Quote:
Originally Posted by totaltool
Maybe part of your secret genius is that you never make a cogent point. I'm baffled by your metaphor and can only assume you mean to tell me we are playing a real-life version of the opposite game.
Hear me now politicians: WE DO NOT WANT REGULATED POKER.....(wink wink)
Most of us are quite content with the current regulation over sites like PokerStars and PartyPoker, if we are honest with ourselves, the only reason the majority is now in support of Federal regulation is that it is the most viable means to our true end: unrestricted/convenient access to online poker.
Alcohol consumers in the 1920's didn't support the lift of prohibition because they didn't trust the liquor being served in speakeasy's, they welcomed the the regulation because it made access to the product they wished to consume more convenient and less costly.
But prohibition wasn't lifted because an Alcohol Drinkers Association was able to alter the opinions of the moral majority who disapproved of the vice, it was lifted because enough drinkers continued to drink despite all the inconvenience the prohibition caused.
The tweets we should be sending to opposing Congressmen should make it known that we are not sitting around waiting for them to divide up the revenue pie, that we are still going to play poker even if we have to leave this great country to do it.
We might also remind them that we continue to have other alternatives, so if the tax stamp they do decide to put their government bottled poker is too high, we will continue to
exercise our freedom.
But at no point should we be asking them to grant us our freedom, as our freedom was never within their dominion.