Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorio
I believe he would be against any federal legisltaion prohibiting online poker, but I also think he would be against any federal legisltaion making online poker legal in every state, as he would believe that is none of the federal government's business, and these sorts of things should be up to each individual state to decide for itself, so if Wahington State wants to ban online poker, I believe GJ would not have the federal government intervene.
this is such a brutal logic fail. standard, of course, but still brutal.
Quote:
But this is all just imo. I haven't spent any time researching GJ's stance on online poker, because, frankly, who cares about online poker in the context electing a presedent.
1. online poker is a significant issue for poker pros and other individuals who derive income from the existence of online poker, and there are obviously many such individuals on these forums.
2. a candidate's stance on online poker is important because it's indicative of his approach to politics in general. there's no non-terrible logic that can be put forth to support the illegality of online poker. if a candidate supports such, a reasonable person has to ask himself, "why?" since there's no good answer, a reasonable person then has to ask himself, "what is the nature of the process by which this candidate goes about making policy decisions?" the end won't be pretty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfapfap
I believe it's possible to agree with much of what you're saying while not being libertarian.
no, it's not. not even close. doesn't make any sense. if you believe that, then you don't understand what libertarianism means.
you guys are the reason for existence of the uigea, black friday, sopa, etc. etc. i'm sure you guys don't support these specific pieces of legislation, but your approach is inherent to the fact that it was possible for them to have been brought about. and it's pretty sad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASPoker8
This doesn't really make sense, without further clarification, for obvious reasons.
I hope you would be interested in expanding.
mason, i, too would be interested in seeing you expand on this. it was a fairly baffling statement to me.