Possible misinterpretation While I know that's not what he meant, there was a part that I think could be misinterpreted as advocating children playing poker...at least by the type of people that have their TV's set to Fox News :joker: Again, I'm sure Doyle wasn't, but we know we'll see some people run with it and use it the wrong way.
Ace: Either you've been in the PR/advertising/marketing biddness tooo long, or your shadow afraid and trying to be politically correct. Brunson made a legitimate point that not enough is being done re pornography to minors, yet to use the excuse that minors are susceptible to on-line gaming and need to be protected(Oh God, IN THE NAME OF THE CHILLIN,), is why the Bill? was necessary. Cerritos made a brilliant point that it is, would be, should be, harder for "a kid" to glom on to mamma and pappas credit card, bank account info to "gamble" than to view outrageously sized tits on line. (or subtler French photos.) We here take personal responsibility for our actions, good or bad, pornographic or gambling. The rest of the misanthropes of the world, or more particularly the US, should stop hiding behind their cowardice and lack of self integrity and responsibility to their children to sample the long standing inhibition release of the fruit of the vine. They just might be more regular.
He made a point that just takes another thing that is just as legitimate as gambling (PORN), and tried to make it seem like it was worse. That's an argument that's just as bad as the 'help save the kids' one when it comes to gambling. It's hypocritical. There's nothing wrong with porn. There's nothing wrong with gambling. There are religious nut jobs that feel the need to impose their moral beliefs upon others...if anything should be banned, it's them. :joker: If a kid uses their parents bank account to make transactions they didn't authorize, they've got bigger problems than gambling or porn...that's pretty much theft. It's no different than little Jenny using daddy's credit card to go for a shopping spree at the mall without his permission. We're not outlawing malls next, are we? Again, my problem was he was trying to make poker sound like it was 'better' than porn. Both, in my opinion, are perfectly fine businesses that are under attack and he was trying to take the heat off his business and put it on another. Neither deserve that heat and should be practiced freely and out in the open.
good post Ace It doesn't matter if you are into porn, on-line gambling - or shopping at malls - you are responsible for your own behavior and its consequences - and for raising your kids - you also have the priviledge of living with the consequences of your choices - what is being pushed onto us here has nothing to do with 'morality', Christian or otherwise - politically correct or otherwise - it is a callous, hypocritical, political ploy by the republican party to hold onto the votes of the religious right loonies - but there is a lot more at stake than on-line blackjack - think hard about this - Congress has passed a law which gives the President the power to KIDNAP AND TORTURE anyone, anywhere, anytime he chooses, in secret, without warrants, without judicial review, INCLUDING AMERICAN CITIZENS (Bush has already asserted the right to declare American citizens 'enemy combatants') - this should scare you shitless - unfortunately - the democrats merely argued that the government should have to get a warrant/ be subject to judicial review - before they kidnapped and tortured you - no big arguement apparrently with the kidnap and torture part - not really a great deal better - think about it - your government wants to kidnap and torture people - we have a lot more to worry about than on-line bj
Ace: Good clarification: See your point. Ye olde trick of make mine look better by making yours look worse. As you described "things" couldn't agree more. Now Kuzak: Tone down boy. We'll be boiling babies to expel witches and leaving weak and ill newborns on top of the mountains to see if they survive, while not expecting it. A great deal of survielance legislation and presidential edict is suspect. But the checks and balances and balance of power forces still in effect in our system make it fairly remote that you or I will be tortured for what we know, don't know, or pretend to know or don't know. Issuing a warrant is a long standing procedure of law, dating back to Reachy's childhood. Upholding and maintaining that procedure, not only leaves open the doors for oversight, but redress. The one fight on going is the use or none use of warrants per conditions of what is war. As always we should err on the low side. Dealer wins 55 per cent of the time. While we face an intrusion, again, into our personal liberties, which we don't seem to stand up to fight for, at least we know the government could be spying on us. And if we find out for sure, we can do something about it. What's Experian, Equifax and the other megolith doin to you? What about the guy you stiffed 100 dollars on an auto repair? Those peoples are doin you more harm than a blanket electronic surveilance and remote, oh my god pull out your fingernails with pliers sadists. Not to say. You! big Brother, gonna spy. You need creds to do it.
