Bush or Kerry? the better poker player...

[anatta]

Kerry will finish the evening with 3 gold braceletts, and numerous articles written about how well he played. Some of Bush's friends, who weren't there will say he played poorly. On the other hand, everybody at the table who actually played with him will testify to his prowess. Stragely, nobody can say that they actually saw Bush play, but he did have dental work done near the tournie site, and from that, Bush will claim victory.

[JARID]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This part is wrong. After three bad beats Kerry would run home and tell his wife about how unfair that game was, how Bush cheated, he was lucky, oh the atrocity of it all.

-Jarid


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Are you saying that Bush isn't a cheater, liar, scumbag, cokehead, etc, etc, etc?




[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not really saying anything about Bush at all and its tough for me to see how you would infer that. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
I was making a light-hearted reference to Kerry being injured three times in Nam (bad beat = purple heart equivalent) and coming home to condem what he just took part in.

If I'm understanding your tone correctly, lighten up. If not, then I hope my explanation helps.

-Jarid

[JARID]

[ QUOTE ]
It took a clumsy, WW2-era military that was ready to fight the Soviets and turned it into a surgical strike force capable of targeting those individual tents. Big bets, yes, and small pots. But those "small pots" were the pots that were worth winning.


[/ QUOTE ]

Chris,

Respectfully, and I don't want to turn a poker forum into a political debate, but the small pot that Clinton needed to win was Al Qaeda and the player he needed to bust out was Osama Bin Laden. Despite reliable tells (I'm having fun with this [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]) from the Bin Laden group at the CIA, Clinton refused to make the neccessary moves to take him down. The moves he did make were inadequate. Clinton is in fact, the weak-tight player at the game.

The rest of your post is impressive commentary, whether I agree or not.

Regards,
-Jarid

[Richard Tanner]

POLITICAL: No I'm agreeing that Bush is all of that and more, that's why we elected him president. You don't actually think Kerry is much better, as we, the American people, will never elect the best person for the job. Who the president is doesn't matter anyway, the President is just the PR guy, the party/advisors hold the reigns. Go Libratarians.

POKER: Bush would win, he'd go Stu Unger on the winnings (No disrespect meant to Stu, a phenomenal player) and would be last seen heading for the Mexican boarder with fifteen kilos of pure grade Columbian in his motorcade. Unless he put in Chaney as a pinch bettor (?). In that case Chaney would go to the Supreme court arguing that his Executive privelege means he never has to reveal those cards attending his hand, and as such is entilted to every pot. Damn, maybe Kerry should just quit before posting the buy-in.

Cody

[TurtlePowers]

Kerry has the better poker face and Bush uses fuzzy math.
Kerry Wins!