Texas: Poker-Lover Running for Governor, Non-Poker Governor Running for President (of Texas?)

by , Apr 16, 2009 | 2:13 pm

Semi-related to poker: Kinky Friedman has declared his intent to become the Democratic candidate for Texas governor in 2010. This is good news for poker, if only because he’s the only previous candidate who has championed the desire/need for fully legal poker in Texas on the stump.

Meanwhile, current Republican Gov. Rick Perry is talking recession secession. All I’ll say about that is Texas! Texas! Woooo TEXAS! interesting. But in some way this is actually kinda good for poker … because while Perry has vowed to veto any gambling legislation that comes across his desk, he’s kinda tying his hands now, delivering strong rhetoric about honoring the will of the people. Could be used against him, or at least to negotiate.


9 Comments to “Texas: Poker-Lover Running for Governor, Non-Poker Governor Running for President (of Texas?)”


  1. Ron
    says:

    For once, Texas Governor Rick Perry is correct. Many conservative and libertarian Americans agree that the right of peaceful, democratic secession by state convention is a legitimate constitutional right of every state in the union.

    There are only two solutions to the massive Washington national debt now threatening the economic future and prosperity of every productive American. One is peaceful secession on the state level from the Washington Empire leaving the illegitimate federal debts with the Washington and Wall Street interests who created the debts. The second alternative is a constitutional amendment by the states to cancel the Washington national debt. The cancel the Washington Debt by 12/21/2012 Constitutional Amendment is now online at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=67594690498&ref=ts


  2. DanM
    says:

    I dunno, Ron from Dixie … I saw something the other day on how much money it would save by ending the War on Drugs. In a nutshell, it cots $22k to imprison someone for a year, and $3k to send them to rehab. So there’s $19k right there … multiply that by 1 million prisoners. There’s $19 billion right there, each year. And that doesn’t even begin to acknowledge the money saved in law enforcement costs, and the taxpayers that are created by removing the criminal element.

    Throw another $6-10 billion in the mix for online poker … we’re just getting started. In the world that your people see, you are right, it’s fiscally impossible to pull off. But some of us see a different kind of world possible … one that is probably unfathomable to some.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m feeling overtaxed too. But the teabagger arguments would carry a lot more weight if the people behind them were making the same claims when the previous administration was building up record-record debt with ineffective policies while removing Constitutional freedoms. And, of course, if GWB didn’t say the bailouts were necessary and push forth the first one that your other presidential candidate backed … well, even though I knew Bush was bad for the country since before he left Texas (he had a history of being handed companies and then running them into the ground while his friends got rich) … then I might actually fear this “socialism” I keep hearing so many uneducated people scream about. But for now I’m inclined to believe there’s a chance this is necessary “clean up”.

    I’m sure that response is going to drive you nuts … but your people had their time. Check back with the rest of us some time in 2010 to see where we stand. Right now the majority of the country is happy to tune you out for at least another nine months or so.


  3. pokerpolitics
    says:

    The fact that someone who ran for public office as a libertarian could support what has been going on in Washington since September is just incredible to me. If you are not enraged at whats gong on up there I really don’t think you ever were a libertarian or you at minimum you just don’t understand what being a libertarian means.


  4. DanM
    says:

    PP, I appreciate you calling me out on my apparent hypocrisy. I don’t know that I can fully explain myself in the course of a blog-comment without making unfair personal slams at you on my home turf, and you know that’s not really my style.

    (I can thank you, however, for inspiring me to get my ass in gear on book #2!)

    I will say this … I REALLY don’t like what is going on, but I am trying to see the big picture. I recognize that there could be issues in play that are beyond my ken.

    Also, the real problem I have is that the people leading the opposition charge are the same ones who told us all to shut up when we were complaining 7 years ago about all the personal and social freedoms being taken away en route to some of the most fiscally irresponsible behavior in our nation’s history. It’s all coming off as hypocritical sour grapes … and sorry, I just can’t get behind anything being championed by the likes of Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. Dick Armey I can kinda-sorta dig … but the Republicans have to get their house in order (which will take years, not months) before they have even an ounce of credibility. It will take me a long time to forget that the most impassioned arguments I heard supporting the candidate who ran under the banner “Country First!” were all about taxes and the negative impact on their personal bottom lines.

    Look, I am a Libertarian in my soul, dude. (Have you seen the results of my Facebook quizzes?!?) Ron Paul was the first politician ever to connect with me (when he spoke at my high school in 1988). However, I also have since learned — as Paul did — why the Libertarian Party is not the operation to get us where I think we should be. I also leave open the tiniest shred of possibility that I might want to adjust my positions after visiting Scandinavia. I’ve never been, but I’d like to go … because it’s the one part of the world where they have socialism and the people seem pretty darn happy. Believe me, I’m not saying socialism is the way to go … but I need to understand its application a little better before I tell all those pretty people they are idiots.

    As to the rage … I’m all raged out after the past 7 years. Honestly, I’m prepared for the US to no longer exist in its current form in our lifetimes. Seriously … when I was a kid, I never coulda imagined a world without the Soviet Union … yet voila … too many years in Afghanistan and that Superpower went bankrupt. If we don’t see that as a possibility for us, we are short-sighted. But hey, fortunately, if that does happen, I can always go home and live in the Republic of Texas.
    🙂

    OK, I’m losing focus here … I can also tell you I do see some good things developing with the current regime. I will re-evaluate a year from now whether or not they should stay or go. For now, I am letting them do their thing, am trying to play by their rules the best I can, and quietly evaluating what’s likely to come next so I can make the best plans for me personally to enjoy my remaining years on this planet.

    In the meantime, take a look at the following chart(s):

    Now here’s my simplified version, as I see it in economic terms:

    Try to follow me here … but the laws of physics apply to the laws of economics … every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Bush, imo and the o of a majority of Americans, took us too far to the right (turn the chart counter-clockwise 90 degrees) … so the pendulum is swinging the other way. I still do not have fears that Obama will go too far to the left … I just think it looks that way because of the direction we are moving. And even if I’m wrong, he can only get so far in two years. That IS politics, and that is the benefit of a system that can be a bit slow at times.

    So here’s the philosophical question I’ll leave you with: Would you rather live in a capitalist country moving more towards communism, or a communist country moving more towards capitalism? No right or wrong answer here … I’m just curious (and have my eyes on post-Castro Cuba, as Obama seems to as well).


  5. pokerpolitics
    says:

    Bush was to the right?

    Why?

    Because he stated he was against abortion?
    Because he stated he was for a traditionalist definition of gay marriage? (although he took no real action on either of these issues)

    As far as Bush attacking personal freedoms, maybe so, Obama is already outdoing him. His budget dramatically ramps up the budget for Homeland Security, I guess those people clinging to their guns and religion need watching. He reversed his positions on wiretaps. He has put a man in the DOJ who does not think the 2nd amendment applies to your average citizen.

    and oh yeah, hes pushed the gas peddle on spending through the floor. The guy is more Keynesian (pederast that SOB was) than Keynes.

    Obamas not facist? Have you seen this administrations relationship with Government Electric…I mean General Electric? I mean Keith Olbermanns check are all but signed by Obama yet somehow hes beyond reproach when it comes to credibility.

    I just don’t see where a libertarian could find good things in this administration.
    1. Spending like we have never seen before.
    2. Same despotic foreign folicy, fing with every nation in sight.
    3. Same, if not increased attacks on personal liberties.

    Whats to like? I guess its cool that we now have the ability to get stiffed on food shipments we send to Cuba on credit.

    Nevermind the lastest dooze this morning where Obamas NKVD…I mean EPA is going to be setting endless regulations that will drive energy costs out of sight. Four dollar a gallon gas is something the American people though was awful, well they just elected an academic marxists who wants us to pay four dollars a gallon and pay enormous amounts of money for home energy. Of course if they past this madness in congress it would guarantee they don’t get reelected so they have used their proxies over at the ministry of Enviornmental Protection.

    I really don’t see how a libertarian can be anything but horrified.


  6. pokerpolitics
    says:

    As horrible a President as Bush was, and as faux a conservative as he was, when he was throwing out the first pitch at the Rangers opening day im half embarresed to say that I missed him. I didn’t think that was possible this academic marxist has done just that.


  7. DanM
    says:

    ***As horrible a President as Bush was, and as faux a conservative as he was, when he was throwing out the first pitch at the Rangers opening day im half embarresed to say that I missed him. I didn’t think that was possible this academic marxist has done just that.***

    Funny … you and I both wrote a ton of high-powered words, but I think your above 4-liner actually sums it all up best.

    It may just be a matter of semantics we’re disputing … I’m just not ready to call Obama a marxist after a couple months. Seeing the video of him setting a salary cap for bailed out executives, however, did raise the first red-flag for me.

    The reason I’m not petrified-scared is because a) I see lots of hyperbole out there by people who used fear as a tactic to pass all sorts of non-Libertarian legislation; b) there is little we can do to stop the train right now; and c) I still see a light at the end of the (high-speed-rail) tunnel.

    Oh, and d) … Obama likes soccer!

    http://soccerati.com/2009/04/re-soccer-in-american-culture/


  8. pokerpolitics
    says:

    Are would strongly suggest you read “Meltdown” by Tom Woods. Hes one of the top scholars at the Mises institute which is an Austrian economics institute which Ron Paul has been greatly involved with since its inception.

    I promise it will give you a whole new perspective on whats happened in the past 8 or so months.


  9. pokerlover
    says:

    Come and visit. Poker is a game for everybody.