lol at him saying its a conservative issue

Please explain this comment further. Don't get me wrong, I understand what you are trying to say, but I'd like to see your ignorance shared with the world in a fashion much more explicitly than this. The fact that you would even put this tripe out for public consumption is proof enough that you don't really understand what you are talking about.

ok lets look at two words.

Gambling- This really fits in well with the republican agenda especially their core christian nanny state supporters.

Regulation- hmm do I really have to say anything this doesnt even vibe with the libertarians that have been fooled by their supposed anti-nanny(LOL) state agenda.

Actually the burden of proof is much more on any conservative to show how in anyway gambling regulation fits into their agenda.

I guess where we differ is that I do not equate the word "conservative" with Republicans anymore than I equate the word "liberal" with Democrats.

As it relates to your post, I can only presume that you mean "social conservative" when you talk about Republicans. Granted, there are more than a few Bible thumpers out there that make laws that would intrude into our personal lives in the name of their social beliefs. I, like Raymer, believe that they are wrong to do so, specifically in light of the 10th Amendment.

To the extent that Republicans are "fiscal conservatives" and "Constitutional conservatives", I am generally on board with them. To the extent that the GOP is full of "social conservatives" that want to tell us how to run our lives, I am very much NOT on board with them. Ideally, the government would stay out of our wallets and our lives, IMO. My best guess is that is what Raymer had in mind when he labled himself a Libertarian. Does a Libertarian asking for more taxation and regulation of online poker persent something of a contradiction in philosophy? Sure, of course it does. The PPA, however, knows that if online poker is ever to be recognized as being explicitly legal, the most practical route would be to get the government's explicit approval for it using the incentive being able to tax it. Further, an agency with some real teeth that could regulate poker might be just the thing that's needed to prevent things like UB and Absolute Poker scandals. Personally, I have some reservations about that approach because I firmly believe anyone cashing a government paycheck is usually incompetent by definition, but I can see the wisdom in getting big brother's approval.

I digress. The CPAC event that Raymer was at is just one place where the soul of the GOP is being fought over, and to the extent that small government, big liberty Tea Party types are all the rage, it makes all the sense in the world for the PPA to be working that crowd. My thinking has always been that the Tea Party guys for the most part are generally Libertarian by nature and Republican by necessity. Unlike you, I think that Raymer being at a CPAC event is a perfect fit, but I suppose it all boils down to how you define conservative. To the extent that "conservative" means small, less intrusive government intruding into our live, it's a pretty obvious fit why Raymer should be there.

One of the things that I have always found funny is that Libertarian can fight claim the true definition of the words "liberal" and "conservative", whereas the Reps and the Dems have to co-opt the words to make them fit their f'd up views of how things should be done. Anyway, I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread. I'm done hi jacking this one for now.

Apologies. This should have said "rightfully".

I suspect Greg is quite wealthy, perhaps he just didn't need it - other things to do, poor contract, w/ever

[QUOTE=Str8Raiser;24903562]

I hope people like you truly change the republican party it would be a great thing for not only the country I love but for the world. That being said yall have a long way to go.

lol first thing I thought.

Wait, Greg Raymer actually went to ****ing CPAC?!

-1000 respect points for him

My +10000 respect points more than make up for closed mindedness.

Pretty sure I've done more research on CPAC and the sorts of things that happened this year during and especially right before it than most people who would never ever attend it

but yea guess I'm closed minded for judging anyone who wants anything to do with it after I've drawn my conclusions about it from my own personal research about it. Way better to just be a wingnut and repeat what that guy in the suit on talk radio said amirite

also I think "ditz" is about as kind of a word as you can describe a FOX News interviewer with so it seems he got fairly soft questions

Greg is there to garner support for your rights to legally play on-line poker, and you denegrate his efforts because you can't see beyond your ideology.

If you've ever traveled to tradeshows or association meetings and tried to sell a product you know it's not very fun. He's probably debating the issue constantly while on the floor, trying to change a few minds.

I would applaud his efforts on our behalf whether he was at CPAC or a Moveon.org convention.

See, that's a much more valid complaint about my view on this. Problem is -- both the types of people who would voluntarily attend CPAC and the types of people who would watch a FOX News interview have already [s]made up their mind[/s] been told by whatever AM radio/FOX pundit what to think about this, and NOTHING Raymer is going to say will do a damn thing.

I do think I was a fair bit overreactive about this, though, and looking into it most of what I was slamming him for was reactionary. I apologise for this. I can give back 995 or so of those 1000 points -- still think he's wasting his time and breath here though.

At least I was wasting it in a good cause then. The rights of all of us to play poker anytime we want with other consenting adults.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

Wow, must be irritating getting interviewed by such a clueless, passive-aggressive woman. Definitely handled himself well.

this is probably it.

Nothing wrong with that interview. if this issue was just about online poker the issue would be resolved long ago. its much much bigger... online casinos and sports betting when combined is an unreal market to regulate.

Does he deserve the honour?

And I'm glad you're doing this -- but honestly CPAC has almost literally the single worst time:results ratio of effort spent trying to change people's minds of pretty much anywhere in America. You're at a convention where several keystone groups and speakers boycotted or threatened to do so because a pro-gay rights GOP group was invited (to get an idea of the impetus you have to go against to change minds here is). And, as I mentioned, the person interviewing you being unintentionally dumb is about as good as you're going to get from FOX -- you were lucky you didn't get an intentionally dumb/manipulative interviewer.

I really like that you're getting the word out in interviews and the like, I really do. It's just... CPAC is really not the place to go if you're looking to enlighten people or convince people who would otherwise be indifferent to take action. I guess that's what I was trying to say all along, but was a bit inflammatory in my first post. And yea, the issue is almost definitely the result of casino/lottery lobbyists, and not any sort of moral issues.

Also, again, apologies for overreacting. Having a ridic short fuse can be problematic at times.

I can only assume you have not met the man or you would not be wondering this.

He is the best ambassador for poker I've mnet or seen on TV with Mike Sexton a very close second. i might give Mike more points if I had actually met him several times as I have Greg.

I'd be curious to hear what went on at CPAC. Any receptive ears? I'd love to hear a trip report if you have the time for it.

That's a joke. We poker players lost the UIGEA vote in the House 317-93 while the GOP added a plank against our right to play to its party platform. At that same time frame, online poker coverage in the U.S. media was solidly against it. LOL at thinking the measure of success should be a complete reversal of that, when the reality was that we were simply initiating a fight back.

I'm glad we're fighting back.

Greg Raymer at CPAC, sticking up for our right to play:

+1

Well said Skall!

PS supported the Reid bill.