now. I know that you will when you marry Lori. How long have you been in the US as a resident?

[Balloon guy 158]

Me thinketh the point that the original post made is clearly shown in the long post reposts and rereposts, Politics can really get between people. Luckily I have stopped trying to understand things and just listen to Rush, he reads and listens for me then tells me what to think. So much easier, and i saved on my newspaper subscriptions.Sean is full of crapola, O'Reilly is a bit too full of himself, and Imus is boring. For liberals, Alan Combs is pretty smart. Michael Moore is disingenuous, he knows he's lying when he tells things.Rush is right 98.6% of the time. Those are good odds.I think a marraige can survive politics, look at James Carville and whats her name.But I do not think a marraige can survive religious differences, unless they're not really committed to their religion.Nor can a marraige between a tight player and a loose player ever work! Can you immagine Gus and Dewey getting married?

[Farnan 0]

For the record: I'm not a liberal.  I'm not a republican either.  I simply try to vote for the best candidate.

I hear ya daniel--- i hate labels (as you can tell by my posts). I'm certainly independent and am more than willing to vote for either party (if hillary goes up, i might. I truely wish we had more choices than that, but the system we live under doesn't allow a consistantly viable 3rd party candidate. As the right and the left constantly appeal to their own "base" and seeing as that my views tend to be left of center---i end up being lumped with the dems.Mark--- i see your side of things--for the most part, i agree that supply side stimulus can help an economy under certain conditions. But most recently, i feel we had demand side issues--we overproduced during the tech booms and spending slowed down--then the tech bubble burst and 9/11 hit. I thought we had demand side issues after that. We needed to spur consumer spending and targeted tax cuts at the middle and lower income earners could have really helped. That is kinda why i think we are where we are economic-wise in our country. We have corps making rather large profits but aren't willing to hire more because consumer spending is shaky and they don't see any reason to increase production.I just don't think any one theory is the end-all be-all fix like some would like us to believe. Keynesian theory is not without merit--but there is a time and place for its implementation and i don't think 2000-2005 was its time.Its funny--while we thought at first our views were divergent--we aren't that far apart. I think spending is absolutely out of control. I think certain social progams are a mess and need to be fixed, not cut or dimantled. The key is balance--not everything problem shoudl be solved with the conservative school of thought and vice versa. Both sides of the equation are out of control--fighting for power and spending like mad. They find wedge issues to keep our eyes off of the ball while they entrench their own power. If everyone here isn't disgusted with both sides, they aren't paying attention.

[strategy 4]

Notice what is going on now--corporate profits are up, but job production is still stagnet.

WARNING! Stereotypical conservative stat spewing!274k jobs gained in April. Lots of other neat growth.http://www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm#overviewStagnant? The economy seems OK to me.

[Farnan 0]

Notice what is going on now--corporate profits are up, but job production is still stagnet.

WARNING! Stereotypical conservative stat spewing!274k jobs gained in April. Lots of other neat growth.http://www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm#overviewStagnant? The economy seems OK to me.

well, we also had 333,000 new jobless claims in April---for a net loss of71K jobs.http://www.newratings.com/analyst_news/art...cle_812177.htmlListen, i agree with you that the economy is "ok". It isn't bad, it isn't great--but it isn't really going anywhere. A lot of the statistics point to a good economy--and some good things are happening. But the fact of the matter is, certain parts of the country, certain sectors of the economy are doing well and the rest are struggling. I've seen A LOT of activity in the commercial lending sector over the last 6 months--which is a positive sign. But we don't see much by way of M&A work, except at the large public company level.What i'm saying is you have to look at this in a rational way. I'm not looking for stats to support my policial beliefs--i look to see it for what it is. Rose colored glasses don't do anyone any good but the politicians. The dems want you to see gloom and doom, the repubs want you to see unicorns and rainbows. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Each side "spews their stats" which are both technically correct and accurate stats--only they only show ONE side (i.e. job growth or jobless claims). If you look at both sides, you'll get a better picture.

[alf13 0]

For the record: I'm not a liberal. I'm not a republican either. I simply try to vote for the best candidate.

That is your opinion and your constitutional right.

[Abbaddabba 0]

Since I studied economices I am a big believer in free markets. They have proven very effective in distributing a wide variety of goods and services throughout the marketplace. I therefore do not believe in any sort of central palnning or government manipulation to decide what is right for the market.

Since you studied economics? A substantial portion of the field is dedicated to optimizing the free market via government. Even supposing that a free market did operate in a pareto optimal manner, it's pretty clear that the maximization of wealth isn't analogous with the maximization of utility. Though governments dont necessarily need to operate under utilitarian ethics, they certainly don't operate under the a set of ethics that promotes wealth maximization. The vast majority of religious axioms in some way reflect the ideals of utility maximization. But then, im not here to argue that utilitarianism is correct - just that what you're suggesting is absurd. No economist would suggest that wealth is a goal unto itself. It's a means to an end.

[bearshadoe 0]

For the record: I'm not a liberal.  I'm not a republican either.  I simply try to vote for the best candidate.

I agree with Daniel. Plus if we all agreed on everything,this would be a preety boring world to live in. My best friend has been married since we graduated school in 89 and she said that she is very glad that her husband and her dont agree on everything all the time. If we all agreed on everythinglife would be a little more worry free but it would also be so boring that we would have to find new ways to destroy things around us.

[Underbelly 0]

This has to be the stupidest thread I have every read. Politics has no place in poker. None. And 99% of what I read here is so backwards in both sides it makes me ill. This one sided, close minded, arrogant stupidity it just plan silly,And remember Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver have been married for years.What made this country work is having to sides expressing 2 points of view. If either the right or the left had complete control, believe me, this land would fold faster than a 7 2 offsuit.

[Balloon guy 158]

This has to be the stupidest thread I have every read. Politics has no place in poker. None. And 99% of what I read here is so backwards in both sides it makes me ill. This one sided, close minded, arrogant stupidity it just plan silly,And remember Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver have been married for years.What made this country work is having to sides expressing 2 points of view. If either the right or the left had complete control, believe me, this land would fold faster than a 7 2 offsuit.

Unless you are sitting next to a rabid liberal and when you're in a hand with him you casually mention that Bush is a great president, man you want to see someone go on tilt quicker than AlGore heads to a buffet, or Ted Kennedy drinks a toast, or Hillary yells at Bill. or...Sorry, got distracted.And yea, those one sided, close minded, arrogant people are wrong!You could save yourself alot of typing by just saying liberals!SO I guess for you a third party would be wrong. Because there are only two sides of an issue? I thought this country worked because we were free to argue, you know take a side. Be ARGUMENTATIVE?This country works in spite of politicians, not because of themAnd Arnold is my Gov. Please do not bring him into your arguements unless you voted for him. I did, four times. ( kids let me vote their absentee ballots)

[cemvardar 0]

If you like or hate Michael Moore films and if you want to see a different perspective about unregulated corporation capitalism watch the documentatry called The Corporation. Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore are in the movie but so are Milton Friedman and CEOs of big corporations. It is obviously another 'point of view' documentary against big corporations which IMHO is much more elegant than Michael Moore's latest Fahrenheit 9/11 but still somewhat entertaining. It gives a pretty good idea about how can unregulated corporation capitalism can go wrong. You can get it from Netflix or Amazon. Also check out www.thecorporation.com