4:208. shared on my FB

The cool thing isn't just that there are at least 200 "No" votes. It's that there are still only 4 "Yes" votes.


--klez

4:222 now. :-)

223

234 to 4... lol

Why do people post comments like this

"Poker is not gambling. You get cards, you need skill to play them correctly, or fold. Sometimes it's a matter of skill in when knowing when to bluff or knock someone from the table/tournament.

Poker is not gambling."

People sound like shills with these "skill game" arguments. It's a much better comment on things like "the government shouldn't regulate what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others". You should be able to waste money on poker, internet porn, word of Warcraft subscriptions, or anything else. Skill is irrelevant.

Then why shouldn't heroin, online slots, and prostitution be also legally available?

Do you really think it is easier to convince the majority of the US voting public that the government should have no say in how you choose to spend your money rather than trying to convince them that poker (by virtue of it being different from house banked casino games of chance) is one of the areas where government should not be banning the activity?

Certainly emphasizing that poker is different has had a very positive effect in convincing a good number of politicians to consider treating it differently.

Skallagrim

No, your missing my point. When you get into a "skill vs. luck" it's a tangent away from the principle I'm talking about. Put yourselves into the shoes of Joe Public. A lot of these guys have played poker once or twice at a friends house, learned hold em on the spot and proceeded to win or do well in that home tournament. Your going to convince those people that is was their "skill" that made them successful? It's an argument that can't been won (can't even been won here in a poker forum, let alone the general public). You can win the argument about respecting citizens privacy.

There is no reason heroin should not be legally available. It was at one time in this country. Show me how prohibition has decreased the percentage of people who consume drugs? Drugs are bought/sold online all the time. FedEx is probably the biggest marijuana distributor in the US.

There is no reason prostitution should not be legally available. Two consenting adults should be able to have sex together for money. They do not infringe on anyone's rights by doing this. It's currently legal in a number of countries and even part of the U.S. It's offered all the time online through forums like Craigslist, Redbook, etc.

There is no reason online slots should not be legally available. There are already games of chance that are legal in the US for online play (lotto, Horse Racing). What difference is it if someone wants to play slots on their CPU at home? They don't infringe on anyone's rights. In many countries now online casinos are legal. Who's rights are being violated by this?

Online poker should be legal because it's an activity you do in your home and you don't violate another persons rights by doing it. Arguing it should be legal because it's a "skill" game is bull **** and bound to fail because that will always be debatable.

No, you missed the point. Who says scoring and shooting H is not a skill game?

253 to 4....LOL!

Whoever wrote that article must be pretty depressed by now. Even suicidal possibly.

My experience is different from yours, apparently.

Please note that I am not here to engage in an argument about whether heroin should be legal (my actual opinion may surprise you); the argument I wanted to engage you in is whether trying to convince a majority of the US to accept this overall libertarian philosophy is more likely to produce openly legal online poker (in the short term) than trying to convince a majority of the US that online poker (and poker in general) ought to be treated differently than house banked games of chance.

I see the latter as a far easier objective to achieve.

And the skill argument is part of that.

Skallagrim

Another anti-poker editorial: http://www.orovillemr.com/opinion/ci_18786107

Especially when you consider that sex is the only thing I can think of that is completely legal to give away for free, but becomes illegal when you charge for it.

more religious nut bags getting owned

I don't understand the constant correlation between religion and anti-gambling. I'm a conservative semi-religious man and I still support poker 100%. Quit generalizing stuff.

Yes, the article is hilariously getting owned atm Good work guys!

the primary motive behind anti gambling people is religion. just like the anti gays and anti sex guys

That doesn't make you a religious nutbag. It makes you reasonable and sane.