herokid7 0 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Prepare to flame. Ok, so I'm not that into politics. I care about issues that are important to me but I don't really care about who's right and wrong most of the time. So first of all, I'm 100% behind online poker, I'm a member of the PPA, I signed the online petition, wrote to my senators, done it all. But, when DN says that he hopes the Democrats take control of congress because it will be good for poker. Maybe so. But, some things are more important than poker. First of all, if I have to vote for a guy that is for poker and for abortion, or a guy against poker and against abortion, I gotta vote for the guy that's against abortion. That's just more important to me than if I can play poker on the internet. There's just too many games out there right now, that playing online is not that critical. Now, before you all go yelling at me that I'm an idiot conservative, I don't know if that's true. All of my liberal friends call me conservative, but all my conservative friends call me liberal. So I guess I'm somewhere in between. I just think saying that the hoping the democrats take control of congress because it's good for poker is a little short-sighted. Link to post Share on other sites
alf13 0 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Prepare to flame. Ok, so I'm not that into politics. I care about issues that are important to me but I don't really care about who's right and wrong most of the time. So first of all, I'm 100% behind online poker, I'm a member of the PPA, I signed the online petition, wrote to my senators, done it all. But, when DN says that he hopes the Democrats take control of congress because it will be good for poker. Maybe so. But, some things are more important than poker. First of all, if I have to vote for a guy that is for poker and for abortion, or a guy against poker and against abortion, I gotta vote for the guy that's against abortion. That's just more important to me than if I can play poker on the internet. There's just too many games out there right now, that playing online is not that critical. Now, before you all go yelling at me that I'm an idiot conservative, I don't know if that's true. All of my liberal friends call me conservative, but all my conservative friends call me liberal. So I guess I'm somewhere in between. I just think saying that the hoping the democrats take control of congress because it's good for poker is a little short-sighted.The reason it's short sighted to say that democratic control of congress is good for poker is because the democrats will sure as hell make sure that is they make online poker legal...they will make sure that an IRS agent is there watching you play to make sure you pay your fair share when you win.I have said it before..I will say it again...keep online poker as underground as possible...trust me on this.or don't....and watch that nice little 25k guarantee you win dissapear in a hail of IRS notices. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 The reason it's short sighted to say that democratic control of congress is good for poker is because the democrats will sure as hell make sure that is they make online poker legal...they will make sure that an IRS agent is there watching you play to make sure you pay your fair share when you win.I have said it before..I will say it again...keep online poker as underground as possible...trust me on this.or don't....and watch that nice little 25k guarantee you win dissapear in a hail of IRS notices.Nothing like a 40% rake to turn the online poker community Republican though Link to post Share on other sites
dna4ever 2 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 starting a 'debate' about abortion in a poker thread should go over well..... Link to post Share on other sites
Steppin Razor 0 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 ...they will make sure that an IRS agent is there watching you play to make sure you pay your fair share when you win. Death and taxes. I just hope it doesn't fall under the unearned income or whatever that lottery winnings do, where you give back more than half. I hope the dems win, not so much for poker, but hopefully to find out what the secret energy policy is. I guess I'm just silly, but I can't help but think the energy policy is something we should know. Link to post Share on other sites
nutzbuster 7 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Death and taxes. I just hope it doesn't fall under the unearned income or whatever that lottery winnings do, where you give back more than half.I hope the dems win, not so much for poker, but hopefully to find out what the secret energy policy is. I guess I'm just silly, but I can't help but think the energy policy is something we should know.Ahhhhhhh....Energy. Something we could all use a little more of. I mean, right now, I am SOOOO damn tired!Anyone got a Red Bull????? Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 The reality of democrats controlling congress:Higher taxes = higher prices = less disposable income = less poker moneyRepublicans control congress:Lower taxes = more disposable income = more money to play pokerHaving a democrat legalize poker online won't do much good if the money supply is tight. Link to post Share on other sites
No_Neck 0 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 The reality of democrats controlling congress:Higher taxes = higher prices = less disposable income = less poker moneyRepublicans control congress:Lower taxes = more disposable income = more money to play pokerHaving a democrat legalize poker online won't do much good if the money supply is tight.yeah higher taxes because we need to pay interest to the Chinese for record breaking amount of debt the Republicans raked up fleecing the government for billions and putting directly into their pockets.I don't know why you guys would think the Democrats would legalize online poker. There are a lot of smart people that think that online poker is badddd. Link to post Share on other sites
WrongWay 0 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 yeah higher taxes because we need to pay interest to the Chinese for record breaking amount of debt the Republicans raked up fleecing the government for billions and putting directly into their pockets.Right... We have the tax and spend Democrats vs. the borrow and spend Republicans.We have the party of moral high ground (well, they claim to have the high ground and pander to the Bible Thumpers, but thier personal actions don't scream morality) vs. the poverty pimps and socialists.I don't see anyone being good for online poker.... As mentioned above, too hard to tax. They want to drive it back into the casinos where they can track and tax the winnings. Link to post Share on other sites
KDawgCometh 2 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Ok, so I'm not that into politics.this is where I stopped reading. what is the point in making a political thread when you have expressed that you aren't that into politics, but yet you say that one party's control of congress may not be good for everything else? Link to post Share on other sites
herokid7 0 Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 this is where I stopped reading. what is the point in making a political thread when you have expressed that you aren't that into politics, but yet you say that one party's control of congress may not be good for everything else? If you'd kept reading you would read that I do keep up with issues that I am passionate about. It's just that politics are a mostly negative subject and I'm not a negative person, so I don't follow them that much. Link to post Share on other sites
Virtuoso80 0 Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 The reality of democrats controlling congress:Higher taxes = higher prices = less disposable income = less poker moneyRepublicans control congress:Lower taxes = more disposable income = more money to play pokerHaving a democrat legalize poker online won't do much good if the money supply is tight.All one needs to do is look at Republican voting records to see that the 'fiscal conservative' aspects to the Republican party are dead and buried. As a Libertarian, I have things I hate about both parties, but this election season I belive it is without a doubt time to vote Democrat. Link to post Share on other sites
Zeatrix 0 Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Dudes, you need to broaden your horizons.Fact: USA has low taxes, regardless of congress majority.Fact: Neither party can be considered to have socialistic views in any way.Try doubling the taxes and live under a true socialistic government and get back to me then. Link to post Share on other sites
DonkSlayer 1 Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Prepare to flame. Ok, so I'm not that into politics.Stop right there, re-think pushing post button.EDIT: Doh, Kdawg was too quick on the draw.I care about issues that are important to me but I don't really care about who's right and wrong most of the time.Exactly why the Democratic Party sucks. It's really time to find a party line instead of being a conglomerate of anti-conservative stances.Everything else was just useless info and in now way argued for or against your topic. Link to post Share on other sites
alf13 0 Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 All one needs to do is look at Republican voting records to see that the 'fiscal conservative' aspects to the Republican party are dead and buried. As a Libertarian, I have things I hate about both parties, but this election season I belive it is without a doubt time to vote Democrat.Then you are not a Libertarian.NO self respecting Libertarian would EVER want to vote democrat. Link to post Share on other sites
DonkSlayer 1 Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Then you are not a Libertarian.NO self respecting Libertarian would EVER want to vote democrat.Yeah, vote Libertarian then. Democratic vote would be weird.But I love the current Republican argument that people shouldn't vote Democratic b/c things that a lot of repubs and conservatives are mad at right now will just get "worse" then. LOL at our two-party system for allowing such an argument to be valid. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Oh good, a discussion about abortion. You know who I think should decide things like that? People like you who are uneducated about it. That makes the most sense. Who would know better than you? Certainly not, for example, women. Link to post Share on other sites
DonkSlayer 1 Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Oh good, a discussion about abortion. You know who I think should decide things like that? People like you who are uneducated about it. That makes the most sense. Who would know better than you? Certainly not, for example, women.Being a woman does not qualify you to make a "good" decision on abortion, lol. That's like you saying being President qualifies Bush to make a better decision on Iraq than pretty much anyone. Abortion is one of those social things that I don't even care to hear come out of the President's or Congress's mouth, actually. To think that the Fed. has any reason/right/purpose to have a hand in that issue is beyond me. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Being a woman does not qualify you to make a "good" decision on abortion, lol. That's like you saying being President qualifies Bush to make a better decision on Iraq than pretty much anyone.Um, yeah. At least in theory, he SHOULD be able to make a better decision. So who exactly do you think is qualified to make decisions about abortion? Link to post Share on other sites
DonkSlayer 1 Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Um, yeah. At least in theory, he SHOULD be able to make a better decision. So who exactly do you think is qualified to make decisions about abortion?Probably a doctor? Some sort of ominipotent philosopher? It depends on what angle you come at. This is a OK thing/bad thing for your body (doctor), this is an OK thing/bad thing morally (from the philosopher).I think who SHOULD have the say in abortions are the parents and the medical community. People get abortions regardless of whether they are "legal", so any legislation concerning outright bans are asinine IMO at any level of gov. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Probably a doctor? Some sort of ominipotent philosopher? It depends on what angle you come at. This is a OK thing/bad thing for your body (doctor), this is an OK thing/bad thing morally (from the philosopher).I think who SHOULD have the say in abortions are the parents and the medical community. People get abortions regardless of whether they are "legal", so any legislation concerning outright bans are asinine IMO at any level of gov.Okay I agree with your 2nd paragraph kind of. The first one makes little sense. I'm not talking about individual cases (doctor), and I really hope you're not saying that philosophers should be making our laws. Link to post Share on other sites
DonkSlayer 1 Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Okay I agree with your 2nd paragraph kind of. The first one makes little sense. I'm not talking about individual cases (doctor), and I really hope you're not saying that philosophers should be making our laws.Ha, not a big Plato fan? George W. Bush, "Philosopher-King" of the American Empire. I need you to tell me what you mean by "qualified". I consider the question of abortion to be medical and moral, although I'm not necessarily claiming to have the answer to either. I don't think that a woman getting pregnant automatically ensures she will make the best choice for her and the fetus/baby/whatever. The argument that "men in Congress shouldn't tell women what to do with their bodies" certainly holds water, but only in the sense that those men shouldn't be in our private lives in general. Regardless of how you view a fetus, it certainly isn't like a body part of the woman, so that line is a bit blurry. Plus, I will go to my grave saying that men are completely jilted in the entire equation. Whether there is a realistic answer in giving them equal reproductive rights/legal standing I'm not sure, but it certainly isn't fair that they have NO say after conception. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now