2+2 Endorses Senator Dean Heller - Page 2 - Poker Legislation

ledoutwbottomset · 08-03-2012, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Mason can obviously endorse whoever he wants, but I'd be very interested in why he is better than berkeley from a poker perspective

He's not. I would love to hear MM's reasoning.

Ce1ska · 08-03-2012, 12:27 AM

Looking forward to a solid LirvA rant.

ScreaminAsian · 08-03-2012, 12:29 AM

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...006-a-1048432/

Quote:

Originally Posted by UIGEA House Testimony: 7/11/2006

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Conyers for his extraordinary efforts on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. Despite the misinformed and misguided claims of this bill's supporters, it would neither prohibit Internet gaming nor increase enforcement capabilities of the United States Government.

Instead, passing this bill will do the exact opposite. The millions of Americans who currently wager online will continue to use offshore Web sites out of the reach of U.S. law enforcement, and they will remain unprotected by State regulators who ensure the integrity of brick and mortar gaming establishments in this country.

I continue to be astounded by the Members of this body who constantly rail against an intrusive Federal Government; and yet when it comes to gaming, they are the first, the first to call for government intrusion.

A man's home is his castle unless he chooses to participate in online gaming. Then his home is the province of the Federal Government. This bill was recently included on the House Republicans' American Values Agenda.

Which American values is this promoting? It certainly cannot be the right to privacy. It certainly cannot be the right of individuals to be free to make their own decisions about what type of recreation to enjoy. And, yes, my colleagues, gaming is considered a form of recreation for millions of our fellow citizens.

Gaming is legal in this country in those States who choose to allow it and to regulate it. The vast majority of States do allow gaming and regulate it, whether it be lotteries, racing, card rooms, casinos, or bingo. This bill would make a legal activity illegal in those same States solely because it is done online rather than in a casino or in a church. In reality, the intent of this bill, and it is rather obvious, is to attack and outlaw legal gaming in our Nation.

Supporters of this bill argue that online gaming is a great danger to society and our youth because some people gamble too much and some underage people might access online wagering sites. By that logic, the next piece of legislation we should be considering is banning online shopping. Surely those who overspend their budgets online and young people who borrow their mom's credit card must be stopped by the long arm of Federal law enforcement.

Supporters of the bill before us today claim that their target is the offshore gambling operations that are sucking billions of dollars out of the United States, as Mr. Goodlatte said. Indeed, Internet gaming has grown from a $3 billion industry in 2001, and it is projected to reach $25 billion by the end of the decade.

Americans account for as much as half of that amount. But there is nothing in this bill, let me repeat that, nothing in this bill that will shut down these offshore companies who operate legally in other countries. Like it or not, Americans who wish to wager online will find a way to do so.

The very nature of a free World Wide Web will continue to make online gaming available across the globe, including the United States. Under this bill, billions of dollars will continue to flow out of our country, with millions of Americans wishing to wager online. It is ridiculous, ridiculous to think this bill will actually stop online gaming. Just like Prohibition failed, this prohibition on gaming in the comfort of your own living room will fail as well.

but dean heller is a bigot who supports online poker this year. tough choice for nevada bigots who play online poker in 2012.

*bigotry cite: http://www.ontheissues.org/house/dean_heller.htm

ledoutwbottomset · 08-03-2012, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwperu34

Because poker needs to be passed before Berkley would take office. Hopefully by getting the endorsement from 2+2, Heller will work harder to get the necessary support for the lame duck.

Is online poker worth putting this guy in office. I mean this guy is you're standard republican degenerate. Against everything. Even federal minimum wage. Wtf. The list goes on and on.

Be smart. Vote democrat.

rwperu34 · 08-03-2012, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ledoutwbottomset

Is online poker worth putting this guy in office. I mean this guy is you're standard republican degenerate. Against everything. Even federal minimum wage. Wtf. The list goes on and on.

Be smart. Vote democrat.

I'd vote for Adolph Hitler or Jerry Sandusky if I thought it would bring back online poker back.

**TheEngineer** · 08-03-2012, 01:06 AM

This is an interesting race. It's definitely the first Senate race where both major party candidates are strong poker advocates.

Rep. Berkley has been terrific for poker and was standing up for us prior to players even considering organizing and fighting back. On the other hand, Sen. Heller has been taking the lead in encouraging Republican senators to support online poker legislation -- quite the thankless task among some of his colleagues.

So, from a poker standpoint, IMO we can't go wrong with either candidate. In Berkley, we have an advocate with an impeccable track record for poker. In Heller, we make much-needed inroads into the Senate GOP. We need more Republican support and we benefit greatly by making this as bipartisan as possible.

I think it's great that people and companies are coming out in favor of both of these candidates, showing that poker players care about their rights and in the political process.

ledoutwbottomset · 08-03-2012, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwperu34

I'd vote for Adolph Hitler or Jerry Sandusky if I thought it would bring back online poker back.

A man with his priorities straight. I like it. Assuming its a well timed edgy joke

**Pokeraddict** · 08-03-2012, 01:46 AM

Deleted most of my post but I have read little about Heller but everyone that has followed this race knows his opponent is in ethical hot water right now. You may want to research her before you go jumping on the anti bandwagon.

**sajeffe** · 08-03-2012, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwperu34

I'd vote for Adolph Hitler or Jerry Sandusky if I thought it would bring back online poker back.

OMG.

It is my hope, as an American, that you will all vote for whomever is the best overall candidate and not vote for someone just because of their stance on Internet poker.

(Single-issue voters are stupid.)

rwperu34 · 08-03-2012, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sajeffe

OMG.

It is my hope, as an American, that you will all vote for whomever is the best overall candidate and not vote for someone just because of their stance on Internet poker.

(Single-issue voters are stupid.)

No issue (or combination of issues) is going to have a bigger impact on my life than online poker, so for me to consider anything else when rating a candidate would be stupid.

Your Mom · 08-03-2012, 03:16 AM

actually, it makes a lot more sense to only care about poker. They don't give two ****s about your opinion on the fed reserve, or taxation, or wars against brown people. Here, you might actually be able to get the one thing done that will allow you to morally make a bunch of money and do what you want with your life.

renodoc · 08-03-2012, 03:54 AM

Dean has been excellent on almost everything. He's no Rand Paul, but he's getting closer all the time.

Micro McD · 08-03-2012, 04:53 AM

From someone who isn't an expert, but also not a political sell out, F that.

His opponent voted no on UIGEA and after reading why it's clear we will always have their support. How easy will Heller flip when he faces real party pressure? Yea almost a perfect record minus the whole civil rights thing and party line flip flopping.

If you can't explain why yet, then why are you endorsing? Between this thread and the Sklansky post-sex book brag i've lost a lot of respect for this sites founders.

LirvA · 08-03-2012, 05:11 AM

Mason, any chance we'll see Gary Johnson ads put back up? He is the Libertarian Party nominee and will be on the general election ballot, after all.

Did you guys have some sort of falling out?

**Mason Malmuth** · 08-03-2012, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LirvA

Mason, any chance we'll see Gary Johnson ads put back up? He is the Libertarian Party nominee and will be on the general election ballot, after all.

Did you guys have some sort of falling out?

There is no falling out but we have no plans to put any Gary Johnson ads back up.

Best wishes,
Mason