Who is safest candidate for preserving online poker?

[britspin]

Vote Labour.

* Legal Internet Gambling
* No income taxation on winnings
* New, more liberal, Casino regulations
* No tax on sports bet stakes
* Free healthcare for all- including pro gamblers, who pay no tax on earnings.

Good deal, hey?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Vote Labour.

* Legal Internet Gambling
* No income taxation on winnings
* New, more liberal, Casino regulations
* No tax on sports bet stakes



[/ QUOTE ]

The resident right-wing, no government, no tax crowd here at 2+2 is clearly approaching orgasm after hearing all this (although just seeing the word liberal did make them go limp, just a little bit).

[ QUOTE ]

* Free healthcare for all


[/ QUOTE ]


Oops. There goes the fantasy. Looks like they'll have to return to taking pictures of and/or oogling their gun and ammunition collection to get off now. Thanks for nothin'.

[pankwindu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you think things like welfare, graduated income taxes, social security, are based on?

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on the belief that it's the government's responsibility to wath after the welfare of its people. I don't see how that even comes close to legislating morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the source of that belief?

[/ QUOTE ]
That would be the United States Constitution.

Anyway, you're right that it often comes down to different definitions of morality no matter which party is involved, but clearly the party whose definition involves banning every personal vice they can think of in the name of some religious ideal would be the worse option.

That's it, I'm moving to the United Kingdom. Long live the queen. Just one question, though, when Charles becomes king and they put his portrait on the money, are they going to enlarge the bills to make room for his ears?

Because when the people are poor, broke and hungry they have a tendency to overthrow the government.

[BCPVP]

So the government's interest in providing "general welfare" is purely out of survival? Try cutting some of those programs and see what you're called by many left-wingers...

No, you're right, America should set an example for the rest of the world and provide no safety net for the downtrodden.

[BluffTHIS!]

I give you the 2008 candidate of the Pokertarian Party and the NEXT PRESIDENT OF THESE UNITED STATES!





Edit: Oh dang, the dude isn't even old enough to meet the constitutional requirement is he? Rats!

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
No, you're right, America should set an example for the rest of the world and provide no safety net for the downtrodden.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're misunderstanding the context of my post. Someone (poboy?) tried to claim that the government isn't legislating morality when they provide such programs. I think that's false and you can see that when such programs are hinted at being cut. Even you're doing it.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

That would be the United States Constitution.

The preamble to the Constitution contains the phrase "...promote the general welfare..."

Promote, not provide. I contend that programs like welfare are counter-productive towards promoting the general welfare. I also contend that a large federal government fueled by a large tax burden is also an impediment to that aim.