I agree. I'm fine with any opportunity to portray our opponents as sneaky hypocrites, since, well, they are.

There have been great men that passed away too soon and then there is Sheldon Adelson, pure evil troll that's still going strong at 81. I pray daily this guy will leave this planet very soon and I'm not even religious.

+1. I just want to add it was not bad timing but HORRENDOUS timing. A senator from his very own state where this terrible terrible tragedy occurred could not find any other day to attend to these gambling matters of his? Really? He is disgraceful and disrespectful especially during this time, let alone insincere.

While you seemingly post on the poker fight only when trying to attack PPA, I really don't follow you here. This is about Graham's timing and nothing else. Congress cancelled all of today's votes on account of the despicable shootings, making it even more odd that their senator would choose this week to focus on introduction and promotion of Adelson's ban rather than on his own state.

He could have introduced his bill any time he wanted. My guess is that Adelson wouldn't wait any longer and, any time that happens for any reason, Graham and Rubio jump.

Glad to see some people are still delusionally sanguine thinking these sociopaths possess empathy towards people...

The Ex-Im Bank shows how hypocritical Marco Rubio is. He decries Ex-Im as an example of crony capitalism but is supporting Sheldon Adelson's crony capitalism efforts.

Why are you surprised?

Where did I say I was surprised?

You don't have to say you're surprised to have that tone. You sound like this is some shocking news. A politician being hypocritical especially at that level is the norm.

Maybe us poker players need to get gays to somehow get involved with online poker. They will somehow find a way to get online poker legalized nationally.

I tried that but in another more clear cut issue just recently. After Supreme Court ruling this past week, I asked some from the LGBT community if they would now support their fellow human beings who would like to have legalized marriage between a man to many women or vice versa.

Apparently that potential support fell on deaf ears b/c either they are mathematically challenged and cannot understand that a relationship could involve more than just 2 loving people. Or they themselves are just hypocrites like others before them and are too provincial to embrace the broader concept of what a union/marriage really means. If they cannot wrap their heads around that concept, I have my doubts about online poker and wouldn't bother.

I posted it because people may not have been aware of this example of Rubio's hypocrisy and it gives us a topic of attack.

Can we leave the marriage issues out of a poker thread?

All good, carry on.

.... Thanks for sharing, Mr. Jeffs. Your futile courting of LGBT support for polygamy can indeed serve as a useful cautionary tale to keep online poker supports from wasting time trying the same tact. I will mention it to Rich and the PPA, in case they were thinking of going that way, speaking politically of course.

This is politics. Ask yourself if you would accept support from "sneaky hypocrites" if it meant getting online poker legalized ?

If your answer is an honest, "no, I would not accept political support unless the supporters hearts are pure, like mine", then fine for you.

Former majority leader lobbying for online gambling opponents [thehill.com]

Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) and a host of other former congressional staffers will lobby for a group pushing a ban on Internet gambling.

...

Others lobbying for the coalition include David Schnittger, former deputy chief of staff for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), as well as Bret Boyles, Matthew Cutts and David Hoppe.

I would not. Then again, in my opinion, someone who opposes online poker is evil by definition, while a pro-poker lawmaker is, again by definition, pure as the driven snow.