Dan Druff wants President Obama to be Re-Elected!!!!

[TheXFactor]

It looks more and more everyday that Obama is going to win re-election by a wide-margin.
Mitt Romney keeps goofing up saying weird shit and he just doesn't appeal to normal people.

Even if you believe the Republican and Mitt Romney fairy tale that somehow he's going to create 12 million jobs,
spend an unlimited amount on defense while cutting taxes and eliminating the deficit.

Romney also doesn't know shit about foreign policy, he would attack Russia, re-invade Iraq and tell Israel to go
ahead and bomb Iran.

In the next couple of years, if Obama is still President, we will have an opportunity to legalize internet gambling (online poker)
which would never happen under a Republican Administration. Even if there was bipartisan support between Republicans and
Democrats, a President Romney (a puppet of Sheldon Adelson) would veto any legislation or bill on internet gambling or online poker,
in fact he would make it more illegal.

President Obama and a majority Democratic House and Senate is the best and only chance for a federal law to legalize internet poker and
reverse the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

[RobbieBensonFan]

It looks more and more everyday that Obama is going to win re-election by a wide-margin.
Mitt Romney keeps goofing up saying weird shit and he just doesn't appeal to normal people.

Even if you believe the Republican and Mitt Romney fairy tale that somehow he's going to create 12 million jobs,
spend an unlimited amount on defense while cutting taxes and eliminating the deficit.

Romney also doesn't know shit about foreign policy, he would attack Russia, re-invade Iraq and tell Israel to go
ahead and bomb Iran.

In the next couple of years, if Obama is still President, we will have an opportunity to legalize internet gambling (online poker)
which would never happen under a Republican Administration. Even if there was bipartisan support between Republicans and
Democrats, a President Romney (a puppet of Sheldon Adelson) would veto any legislation or bill on internet gambling or online poker,
in fact he would make it more illegal.

President Obama and a majority Democratic House and Senate is the best and only chance for a federal law to legalize internet poker and
reverse the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

Makes sense, especially since Obama had the House and Senate in Dem control 2008-10 and online poker never even made it to committee, let alone a vote.

Outside of 2% of the population, nobody cares about online poker. There is absolutely no groundswell of support. Outside of a few poker forums nobody cares. But keep believing in the Easter Bunny.

[General Bonkers]

Harry: Hey Eric I have a lot of friends here in Nevada that would like to get rid of Pokerstars and full tilt, could you help a brother out?

Eric: Sure no problem

[TheXFactor]

The UIEGA in 2006 was passed under a Republican Administration.

It was MGM resorts and Caesars Entertainment (formerly Harrah's) that wanted to remove Full Tilt Poker and Pokerstars from the U.S. market.

You need a two-thirds majority in Congress now to get anything passed.
They are just waiting for the right bill.

If Romney and the GOP get back into power, legal internet gambling and online poker may be lost forever.

[ShadyJ]

It looks more and more everyday that Obama is going to win re-election by a wide-margin.
Mitt Romney keeps goofing up saying weird shit and he just doesn't appeal to normal people.

Even if you believe the Republican and Mitt Romney fairy tale that somehow he's going to create 12 million jobs,
spend an unlimited amount on defense while cutting taxes and eliminating the deficit.

Romney also doesn't know shit about foreign policy, he would attack Russia, re-invade Iraq and tell Israel to go
ahead and bomb Iran.

In the next couple of years, if Obama is still President, we will have an opportunity to legalize internet gambling (online poker)
which would never happen under a Republican Administration. Even if there was bipartisan support between Republicans and
Democrats, a President Romney (a puppet of Sheldon Adelson) would veto any legislation or bill on internet gambling or online poker,
in fact he would make it more illegal.

President Obama and a majority Democratic House and Senate is the best and only chance for a federal law to legalize internet poker and
reverse the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

Makes sense, especially since Obama had the House and Senate in Dem control 2008-10 and online poker never even made it to committee, let alone a vote.

Outside of 2% of the population, nobody cares about online poker. There is absolutely no groundswell of support. Outside of a few poker forums nobody cares. But keep believing in the Easter Bunny.

Its not so much what Obama will do to help online poker, but what Romney will do to shut it down for good. I could really care less whos President as long as their last name isnt Bush, but Its clear to have a shot at legalized online poker Obama must be reelected. Guess I'm not voting for Ron Paul this time.

[PLOL]

Makes sense, especially since Obama had the House and Senate in Dem control 2008-10 and online poker never even made it to committee, let alone a vote.

Outside of 2% of the population, nobody cares about online poker. There is absolutely no groundswell of support. Outside of a few poker forums nobody cares. But keep believing in the Easter Bunny.

Its not so much what Obama will do to help online poker, but what Romney will do to shut it down for good. I could really care less whos President as long as their last name isnt Bush, but Its clear to have a shot at legalized online poker Obama must be reelected. Guess I'm not voting for Ron Paul this time.

Most likely you're in a state where you can't vote for Ron Paul anyway.

[ftpjesus]

Harry: Hey Eric I have a lot of friends here in Nevada that would like to get rid of Pokerstars and full tilt, could you help a brother out?

Eric: Sure no problem

MAJOR +1 on that and close to the truth. What you left out was Harrahs sending their bag man to see Harry within 1-2 weeks after the deals PS cut with Steve Wynn and FTP cut with the Fertitta Bros (Station Casinos), to get Federal action to kill the deals, because Harrahs knew damn well if the deals went live, they would have ZERO chance to ever get a foothold, to compete with legal online poker in the US, if they had to compete with FTP and PS in the US market. So in an old school Vegas move, if you cant compete with the competition you bury them in the desert (in this case having DOJ pull the plug on their operations in the US and even if this law comes to pass minimum 5 yrs in the desert for PS and FTP before they can come back to the US even then Harrahs I think will be shocked, PS will have plenty of US players lined up to play the day we can legally play on there again for something other then play chips.

[Dan Druff]

Corporations like Caesar's and MGM will eventually wield the influence to make online poker legal.

The President won't give a shit enough to take a position on it, whether it's a Republican or Democrat.

Bush and Obama were both apathetic when it came to online poker. Both had something big happen on their watch (UIGEA under Bush, Black Friday under Obama), and they just went with the flow.

Romney would be no different.

Before you praise Obama for being the guy who will finally make online poker legal, note that his office wrote a letter to the PPA this year, indicating that the White House OPPOSES legalizing online poker on a federal level. It wasn't even a letter saying, "We'll look into it" or other non-committal bullshit. The letter was very clear regarding Obama's position against legalizing online poker. Romney would be no better, but to say that Obama will be online-poker-friendly is incorrect.

I heard the same bullshit four years ago, and now it's far harder to play online poker than it was in 2008.

[BCR]

Corporations like Caesar's and MGM will eventually wield the influence to make online poker legal.

The President won't give a shit enough to take a position on it, whether it's a Republican or Democrat.

Bush and Obama were both apathetic when it came to online poker. Both had something big happen on their watch (UIGEA under Bush, Black Friday under Obama), and they just went with the flow.

Romney would be no different.

Before you praise Obama for being the guy who will finally make online poker legal, note that his office wrote a letter to the PPA this year, indicating that the White House OPPOSES legalizing online poker on a federal level. It wasn't even a letter saying, "We'll look into it" or other non-committal bullshit. The letter was very clear regarding Obama's position against legalizing online poker. Romney would be no better, but to say that Obama will be online-poker-friendly is incorrect.

I heard the same bullshit four years ago, and now it's far harder to play online poker than it was in 2008.

You may be correct on how it plays out going forward, but it can't be disputed that Christian do-gooders are the primary reason we are in the position we are in, and they are almost all in the Republican camp. FOF and similar minded groups were pushing hard on this issue for a long time, and once Abramoff became toxic, they got their wish and Frist obliged in an attempt to placate them with the hope he could make a run. You can nuance the argument in many ways, but we are where we are at because of those pushing from the religious conservative side, and there really isn't a way to be an elected republican and marginalize the Christian vote. Republican and pro-poker rarely go together, and never in the numbers we need them. The reality is no democrats give a shit about online poker, and Republicans give a large shit about the whims of the religious vote.

I'm not saying one should be a single issue voter, most of them are retards, but these two sides are not equal in their approach to gambling, and one got us into this spot.

[Wiganer]

Bwin shares bouncing today.

[Dan Druff]

Corporations like Caesar's and MGM will eventually wield the influence to make online poker legal.

The President won't give a shit enough to take a position on it, whether it's a Republican or Democrat.

Bush and Obama were both apathetic when it came to online poker. Both had something big happen on their watch (UIGEA under Bush, Black Friday under Obama), and they just went with the flow.

Romney would be no different.

Before you praise Obama for being the guy who will finally make online poker legal, note that his office wrote a letter to the PPA this year, indicating that the White House OPPOSES legalizing online poker on a federal level. It wasn't even a letter saying, "We'll look into it" or other non-committal bullshit. The letter was very clear regarding Obama's position against legalizing online poker. Romney would be no better, but to say that Obama will be online-poker-friendly is incorrect.

I heard the same bullshit four years ago, and now it's far harder to play online poker than it was in 2008.

You may be correct on how it plays out going forward, but it can't be disputed that Christian do-gooders are the primary reason we are in the position we are in, and they are almost all in the Republican camp. FOF and similar minded groups were pushing hard on this issue for a long time, and once Abramoff became toxic, they got their wish and Frist obliged in an attempt to placate them with the hope he could make a run. You can nuance the argument in many ways, but we are where we are at because of those pushing from the religious conservative side, and there really isn't a way to be an elected republican and marginalize the Christian vote. Republican and pro-poker rarely go together, and never in the numbers we need them. The reality is no democrats give a shit about online poker, and Republicans give a large shit about the whims of the religious vote.

I'm not saying one should be a single issue voter, most of them are retards, but these two sides are not equal in their approach to gambling, and one got us into this spot.

While Republicans tended to be more behind the prohibition of online gambling more than Democrats, there were a fair share of Democrats who also wanted it banned, while there were a number of Republicans who wanted to see it legalized. For example, Newt Gingrich (despite not being in Congress anymore) said in an interview about 6 years ago that he wants to see online poker legalized and regulated.

However, this is all old news. Bush left office in January, 2009, and Obama installed a new group of people in the US Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York. That office ended up bringing us Black Friday, which was a more severe version of what Bush's appointees did when they busted Neteller.

I reject most arguments that Republicans and Democrats are the same these days, but when it comes to online poker, they actually are.

Yes, you have your Republican religious nuts who want to see all forms of online gambling shut down, but you also have Democrats with irrational fears of children developing gambling addictions, or loyalty to corporations that would only benefit if they get their piece of the pie.

In reality, online gambling is a non-issue to most politicians. That's why the pre-UIGEA bills to prohibit it failed, and they finally had to attach it to another bill to make it pass. That's also why it's so hard to reverse the UIGEA. Nobody cares enough.

It's too bad, because the general public overwhelmingly favors legalizing online poker, but between the corporate gaming interests (which have only just recently warmed to the idea of legalizing it) and the religious zealots, it's hard to get anything changed.

Online poker is also a political issue with little upside but a large downside for candidates.

If you come out for it, you risk losing the votes of the large religious voting bloc, as well as anyone else who is scared of gambling ruining our children.

If you come out against it, you come off like a freedom-crushing control freak, and turn off voters that way.

Politicians have learned just to avoid the whole issue, as it's not very important to most in the population, and bringing up the subject opens up a lot of possibility for controversy.

[BCR]

If they are the same, then you would believe that if every seat in the Senate and House and the WH were held by Democrats, we couldn't pass a bill? It would be 100% done. You could argue it would be a piece of crap, overly-taxed piece of shit that doesn't make it worth playing, but it would pass effortlessly. If Republicans held the same advantage, it would be .001% chance to pass , with the small % being Adelson might be granted a monopoly if he gave 5 billion to fight abortion and same sex marriage to the interest groups, and it would be just as bad as the overly taxed version.

The respective bills are always in need of just 10 or so Republican Senate votes that are impossible to come by, so they aren't equal, not even close.

I will say this, the most player-friendly crafted bill would be pushed by Democrats, but with heavy Republican influence on the structure imo. The opt-in opt-out parts would be troublesome, but a true bi-partisan bill is best for the player.

[408Mike]

lolobama



Obama Increased Foreign Aid 80%; Spent 76% More on Foreign Aid Than Border Security

(CNSNews.com) - From fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2011, according to the U.S. Treasury, the federal government increased spending on foreign aid by 80 percent and, in fiscal 2011, spent 76 percent more on foreign aid than it did securing the borders of the United States.

In fiscal 2008, the government spent a total of $11.427 billion in international assistance programs, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement. In fiscal 2011, according to the statement, it spent $20.599 billion—an increase of $9.172 billion, or 80 percent, from 2008.

Prior to President Obama taking office, international assistance spending had been trending down for three years, according to the Treasury. In fiscal 2005, it was $14.787 billion. In fiscal 2006, it dropped to $13.914 billion. In fiscal 2007, it dropped again to $12.764 billion. And, in fiscal 2008, it dropped yet again to $11.427 billion.

Since 2008, international assistance spending has increased each year. In fiscal 2009, it climbed to $14.827 billion. In fiscal 2010, it jumped to $20.038 billion. And, in fiscal 2011, it climbed again to $20.599 billion.

By the end of August, after the first eleven months of fiscal 2012, the federal government had already spent $20.058 on foreign aid in that fiscal year. That was well ahead of the $18.439 billion the federal government had spent on foreign aid through August of last year. The Treasury has not yet published the final amount that was spent on foreign aid in fiscal 2012, which ended on Sunday.

While foreign aid spending has climbed over the past four years, spending on border security peaked in fiscal 2009 and has since declined. In fiscal 2008, the federal government spent $9.984 billion on customs and border protection, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement. In fiscal 2009, that increased to $12.122 billion. But, in fiscal 2010, that dropped to $11.376 billion. In fiscal 2011, it increased slightly to $11.698 billion—still less than the $12.122 billion spent on customs and border protection in fiscal 2009.

Through August of fiscal 2012, spending on customs and border protection was $11.259 billion, ahead of the $10.656 billion on customs and border protection spent through August of fiscal 2011.

The $20.599 billion spent on foreign aid last year was 76 percent more than the $11.698 billion spent on customs and border protection.

Included, among other things, in the $20.599 billion spent on foreign aid last year, according to the Treasury, was $5.717 billion for the Economic Support Fund, $5.322 billion for the Foreign Military Financing Program, $3.177 in multilateral assistance, $4.248 billion for the Agency for International Development (including $1.210 billion in operating expenses for AID), $395 million for the Peace Corps and $125 million for international monetary programs.

The foreign military sales program, which Treasury includes in its accounting of international assistance programs, took in $23.947 billion in fiscal 2011 and paid out $23.947 billion. Thus it had no impact on the net outflow of aid from the United States to foreign interests.

Below in billions of dollars is the annual spending on international assistance and customs and border protection over the past nine fiscal years. (The figures for fiscal 2012 include only the first eleven months of the fiscal year.)

..........................................Foreign Aid...Customs & Border

FY 2012 (first 11 months)..........$20.058 $11.259

FY 2011.....................................$20.599 $11.698

FY 2010.....................................$20.038 $11.376

FY 2009 ....................................$14.827 $12.122

FY 2008 ....................................$11.427 $9.984

FY 2007 ....................................$12.764 $7.948

FY 2006 ....................................$13.914 $7.069

FY 2005 ....................................$14.787 $6.278

FY 2004 ....................................$13.788 $6.660

[ShadyJ]

Corporations like Caesar's and MGM will eventually wield the influence to make online poker legal.

The President won't give a shit enough to take a position on it, whether it's a Republican or Democrat.

Bush and Obama were both apathetic when it came to online poker. Both had something big happen on their watch (UIGEA under Bush, Black Friday under Obama), and they just went with the flow.

Romney would be no different.

Before you praise Obama for being the guy who will finally make online poker legal, note that his office wrote a letter to the PPA this year, indicating that the White House OPPOSES legalizing online poker on a federal level. It wasn't even a letter saying, "We'll look into it" or other non-committal bullshit. The letter was very clear regarding Obama's position against legalizing online poker. Romney would be no better, but to say that Obama will be online-poker-friendly is incorrect.

I heard the same bullshit four years ago, and now it's far harder to play online poker than it was in 2008.

The Republicans have made it clear they are going to fight against online poker. Thats alot different then opposing it. There's no grey area here it's clear that if you want a chance to play online poker Obama has to be re elected. I can't understand how you don't know this, or your just blind to your beliefs and will vote Republican no matter what. In the end it doesnt matter because Romneys to big of an idiot to get elected.

[jsearles22]

Romney currently has 0.0% chance of being elected.

/ thread.

I will offer 4:1 up to $1000 escrowed that Romney won't win.

[BetCheckBet]

Romney currently has 0.0% chance of being elected./ thread.

I will offer 4:1 up to $1000 escrowed that Romney won't win.

Doesn't sound like a veyr good deal. Especially since your title lists you as scammer :P