I mean I'm happy the PPA exists and it is definitely better than nothing, but an 'action plan' that focuses on tweeting Rick Santorum is just not a good idea. He is irrelevant to the future of online poker and he will never change his mind. Neither will his religitard followers. It's a total waste of time and resources.
Politicians respond to money, not facebook and twitter and articles in magazines they don't even know exist. The organization should be almost entirely focused on fundraising and targeted contributions.
Writing the dialogue for that had to be tricky. You've got to be dog-whistle racist, but not so overtly racist that your campaign can't deny it's racist. So the girl has to speak in slightly broken English, but you can't go full bucktooth "Ching-chong!" Asian stereotype.
I agree, it was the light touch of bloken english.
this does belong in the foxnews thread, but this is easier right now. The O'reily show is just on repeat, and the balloon head is running his Obama interview from last year. So insecure the Bill'O is.
Somebody needs to start a thread about Clint Eastwood's Superbowl ad for Chrysler. I'd do it, but I'm too lazy to even find a youtube of it, never mind write about the political hullabaloo it has generated.
Sadly, no. I do love at 0:52 when he says "We're Republicans, we should be better than that" while lifting his lever action rifle into view of the camera.
I mean I'm happy the PPA exists and it is definitely better than nothing, but an 'action plan' that focuses on tweeting Rick Santorum is just not a good idea. He is irrelevant to the future of online poker and he will never change his mind. Neither will his religitard followers. It's a total waste of time and resources.
Again, it's not a PPA action. It's the posting community's action. In other words, it's what we posters on the daily action plans came up with.
One reason I wanted to highlight Santorum's opposition was to remind some who are complacent about this that we have real opponents out there. The other was that it's easy. Sending a prefilled tweet takes seconds. Posting on a Facebook wall doesn't take much longer, and is more useful because it gets read by politically active social conservatives. There were no resources spent. I typed out the action plan and people participated.
Quote:
Politicians respond to money, not facebook and twitter and articles in magazines they don't even know exist. The organization should be almost entirely focused on fundraising and targeted contributions.
PPA does a lot of lobbying. B&M casino interests are lobbying hard for online poker now as well. Our efforts give those lobbyists the ammo they nee for their fight, while their lobbying gives voice to our letters, calls, tweets, and Facebook posts.
And, I don't know how you determined that politicians don't care about their Facebook walls, but I can tell you that we are hearing from a lot of lawmakers on our efforts here. They see that we are active. They see that our opponents are not. They also see that pro-poker posters are not getting bashed and crushed by hordes of anti-gaming people.
In short, they have objective evidence that there really are lots of pro-poker people. This is key for an issue like ours, where many would otherwise assume it's an industry lobbyist-driven phenomenon.
Engineer, I get that you think we're just bashing on the PPA for sport, and also that you're passionate about it. And I'll be the first to admit that I haven't kept up with developments that closely in the last four years or so, ever since I quit playing online.
That said, it's hard for me to consider the PPA anything other than a failure thus far. It was created after the UIGEA with the goal being to get that law repealed and move online poker into a completely and explicitly legal realm. Instead, we've demonstrably moved dramatically in the other way, with the FBI seizures, etc. You can argue that you fought it the whole way, that you delayed it and that you've laid some groundwork for repeal. And you probably have, in all those ways that you've listed. But the fact remains that things have gotten worse.
That all would have happened, and much sooner, had we poker players not taken a stand.
Listen....it's a tough fight and not everyone wants to fight tough fights. I get it. It's better for the ego to be on the winning side. It's also a lot easier.
Well, we all knew this would not be easy and we always knew it. How could it be easy to reverse a 317-93 House vote for a ban and turn it into a vote for licensing? By your logic, we'd have simply given up back then. I'm glad we didn't.
Quote:
you are tasked with getting poker 100% legalized in the U.S., and you have not done so, and in fact the situation has gotten much worse since you arrived on the scene. Thus you have failed. That's going to happen virtually every time when you fight the entrenched power. And I appreciate that you guys are in there fighting the good fight, but you're losing. The fact that you claim that you are getting some good punches in here and there is not enough to offset the fact that you are getting straight up slaughtered otherwise.
We're not "tasked" with anything. Rather, we the poker community are standing up to those who'd take our rights. And guess what? We've won. The DoJ ruling -- which came after a lot of work by PPA -- delivered the lethal blow. Our opponents haven't succumbed yet, but they will. Either the federal government will pass licensing legislation or individual states will. One will happen soon...it's just a matter of which.
And, we have the high and the low, as any legislation to ban online gaming to address the DoJ ruling will struggle if it seeks to ban online poker. Hell....even you may write and call if someone introduces legislation to ban online poker. Imagine the groundswell that would ensue. Lawmakers don't have to...we've done our part by writing, calling, and staying active on the social networks, so they know.
They didn't know when UIGEA passed in 2006. As I posted above, Leach thought it would help him politically. Frist did too. Imagine if we did all this lobbying, writing, calling, tweeting, and FBing back then. You think they'd have at least considered the fact that UIGEA could actually harm them.
Quote:
I can't help but contrast online poker advocacy with the other big issue I've been involved in, which was the DADT (Don't Ask; Don't Tell) repeal movement. I was pretty involved in it before I enlisted (the repeal bill was passed while I was at basic training). I made lots of phone calls to my congressmen, donated money to PACs, wrote letters to the editor, mobilized friends who agreed with me and tried to convince those who disagreed, etc. And the repeal happened a lot sooner than I thought it would. That was a testament to some amazing work by some gay rights groups, like GetEqual and Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. Those groups had amazing success with media, messaging, fundraising, legal action, and direct lobbying to relevant political and military policymakers.
That effort took decades and was part of an even larger fight. We are a far different type of issue, so we all need to focus our energies appropriately.
The design shows Eisenhower as a youth gazing out at images of his adult accomplishments against a backdrop of the Kansas plains. But the Eisenhower family objects to the design and is attempting to delay approval of the project in a dispute that has pitted a leading American family against one of the country’s most recognized architects. The family says Mr. Gehry should portray Eisenhower as a man in the fullness of his achievements, not as a callow rustic who made good.
That actually sounds like a great idea for a memorial to me. But apparently the universal consensus is that this idea sucks and is insulting to Eisenhower. Reminds me of how apparently everyone hated Maya Lin's design for the Vietnam Memorial, which is far and away the most effective memorial in Washington.
Random question, if some country were to slip a terrorist group a nuclear weapon who were then able to successfully and anonymously detonate it in some country how hard would it be to identify where the weapon originated from? Like is it possible to tell from the radiation emitted or from the shape of the explosion where the weapon was built?
That actually sounds like a great idea for a memorial to me. But apparently the universal consensus is that this idea sucks and is insulting to Eisenhower. Reminds me of how apparently everyone hated Maya Lin's design for the Vietnam Memorial, which is far and away the most effective memorial in Washington.
Two Plus Two
Linear Mode
