Now this is something I could get behind. I think if 2+2 wanted to get more political, it would get more support & credibility if it focused on gambling issues. Keeping online poker legal should be a top priority for anyone who makes good money in that arena, even if the math isn't as "obvious" as Sklansky's believes for the death penalty issue. There won't be much support from the poker community to rally around unrelated causes, even assuming the public would care about anything we had to say. But I suspect there could be /substantial/ participation if we worked to inform everyone of upcoming gambling legislation and could offer a unified voice.

Not all of us will agree on controversial issues, even if the math is good. But I'm sure we can all agree that we love poker and want to keep the laws on our side.

[ QUOTE ]

How about doing something relevant to 2+2's sphere of influence and reason for existing? You could lead a campaing to oust Arizona GOP Senator Jon Kyl (the pathetic asswipe leading the charge to get Internet poker banned in the U.S.). You could write intellectually sound yet accessible dissertations to discredit the anti-gambling extremism of the religious lunatics and the PC thugs who constantly [censored] up your country. In concert with my second suggestion, you could also propose and get passed ballot initiatives and legislation to liberalise gambling laws in the U.S at the local, the state, and the federal level, remembering that anyhing done by Washington, Beijing, or Moscow tends to be followed by other regimes in the world, for good or for ill.


[/ QUOTE ]