My only problem with Poker

[djack]

[ QUOTE ]
Well I can say still, I have no idea who Soros is, in fact I am wondering if that is his first or last name.

[/ QUOTE ]
George Soros.

He's been in the news alot recently Trainwreck. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] You must be one the smart people who reads the sports and comics and ignore the hullabaloo on the front page!

[Fitz]

Some would say, as a merchant banker, you are living only off the excess created by the credit card world and all of it's madness. You make your profit from the discount rate of merchants, and if you have a card holder side to your business, you profit from the interchange of those merchants and the interest fees of your card holders. Many would call this a parasitic position. Don't worry, I'm not judging you; I'm in the same business.

Setting aside all the things you lose by leaving your current job, benefits, holidays, insurance etc. Why couldn't you do the same amount of philanthropic charitable works as a poker player? If the income is the same, the flexibility poker allows would give you the ability to do volunteer work or some other pursuit that might make you feel fulfilled.

Good luck,

Fitz

[Charlie Kase]

LOL
First of all, great Bush-Cheney flashing thing for your picture, makes your opinion on anything political that much more objective.

Second, I appreciate you trying to sound smart and all, but Warren Buffett is Republican. He's on Arnold's staff in California too btw.

And I like how you accused me of not researching, yet you failed to cite any sources.

"I've gone through the Forbes list of top 50 billionaires. There are more Democrats than Republicans, based on political giving."

Says who? You

"If you were to control for race, you'd find significantly more Democrats in the top 50 billionaires than you'd otherwise expect if you held everything else the same."

That statement doesn't even make sense. "Control for race?" What? "If I had held everything else the same?" What "everything else" would I hold the same in the context of the arguement? Are you just trying to sound smart?

In conclusion, I only have this to say to you:

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on...uhh....uhh....shame on.....uhhh......fool me can't be fooled again! kekeke." - George W. Bush


- Kase

[jakethebake]

1. Buffett is on Arnold's staff but is NOT Republican. Look it up, Numbnuts.
2. Arnold leans almost as far left as McCain, even if he is a Republican. Hell, he's married to a Kennedy for crying out loud!

[ QUOTE ]
Second, I appreciate you trying to sound smart and all, but Warren Buffett is Republican. He's on Arnold's staff in California too btw.

[/ QUOTE ]

[znup]

I used to worry about a lot of stuff when I was young. Now all I worry about is which drawer in the damn frig has the cheese in it.

[djack]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL
First of all, great Bush-Cheney flashing thing for your picture, makes your opinion on anything political that much more objective.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's no secret that I'm a Republican. But I don't make up facts.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, I appreciate you trying to sound smart and all, but Warren Buffett is Republican. He's on Arnold's staff in California too btw.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have two factual assertions here. They're both incorrect. Do you see why? :P

[ QUOTE ]
And I like how you accused me of not researching, yet you failed to cite any sources.

[/ QUOTE ] As I noted, this was my own study. You are welcome to conduct your own. I stand by my assertions based upon the facts that I assembled. If you wish, I would be willing to share my notes with you.



[ QUOTE ]
"If you were to control for race, you'd find significantly more Democrats in the top 50 billionaires than you'd otherwise expect if you held everything else the same."

That statement doesn't even make sense. "Control for race?" What? "If I had held everything else the same?" What "everything else" would I hold the same in the context of the arguement? Are you just trying to sound smart?

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't understand what social science is all about, do you?

You obviously want to believe what you want to believe. That's fine. As a Democratic Senator Moynihan once said: every man is entitled to his own opinions, not his own facts (my paraphrase).

You can have your opinions. But your facts are wrong.

[J_V]

Man, daryn, you're hot lately. I'm in agreement with you.

Playing poker your whole life and at the end of your life donating 40k to a scholarship fund or something is more "worthy" than banking your whole life.

In fact, becoming a big brother for a year is a larger contribution to society than banking your whole life.

[djack]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Buffett is on Arnold's staff but is NOT Republican.

[/ QUOTE ]
While it's true that Buffett is not a Republican, it's not correct that Buffett is on Arnold's staff.

Buffett served as an economic and financial adviser to Arnold's campaign. He did not take a staff position in Arnold's government, unless I am wildly mistaken.

Campaign advisers are more or less just symbols to give a campaign's plans the imprimatur of the adviser.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
While it's true that Buffett is not a Republican, it's not correct that Buffett is on Arnold's staff.

Campaign advisers are more or less just symbols to give a campaign's plans the imprimatur of the adviser.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're right, but that it's really irrelevant to the point of the arguement. If we're gonna argue semantics, he said Buffett is in California. However, in Buffett's case I believe his goal was truly to lend Arnold some guidance...And I have no problem admitting I had to look up "imprimatur"... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Michael Davis]

Sending 10 cents to fight AIDS or starvation is more worthy than banking one's entire life. In fact, absent any other contributions, banking is probably a negative.

-Michael