I heard on the radio this morning that the late night comics hammered the Republicans more than Democrats by a margin of 7-1. There were over 475 jokes about Republicans versus only 69 about Democrats. Here's the story to back it up: click here.
Anyone can conclude that this has hurt the Republican Campaign. I find it interesting that this election is such a popularity contest. It reminds me of the Clinton vs Bush year and how incredibly charismatic Clinton looked versus the aging conservative Bush. And with all the YouTube, Tivo, and other technologies that put media clips just a "click" away 24/7, it is reasonable to conclude that the "art" is influencing the "life".
How many people have you talked to that have NO IDEA what the candidates stances are on abortion, or stem cell research, or government involvement, or anything.... and they are professing a strong stance on who they are voting for? Ask them why and they won't say that Leno told them who to vote for, but it certainly influences them: "Yeah. What an idiot that guy is. I ain't votin' for him". And what about the voter that says "I can't vote for him. My daddy would never agree with a person like him in office". Come on! Think. Educate yourself. Vote.
I agree we need change, but I wish people would educate themselves to make a decision that would actually represent what their needs and/or wants are. I am thoroughly disgusted with the entire campaign. When you start to feel like you have to vote for the lesser of two evils, it makes you sick.
If you are thinking of voting based on the candidates views on online gaming: check this article out. I personally think that a Democratic President, Democratic House and a Democratic Senate will NOT support online gambling, but rather push deeper to get it eradicated. But only time will tell.
In the meantime, I will vote based on the fact that I am a small business owner and six figure income earner. I'll just be tickled when the whole campaign is over.
As far as online poker, the only way it will ever be legalized (IMO) is if the major Casino's throughout the United States figure out how to lobby enough dollars (present and future dollars) to get the votes necessary to allow online gaming. If they can show enough money coming in from taxes, then I think they can get it done. And this would be assuming that a company like Harrah's could do something aggressive like buying a stake in FTP or Pokerstars. Imagine that: Harrah's inks a deal taking a major stake in FTP the same day the president signs into law the new Internet Gaming Taxation Bill. LOL.....
Just take a look at Missouri Gaming. For the longest time they didn't want any Casino's in the state. The first gambling "riverboat" didn't open until May of 1994 with the promise of big revenues to our schools from the gambling taxes. They were required to be on the water and gamblers had to wait until the boat un-docked before gaming began. Then regulations relaxed more and then a little more and now, the casinos in Missouri only need to be touching a river and are permanent structures that never un-dock. There has also been a loss limit of $500. That also used to be hard to get around as you had to wait 2 hours before you could "rebuy" into the boat. Then they got more and more relaxed to where now you can leave and come right back in and rebuy.
The state of Missouri has on the ballot a Proposition to eliminate the $500 loss limit. If there was ever any hint of this 14 years ago, they could have never swayed the voters to approve gaming in Missouri. But here we are, 14 years later, promising millions more in tax revenues to our schools, if we could just let people lose a little more. And it looks like it will pass easily.
I personally don't care other than I would like to have the ability to have WSOP Circuit events here in Missouri. We can't now with a $500 limit. But I laugh at the process of continually pushing the line a little bit at a time, asking for just a little more, just one more time, knowing that you will be asking for even more down the line.
And that is what we need for online poker. Sneak in the door with the promise of big bucks and maybe some limits on buyins, and then push a little further, a little further, a little further; until we get it where we want it.
I guess that's my rant on the whole election thing going on. I am sick to death of the commercials, the commentaries, and the circus that it is. Who knows what the next 8 years will bring, but I know one thing for sure: No matter who is in office, I will continue my pursuit to improve my poker skills and make money while doing it (either online or live).
Stay patient....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Colorado is slowly pushing the limits too. Similar to Mizzou, gaming was allowed in designated cities (coverted mining towns) circa 1994.
Games were limited to Table Games (i.e., BJ, Poker, 3-card Poker)and Slots. Also, the betting limit was set to $5max (really crappy structure). And the hours of operation were limited to 8am-2am.
We now have an amendment on the ballot, adding games to include Roulette and Craps, Max bet lost to $100, and an increase in hours of operation. The politically correct kicker: ~80% revenue will go towards community colleges.
As you touched on, no way this would have passed in its early conception, but here we are ready to accept this amendment.
I'm voting early and I'm voting often.
You gotta look at the fact that Harrahs and other Casinos are already into lobbying. They don't want to buy FTP and Stars, they want to compete against them.
Trust me when I tell you that it is already happening.
I'm like you though J in the sense that it never really bothered me about the popularity contest. The Dems have always had the majority vote because of demographics.
Those demographics never bothered me because they never actually voted. This time around it is different.
And no, I am not avoiding a racist remark by using demographics to all you spin puppies out there. I am referring to the youngest voters in the US, of all races.
It's been us small business owners tat have carried most of the financial responsibility of the country on our backs for the last 50 years. I accept that as a cost to live the life I want to live, and to obtain the rewards I want to achieve. Not economic rewards either, but moreso the satisfaction of winning, or making something work.
For that we are persecuted as lucky, or born into it, or greedy or wealthy mind you. Like they have any clue what wealthy is.
Maybe I should close up all of my ventures, and UNEMPLOY the 100 or so folk that count on my businesses to feed their families, and pay for their mortgages.
Ok, now I'm pissed. End rant
Post a Comment