Hmm Mitt Romeny opposes online poker. This has to mean that there is a transcript somewhere of him coming out in favor of it sometime in the past.

lol, BM casinos where most games are rigged to favour the house are ok.

We should ban anything that people enjoy, because it might become habit forming. We should ban World of Warcraft and Magic: The Gathering. We should ban major league sports because I'll guarantee you that more property damage has occurred because of it than poker.

Fumk0taro: Don't forget, Obama paid for his books playing 5 and 7 card stud.

Yea that'll get you votes. How many people play online poker again? In 2010 there was est. 1.4 million online players in the US. 6 Million worldwide. So hes totally behind the government (DOJ) stealing our money?

Source; http://www.quora.com/Online-Poker/Ho...here-worldwide

Well, Obama gets 999,999, because I still won't vote him. I won't be voting Mitt after this either. So, it's Newt gets the nomination or I'll vote 3rd party. What really bothers me on this is that the government wants to say what is a useful leisure activity and what is not. So, I'm allowed to spend $100 on a restaurant trip if I want (even though I could eat for far less), I'm allowed to spend $30 on a hardcover book. I can spend $200 on a fundraiser for the art museum. I can also spend $40 on a carton of cigarettes. I can spend $100 on a night at the bar. I can also go to the casino and sit with $200 at the poker table, but I can't sit in my house and play $.01/$.02 online (something the casino does not offer). I can pay $6 in rake per hand, but I can't pay only $3.

Really, this argument is as ludicrous as saying that you can buy beer with at least 4% alcohol in it, but you can't buy beer with less than 2% in it. What is even the logic. Politicians are fine with poker, if they aren't, ban casinos having it. How does this even make sense?

It's a money grab, which is fine, but don't use the social harm argument. Addicted gamblers will lose, but online poker is significantly better than almost any other gambling option available for the gambler. So, your not protecting the gambler by not offering it, your only protecting the financial interests of others. That's fine, but at least say that. Say, MGM is in our pocket, so we want them to screw you, not pokerstars that offers your poker action for a much better price for you.

I'm not a one issue voter, so this wouldn't affect my vote. However, there are plenty more issues I have with Romney that will cause me not to vote for him.That being said, it's probably more him saying this to appear to be more conservative than he realize is. Romney is about as liberal a conservative as one can get.

 

Originally Posted by nikotes

Actually, we don't know how he paid for his books or college as a matter of fact. The most transparent president ever, won't release his transcripts.

And this matter to you, why?

Republicans love personal freedom until it comes to something they don't agree with.

In actuality what seems to be a political issue is really a religious one. Family values champions such as Romney tend to let their religious ties direct them. Politics and religion should never be intertwined, but they are daily. Everyday in the United States there is a headline somewhere. Mitt Romney is Mormon. His religious beliefs pretty much go against every possible vice that in the United States we should be able to make choices on as individuals. Being an American I should be able to make the choice if I want to have a drink or not, play cards or not, hell even smoke marijuana or cigarettes or not. In a country that supposedly allows religious freedom our government continually lets policy be swayed by religious beliefs. If looked at as a completely business decision, on-line poker is a no-brainer. For a country that is 15 trillion dollars in debt on-line poker is a revenue stream that will possibly bring in hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. That is a service to our country. If people want to play poker, let them. If someone's religious beliefs do not allow them to play that's ok too....that's their choice. There is a definite market in the United States, so poker...being a very American game, much like baseball and football, should be embraced by our government. This is a choice question, and being an American I should have the choice to make this type of decision, whether playing is right or wrong...isn't that the American Way? Having the ability to choose? And definitely taking an American pass time and making it a flourishing business....isn't that the American Way as well? When politicians make a decision like this it is basically saying that we as individuals are not intelligent enough to make the choices ourselves. Are those the politicians we want leading us? I love poker, but unfortunately I don't believe this is just a poker issue. It's a FREEDOM issue. I guess this is where the power of the vote comes in, if a candidate doesn't truly want to do what's best for the voters and our country, don't vote for him or her. Freedom of choice is definitely worth fighting for and we, as Americans, should vote for politicians who believe in that as well. That's what the people that founded this country believed in, and what was true over 200 years ago is still true today.

Wow I really feel for the people that love to play poker and are not allowed because of some idiot that thinks he can bully everyone! I don’t give a rats asss whether the guy is a Moron, Christian, Jew, Catholic or any type of religious CULT! Its all about the all mighty $$$$ and for the ones that are running for the president position its about what can be done to get as many VOTES as possible!!!!Here is a question for you Mitt Romney “why is it that the rest of the WORLD is not opposed to online poker and you are?Now, lets see if he has the guts to come on this thread to answer this one?????. Ya sure that would be a miracle!!!!!! You know I’m so glad I don’t live in the states because I can’t stand their lies and stupid laws.And you call your country “LAND OF THE FREE?” what a joke!!!!

 

Originally Posted by pokerscrub1

You gotta wonder how the republicans plan on having the kind of novermber that they want when they continue to alienate people by projecting there values onto everyone...I mean most americans tend to agree with them on economic issues and fiscal responsibilty, but they continue to get bogged down on social issues. I mean I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but there are def a lot of things that these clowns say that just puts me off.

My biggest issue is really with Rick Santorum, I mean seriuosly guy, get out of peoples lives. This is 2012, your anti gay, anti individual freedom, policies are just a joke, and it's why you cant get above 15% in the polls, and the only state you won was an ultra socially conservative Caucus, that is in no way indicative of how the country feels.

I mean i feel like most Americans agree with like 85% of what Ron Paul says, but his foriegn policy, and a couple other issues just shocks & scares everyone and a large # of republicans in the primary's simply won't vote for him. If a candidate would take Ron Pauls message of individual liberty, limited government, and fiscal responsibilty, and combine it with a more realistic and mainstream foriegn policy, people would really rally around that candidate.

Congrats republicans, you are about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this november, and if you want someone to blame, you need only to look in a mirror.

I totally agree.