Quote:
...attached this legislation to an unrelated ... bill that really could not be reasonably opposed

Quote:
How do people justify that?

Quote:
Maybe you should examine the people who attached that rider and compare them to who you vote for.

Quote:
Moral superiority, especially in this case.

Quote:
I'd buy this a lot more if this didn't specifically exclude horse racing. Truth is, Frist is just doing what he can to get the votes- he probably doesn't care a lick about gambling online.

Quote:
Perhaps, but this is the only one you've been interested in commenting on.

Quote:
Around here, horse racing is a state racket. That's most likely why.

Quote:
This is one of the things that puzzles me about the US legislative system: the piggy-backing of unrelated legislation on another bill, just so you can get it through with minimal questioning.

How do people justify that?

Quote:
I didn't say it was his moral superiority. The people who put him in office are likely to agree with this mess and aren't inclined to vote him out of office because of the means.

Quote:
Isn't the line item veto a limp wristed attempt to fight back? We don't even have that!

Quote:
It's not limp-wristed at all.

Then I misunderstood the usage.

Quote:

Quote:
...attached this legislation to an unrelated ... bill that really could not be reasonably opposed

This is one of the things that puzzles me about the US legislative system: the piggy-backing of unrelated legislation on another bill, just so you can get it through with minimal questioning.

How do people justify that?

Because the only people that have the power to remove the means to piggy-back are the ones that use it all the time. Usually stuff is tossed in that only helps a local district so that when the politician returns home, he can brag that he bought them a new bridge or something. Everyone seems to do it, so nobody wants to do anything about it.

Another attempt I saw to cut down on this was to attach the person's name to such last minute additions. While this has more to do with "pork" than stuff like gambling bans, I've heard it has severely helped cut down on pork added to bills. Of course, I heard it from someone being interviewed who helped write the legislation...

I forget the name of it, but a Google search found this:

Quote:
The reforms -- part of a much larger bill aimed at curtailing the influence of lobbyists on Congress -- would require greater disclosure about special projects inserted into spending bills by lawmakers, also known as earmarks or pork. Most significantly, the legislation would require members of Congress to attach their names to their proposed earmarks, which sometimes are inserted secretly and anonymously.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060427-112911-7083r.htm

Quote:
Voting is like choosing a cell phone provider- you're hosed no matter what you do.

Quote:
This is one of the things that puzzles me about the US legislative system: the piggy-backing of unrelated legislation on another bill, just so you can get it through with minimal questioning.

Quote:

Quote:
This is one of the things that puzzles me about the US legislative system: the piggy-backing of unrelated legislation on another bill, just so you can get it through with minimal questioning.

Yeah, I hate it, too.

Honest question: is there nothing similar in the UK legislative system?

Quote:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Martin Niemöller

Quote:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

- U.S. Declaration of Independence

Quote:
It's really sad that *this* is the issue where I get to say, "I told you so." This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about with the "drug war", and every other way our liberty is eroded. These things are all related. Why does that seem so difficult for people to understand? We are now in another ludicrous situation where we are not allowed to voluntarily spend OUR OWN MONEY as we see fit! At what point will people finally become uncomfortable?

Quote:
By the way, I intend to continue playing.

Quote:
I researched all of this before really playing with any seriousness and found all of thse arguments to be lacking.

Quote:
JeffS, there's something I've been wondering, mostly unrelated to what's being discussed here. I hope you don't mind if I hijack this thread for the purpose of understanding it.
Let me preface this with a quote from an old 70's-era Galactica episode: "I do not question... merely ask enlightenment."
In other words, I'm not trying to ask this question because I disagree, or to cast aspersions. I honestly would like to learn something new. And it strikes me that you're a person who is in a position to answer honestly, because you've been very open about this topic in the past, and I respect your opinion and respect the way you stand by your values.

Quote:
The idea that you need to research your morality (at least in this case) based on what other people have said makes me feel that, without that external impetus, you would be amoral. Now, I doubt that that is actually true, but you need to stand on your own two feet and take a position of your own, not be subservient to what everyone else says. I know that you say you found "their" arguments against gambling to be uncompelling, but why do you feel the need to know "their" opinion at all?

Quote:
Don't get me wrong. There are often more far-reaching results to our actions than it initially seems, and it's worth it to look and see what those non-obvious results might be and how our moral centers would react to those, but I don't get the impression that you were researching gambling, but, rather, researching Christianity, and that speaks to me the notion that you need to be a good Christian more than you need to follow your own compass

Quote:
Now, I'm not sure what your basis for that last part might be. It might just be a desire to fit into the group. It might be that if they can cast valid aspersions, so could God, and it would prevent you from getting into heaven. There might be some other basis that I can't see, but none of them seem to be based on what you think is right.

(I know. You claim that God is inside you, and therefore it's not external, which I can understand, but if it's inside you, again, why are you looking outside for confirmation?)

Quote:
If God's in control, there's no need for you to apologize when you bump into someone in an aisle, not park in handicapped spots, etc. There's no reason not to be rude. There are a lot of atheistic bases for that attitude, as well, but this is the only one I've seen with a supposedly positive written philosophy.

Quote:
They can help you put into words how you feel, but they don't and shouldn't define what you feel.

Quote:
I am accountable to God for my actions, not them.

...

When a Christian becomes a believer, he or she is declared rightouse before God. This means that the Christian will no longer suffer the long term consequences of sin and will ultimatly exist in Heaven with God for all eternity. It does NOT mean that the believer is able to cut sin out of his or her life

Quote:
Doesn't it follow, then, in a non-Catholic point of view (what you say is distinctly opposed to the Catholic point of view, I think) that there is no real reason to avoid sin? I can believe that Jesus died for my sins, so why not go hog-wild? No reason for him to pay for something I'm not using.

Quote:
Yet you assume that that moral compass, when interpreted by the people who wrote it down, then interpreted by your brain, then interpreted by your moral compass has more validity than the one inside you that shares one of those potential failing points and then adds a few more on top.

Quote:
Like I said: it's the failure to listen to your own compass that's the problem.

Quote:
Romans 6 NIV

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Quote:
It is true that there are a lot of things that tend to go along with gambling that are definitly anti-"Christian Family Values". Prostitution, greed, etc.

Quote:
I really love poker tournaments over cash games. The rush of making a final table with big payouts is huge- I can understand why people get addicted to gambling.

Quote:
Bitt: That's exactly what I was hoping to avoid.

Quote:
Regardless of that, you're still basing your philosophy on someone who has no more moral authority than you yourself do.

Quote:
Greed "tends to" go along? Surely all gambling is greed?

Quote:
That rush you get is your greed being massaged.

Quote:
but it's a bit weird to hear you both disparage and celebrate greed in the same post.

Quote:
FWIW, it didn't initially occur to me that there was a Religious-Right angle to banning online poker.

Quote:
That's fine if you wish to believe that, but it's totally inconsistent with scripture, including Paul's personal encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus (described in a non-Pauline book), his complete acceptance by the other apostles (who DID spend their time with Jesus) and their endorsement of his writings. I know this is one of your beloved pet arguments, but it's completely ridiculous when studied scripturally and historically.

Quote:
Unless one believes that the very words of scripture were inspired and given to the authors of the Bible through the power of God.

Quote:

Quote:
Unless one believes that the very words of scripture were inspired and given to the authors of the Bible through the power of God.

And that the conferences that settled the biblical canon, four hundred years later, were equally inspired, and unfalteringly kept in the good stuff and rejected the bad stuff.

Quote:
Not to mention the notion that God would unfailingly let a few people in on his mind 2000 years ago and then clam up...

Quote:

Quote:
Not to mention the notion that God would unfailingly let a few people in on his mind 2000 years ago and then clam up...

I have some good friends who are Bahá'í. They believe that God keeps sending us messengers, once every few hundred years, to re-iterate the same message. Jesus, Krishna, Moses, Buddha, etc., were all examples of this.

I kinda appreciate the elegance and simplicity of that idea.

Donald Shimoda?

Quote:
Donald Shimoda?

Nah, David Icke

Quote:
Nah, David Icke

Quote:

Quote:
Nah, David Icke

Whoa! Twisted!
Looks like he was seriously buzzed when he read the trilogy.

Quote:
The Bible never read like a bad scifi novel.

No, it reads like a bad fantasy novel.

Quote:

Quote:
The Bible never read like a bad scifi novel.

No, it reads like a bad fantasy novel.

Quote:
I'm willing to study the theories of the Big Bang and evolution. I think they're fascinating, and possibly true, but they don't answer the ultimate question

Quote:
I kinda appreciate the elegance and simplicity of that idea.

Quote:
How is this elegant or simple? If God was really elegantly omnipotent, why not a message every month? An insert in your cable bill, say.

Quote:
The biggest problem here is that Christians love to argue against science [...]Einstein felt that his theories... showed the great glory [...] Newton was a good Christian

Quote:
And so Christians eschew any scientific theory that doesn't suit their ossified view of the world. And that's why we have things like bans on gay marriage, abortion doctors being murdered, etc., etc.... And arguments against the Big Bang.

Quote:

Quote:
I kinda appreciate the elegance and simplicity of that idea.

How is this elegant or simple? If God was really elegantly omnipotent, why not a message every month? An insert in your cable bill, say.

Quote:
You might want to check out The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I kinda appreciate the elegance and simplicity of that idea.

How is this elegant or simple? If God was really elegantly omnipotent, why not a message every month? An insert in your cable bill, say.

Perhaps then you'd blame those pesky christians for forcing their message on you.

Quote:
Sheesh. JeffS + Post-On-Any-Topic = Intense-relgious-discussion. I guess it's been a while since we've had one of these and we were about due.

Quote:
Anyway, I'm just chiming in to say that I'll take both science and religion and don't feel that I need to choose between them. I don't have any desire to disprove the Big Bang, and I'll take all the cures for desieses that science can give me. There are places where the Science and faith don't quite meet, it's true, and I'm OK with that. I don't know everything, and somtimes we humans get things wrong. Through research and/or enlightment I'm sure we'll get it right some day- and if we don't in my lifetime I'll understand in heaven. As I've said before, the central idea of Christianty is salvation by grace through faith, not to combat science.

Quote:
While I"m posting, though, I do have an observation. I understand that a bunch of you look at Christiaty like a common myth- given that you aren't believers this makes complete sense- I don't see why Christiantiy would be treated any differently than any other belief system in your eyes. At least you're level headed not to try and hedge your bets the way most people do. That being said, I do get the sense that some of the language being chosen in recent posts is a deliberate attempt to shock myself or John (while other statements and posts are clearly intended to simply lighten the discussion). Honestly this doesn't bother me (disbelief is the same whether it is attempting to be shocking or not), and I might be misunderstanding the intent, but if some of these words are being choicen for the purpose of tweaking those who are Christians to get a rise out of us, I think other language might serve the discussion better.

Quote:
I honstly do hope and pray that some of you will come around to trust in Jesus for salvation, and if it ever happens I'll know this for certain: it won't be a wishy-washy, "I'm trying Christiantiy because everyone else is doing it" kind of faith. Though if some of you became believers it might shake the faith up quite a bit!

Quote:
At any rate, I'm fairly convinced that I'm not going to say or do anything on this BBS that will ever make any of you change your minds, but I can still hope that God works in your lives elsewhere to bring you to Him.

Quote:
I remain happy that this board allows such an honest and open exchange of ideas from such diverse belief systems, usually in the most respectful way possible. There are very few places that I've experienced this.

Quote:
Well, if the message clearly came from God, rather than from "those pesky Christians" then I certainly couldn't be upset that the creator of the universe was meddling in my cable bill, now could I?

Quote:
Oh, you better believe I would. Because in that universe, all those omens would be testable by science.
We could have everyone wear blue shirts one month, to see if the messages stopped or doubled in frequency. We could see if the hand of God smote every person who defiled their cable bill. Repeatably. Predictably. Every time.
In that universe, God would simply be a fact.

Quote:
The source for his "acceptance by the other apostles" is Galatians 2:7-9, written by Paul. What's the source for their "endorsement of his writings"?

Quote:
Is any of it "historical" as opposed to "scriptural"?

Quote:
If you wanted to be a true scientist, then you'd acknowledge the question as to why we are here, and at the very least, entertain the only plausible solution put forth thus far by mankind -- that there's a higher being, known as God.

Quote:
Also, to Bitt: I do apologize for being abrasive in my earlier post with the whole "pet argument" thing.

Quote:
I'd like to make clear that Christians believe God still does talk to us, just not in the authoritative way of scripture. Scripture remains the objective Word of God that we can use to measure individual subjective encounters with Him. In scripture He has given us all we need to live the Christian life the way He intends; no more objective truth is needed.

The Bible never seeks to prove the existense of God. It always just assumes His existense and centers around themes of our relationship to Him. So saying, "God spoke 2000 years ago and then became silent" is an innacurate characterization of the Bible. Rather, God spoke through the Bible to tell us how to relate to Him, and has been communicating to us in His still small voice ever since.

Quote:
(If you read the beliefs of the church mentioned above, I think the one single most important line that sets that church apart from many, if not all others, I've encountered is this: "Recognizing that the perception of truth is always qualified by human nature and experience, there is no official church creed that must be accepted by all members." That's a powerful thing for a religion to recognize.)

Quote:
The former paragraph is a fair characterization of many Christian theologies, but it's certainly not true of all Christian theologies.

Quote:
making the claim that it's "all we need," and that "no more objective truth is needed." If that were truly all we needed, why would He bother continuing to communicate with us, as you suggest he does?

Quote:
One great benefit that having such a document affords is that it allows the church to recognize that the Bible is a historical document, written for a particular society, during a particular time period, and, as such, parts of it may be irrelevant to modern society. Can you imagine how well the people of that era would have accepted Christ teaching not to have slaves, or that women aren't property to be bought and sold, but equally important members of society, due the same rights as men?

Quote:
Well, that's the question I'm (I guess implicitly) asking. What leads you to believe that the Bible has any credence?

Long answer that I don't have the energy right now to fully answer to anything close to satisfactorily. There are plenty of arguments about consistency of doctrine, internal and external claims of devinie insipration, and my own experience of the truth of it as lived out in my life. Each of these are topics that would have to be expounded upon in great detail, and honestly I'm just not up for it at the moment

Quote:
as long as you don't force your views upon others. While I don't think that you do that directly, I do think you support and encourage a culture that does, and that's where my problem lies.

Quote:

Quote:
You might want to check out The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan.

Thanks, Bitt. I have read that in the past and liked it.

I have also read Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer -- which didn't really deliver on the promise of the title, but was still somewhat interesting.

Quote:
Are you talking about politics and the religious right

Quote:
in these United Snakes!

Quote:

If that's how you feel about the USA, then why don't you leave? Oh right, because it's the best country in the world. So if you're gonna stay why don't you not try to tear it down.

Quote:
I also have issues with you believing that somehow the Republicans still stand for smaller government -- see the beginning of this thread for evidence that it doesn't

Quote:
When put on the spot, you always seem to have a copout like "well, they all do that".

Quote:
What has to happen to get your political actions to line up with your professed beliefs?

Quote:
But at some point you have to realize that someone that used to represent you no longer does, even if they still claim to do so.

Quote:
I also believe that you're part of a culture that looks to overwhelm every other culture you don't agree with. I could go on a rant here, but I won't. I just encourage you to look with whom you're aligning yourself. You may not share the same views on things. They may be strange bedfellows, but they're bedfellows nonetheless.

Quote:
In fact, I hate to say it but I've become so disenchanted with our political system that I might not vote next time.

Quote:
You can dump on the politicians all day, but if you're going to trash the country itself then get the F out.

And here I thought that one of the principle ideas of the country was respecting the freedom of speech. Way to embody that principle, there, Billy.

Quote:
wfaulk said:

Vote Libertarian.

Hey, we actually agree on something.

Quote:
canuckinLA said:

And here I thought that one of the principle ideas of the country was respecting the freedom of speech. Way to embody that principle, there, Billy.

It is one of the founding principles, and I like to exercise it by saying if you don't like the country then you should find another one. If it's just the current politics that you don't like then vote.

Quote:
Please don't "not vote". If you can't stomach voting for a member of either ruling party (and I can't say I blame you), then vote for either an independant or third-party candidate who you can stomach.

Quote:
Also, while I think that outlawing gambling is stupid, I'm more outraged by the piggybacking.

Quote:
If you can just convince more people like you that the people they're voting for don't represent them, maybe you can help pull the Republican party back from the loonybin.

Quote:
Actually, I hate the Libertarians.

Quote:
Most likely I'll find some completely unelectable person who represents me and vote for him/her. Doesn't accomplish much in the grand scheme of things, but it'll make me feel better.

Quote:
Well, in Ukraine they have an "against all" option.

Interesting. I wonder if any other countries have such a thing, I'm not heard of it before. Some friends and I have agreed for years that in the UK we need a "None of the above" party, especially if we could get it listed on the end of the ballot

pca

Quote:
I completely disagree with the notion that a laissez-faire economy does anything more than make the rich richer. I also think that while democracy can have a "tyranny of the majority" element to it, the lessening of government just makes it happen more. You need a government to protect minorities. Not having a government is just going to make it worse. Of course, you also need an administration that is willing to actually do that.

Wow, agree with almost everything you said here- never thought I'd see the day!

The one part I'm don't quite agree is that "lessening the government just makes it happen more". I'd say "lessening the government TOO MUCH just makes it happen more". I think governmnet could be smaller than it is and accomplish what we both agree it needs to do- and likely more.

Quote:
In particular, I completely disagree with the notion that a laissez-faire economy does anything more than make the rich richer.

Sooooo, I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and guess that you're a huge fan of Ayn Rand?

Quote:
Sooooo, I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and guess that you're a huge fan of Ayn Rand?

LOL- too funny because I almost posted the same thing!

Quote:
Interesting. I wonder if any other countries have such a thing, I'm not heard of it before. Some friends and I have agreed for years that in the UK we need a "None of the above" party, especially if we could get it listed on the end of the ballot

Quote:
I have avoided this thread because I have no interest in online poker, although the idea of it being banned is annoying. But I finally peeked in and saw that the last two postings were references to Ayn Rand...

If you think Ayn Rand and poker is a big stretch, man you have missed the thread completely!

Quote:
The US is one of the most heavily regulated and policed societies in the world.

Quote:

Quote:
The US is one of the most heavily regulated and policed societies in the world.

And despite that, I am constantly shocked by the rampant corruption at large in the US...

Quote:

Quote:
the rampant corruption at large in the US...

...such as?

Quote:
...gambling online was recently made a felony...

Quote:
!?!?!? Um, isn't that a touch extreme?

Quote:
Just out of curiosity, couldn't you just get a foreign bank account? Surely there's a legitimate online UK or Swiss bank who would give one to you. I haven't done any research into it, never having needed anything like that, but it might be possible. Of course, that might make you more likely to have an IRS audit.

Quote:
Just out of curiosity, couldn't you just get a foreign bank account?

Quote:
PS: TigerJimmy is correct about more than one thing

LOL- I didn't say ONLY one thing- didn't even mean to imply it, actually. Just trying to emphasize that particular point.

BTW, you do realize that you are the reason I am a winning player (or at least, winning as much as I am). I have become quite invovled in the 2+2 MTT community, and that improved my games by leaps and bounds.

I really did give limit HE a try because you like it so much, but I still just can't stand playing it. SSHE is one of the best poker books ever written, but the variance just drives me nuts. Love HORSE, though. People are so bad at Razz and O8.

Quote:
BTW, you do realize that you are the reason I am a winning player (or at least, winning as much as I am). I have become quite invovled in the 2+2 MTT community, and that improved my games by leaps and bounds.

Quote:
I don't know about you, but I can't take seriously anyone who takes either the Republican Party or Democratic Party seriously -- in part because neither party takes you and me seriously; in part because both are bought and paid for by corporate America and special interests.

So what if a majority of us decided once and for all to walk into our town and city halls all over the country and change our party affiliation from Republican or Democrat to independent? What if that sizable number of us who don't vote at all decided to register as independents? For the first time in decades, working middle-class Americans might just get the attention of our elected officials in Washington.

Quote:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Quote:
This is a confused misapplication of a medical *metaphor* onto behavior (see Thomas Szasz). Sure, some people *enjoy* gambling, but what's the matter with that?

Quote:
the online gambling law isn't about morality or addiction. It's about the government's inability to collect tax revenue from the online casinos.