Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by MasterShake29, Sep 11, 2007.
That's not my standard. I should be permitted to bash my head with a baseball bat, even though that's not good for my health.
That's a valid concern, but I don't think you should be able to restrict an activity because of the fear of someone breaking the law in response to it.
Of course, the poker game host should take reasonable security measures as well.
Matt - can I let you in on an example of why people dismiss super-libertarians?
If you have $100,000 in cash in your house as the pot for a weekly semi-publicized poker tournament, you are a danger to the neighborhood. Shady types are gonna flock to you like flies on shit. Maybe not for the first game, but there's a good chance that eventually they will.
And as I said - if I lived next door, I don't want some gangbangers pulling up and shooting up my house & yours, nor do I want any of your private security goons letting loose stray bullets in return that hit my dog next door.
So right there - who has more rights? You as an individual houseowner, or the dozen other homeowners on your block? Right there - you are outvoted. 12 to 1, your neighbors are gonna say 'take it elsewhere, jackass'.
What I hate most about uberlibertarians is that they have no concept of how their actions can affect others. They are the ultimate in selfish whiny babies.
As a surfer, I remember one story about a California guy with a boat who thought it would be a great idea to sell tickets for a shark-watch, then take people out on his boat, and he'd chum for sharks so the people buying tickets could see a shark up close.
Who could that ever hurt?
Well, the local surfers for one. They sure didn't appreciate some jackass attracting sharks and driving them into a feeding frenzy right next to popular surf spot. Seems the sharks were still a bit hungry after going nuts on the chum, and some surfers got bit.
To me - right there is libertarianism in a nutshell. Some jackass who thinks that he has a constitutional right to toss fishguts and animal carcasses off his boat right next to a popular swimming/surfing beach. Surprisingly to him, any government regulation of his livelihood is bad, no matter how many locals get shark-bit.
Hmmm, let me see if I can have a counter example.
Let's say I hate gay people, and you, who is gay, happen to move into the house next door with your husband. I say that's disgusting, and convince all the people in the "neighborhood" that I'm right. So we vote 12-1 to say no gay sex in our neighborhood, lest it corrupt the children or something. No, seeing it won't kill them, but in my opinion that's close enough.
So bye bye DJPoopypants? No? Why not?
What happens if your gay self also likes jewelry, or some other expensive collecting habit? If that becomes known, then it's a hazard to the neighborhood, no? Can I out vote you there?
Ok, let's go with your example and say the "neighborhood" outvotes me on my poker game. What if I say screw you, I'm holding it anyway. What are you going to do about it?
Or maybe someone driving 90.
Is driving 90 mph victimless? 120mph? 170mph? I think you have a fair point to say, "Hey, I was only driving 70, I wasn't a danger to others", but it is another step altogether to say "There shouldn't be laws against speeding. Police should not enforce speeding laws."
Driving 90 at 3:00 AM with no one on the road? I don't think that's a real problem.
Driving 90 in rush hour and almost hitting half the cars on the road? Yeah, that's a problem.
More evidence this was an ongoing criminal enterprise that should have already been busted. Read the article for more insane whining from a bunch of ************** who can't drive to AC.
Until you crash and the rest of us have to pay to scrape your remains off of the pavement.
I think lots of posted limits are ridiculous, but the idea that we can't collectively decide that certain speeds are unsafe for certain roads and certain conditions (and then take steps to regulate peoples actions to fall under those conditions)... that's just silly.
I do think there is too much focus placed on speeding enforcement, and not enough on other illegal driving acts (like clogging up the highway by going 45MPH in the middle or left lane, instead of staying to the right except to pass like the law says).
I dunno, I sort of take sides with the shark guy. Making a few bucks showing people sharks beats shiftless surfer boys try to claim the ocean as theirs...
Or the fact that the belief "there's no one else on the road" often precedes the explanation "that guy came out of nowhere."
"Gracz and others said a couple of the guys' wives would make hamburgers, turkey or ham-and-cheese sandwiches free of charge for the players."
Yep, this is John Gotti-like stuff right here.
You're believing the whiny guys cited, rather than law enforcement. You may be right, but the guys getting quoted completely lack the class of, for example, the Duke lacrosse players.
They're just trying to do their part to stop global warming.
But see, I have an incentive to not get myself killed, because like most people I want to live. I don't need a law to make we want to live.
I say forget about the posted speed limits, and just use common sense. If you're interfering with traffic or almost losing it, then you're going too fast, regardless of your actual speed. The people weaving in and out of traffic are the ones I would worry about.
I'm gonna give this question all the respect it deserves.
Ah that's nothing, I know a guy with 500 myspace friends.
Michael Gracz is a pretty cool guy who has no reason to lie - he already got his ticket. Telling the truth about the barbecue isn't going to change anything.
There are plenty of whiny poker players, but Michael Gracz isn't one of them.
How the hell does ANYONE drive 90mph in rush hour?
And just to be clear, are you seriously trying to argue that a poker game consisting of 70+ people with a pot of over $100k was just a friendly little Saturday evening diversion for some friends?
Dave, these laws are a result of the ass-backward conservative thinking that you have spent thousands of hours of your own life railing against on this very forum.
I guess I expected you to not look at this with such a biased view. Criminal enterprise? Hardly.
I don't hate democracy.
See, if this shit had happened in California, they would've needed to taze everybody for about a half hour.
It can be done sometimes, even in New Jersey, usually by weaving in and out of traffic (which isn't good).
I think it can for some people. $100,000 is a lot to me and you, but for other people it might not be. 70 is a big crowd for me and you, but for other people it might not be that unusual.
I will say the following based on my experience about underground poker rooms.
1. My guess is that the wives were the ones doing the cooking as it is common in these places to provide lunch/dinner. The wife is usually married to one of the owners of the places or the wife is a players wife and she is usually paid some money out of whatever the place takes in. So technically, I am sure they are correct regarding it being a players wife.
2. The issue to me is always going to be whether they were serving beer/alcohol. Once again, just about every room that I have been in has served beer/alcohol. So that obviously opens the place up to an investigation for reasons completely unrelated to gambling.
3. I still think that it is absolutely ridiculous that gambling is illegal in any state and that even if casino games are illegal, why more states don't take the position that poker is a game of skill so that there would be legal card rooms ala California.
4. They all knew what they were doing and all knew that this was the risk of their actions. Though in Houston, I have yet to hear or see of a place that gets raided where the players actually get cited. The owner, sure. The dealers, sure. The drink girl/kitchen staff, maybe. But it is very unusual for players to be brought in with a bust, in Houston.
You've never been on I-5 I can tell.
If you're going to gamble poker, getting in on a game with huge stakes with 71 people is just stupid. Word of mouth through the 71 and their friends and significant others ensures it'll get to the authorities. And I'm sure the ALE confiscated all the money present too.
A fellow worker used to work for a guy that hosted a regular game in the Raleigh area that was openly criminal, and they just bought the police off when they came in the house. If they just provided regular money for protection they'd've been fine.
If you're going to play poker, do like I do. Small pots, friend's house, and one of your regulars works for the SBI. I say that as a joke, but if the police busts in with $40 at stake among 6 friends, then in that case they do have too much time on their hands.
It's not the stupidest law though. The stupidest North Carolina law by far is that it is illegal for an unmarried couple to spend the night in the same bedroom together. Dates back to the mid-1800s and it's never been repealed. If that one ever gets enforced I'd laugh my tail off.
And then he woke up in the bathtub, in ice, and his kidney was gone!!!