1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

John McCain's gambling problem

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Popeye, Jul 7, 2008.

  1. Popeye

    Popeye Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Washington state
    Time this week has an article about what the two candidates' gambling habits say about their political (and, potentially, governing) styles. While Obama is an exceedingly low-stakes poker player who sizes up his odds methodically and rarely loses money, it turns out McCain is a high-stakes craps player:

    I don't know about you, but what does this tendency to enjoy high stakes gambling say about McCain? Lets hope this style, should he be elected, doesn't translate into his governing style. I notice, as well, that though they refuse to file a joint income tax return, McCain sure doesn't mind gambling with his mommy's money.

    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1819898,00.html
     
  2. Cookie Parker

    Cookie Parker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'd say it's a personality trait we can't afford to elect, myself.
     
  3. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Another stupid, crude attempt by our resident slurmeister. There are gambling casinos all over the country nowadays, maybe 95% of the adult population has gambled at some point.

    Look for the "McCain molested children" thread, coming soon. :D
     
  4. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    how about it says nothing at all?

    Just a thought

    next you going to tell me that what game you gamble on will effect how they lead the nation...Blackjack players are better at Security Issues then Texas Hold um players or some bull.
     
  5. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48

    So Obama is another self absorbed, liar that believe he can out-think everyone. We need another arrogant president like we need a hole in the head. Liars and self-absorbed idiots are clearly disqualified from being worthy of office.

    How about this, I am, amazingly, with Pocket on this. Poker habits are completely irrelevant and unimportant to a discussion on who is best to be president.

    If there is point to be made, it's this: McCain is at least gambling with his own money. I would rather have that, than Obama gamble with my tax money on some dumb government project to implement some crazy alternative fuel scheme. Or gamble with soldiers lives with a risky premature pull out of Iraq, or gamble with an Iran with nuclear weapons, or gamble with our economy with some lame kyoto protocol.

    If his own money, is all McCain gambles, then we have a winner.
     
  6. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,862
    Likes Received:
    473
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    It's about as relevant as the junk emails alledging Obama is anything short of the AntiChrist.

    Garbage.
     
  7. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    Funny that you think McCain somehow is not Gambling ( not a term I would use normaly for this) your tax money but Obama is...Iraq was a Huge Roll of the Dice with no only your Tax Money but also Troops lives....and its one that Most Americans today will say did not pay off....

    Unless you think McCain will put all our Taxs in a huge savings account or something....its all gambles realy.
     
  8. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    There is a major difference. If you have cancer, and you are guaranteed to die if you do nothing, then the 'gamble' of having surgery is required.

    Going into Iraq was required. It had to be done. We either did it before Saddam became an imminent threat, or after. He supported terrorist, either had, or was trying to get a working relationship with Al Qaeda, was developing WMDs, and attempting to gain nuclear weapons. It was either now or later, and better now than after a dirty bomb went off in a subway.

    What I'm worried about is Obama rolling the dice on hindering our national energy policy in some gambled hope of an alternative energy popping into existence to save us.

    I'm worried he'll play soft with our enemies like Iran, rolling the dice that they will not create dirty bombs and pass them off to terrorist groups.

    Those are at least two major things I do not think McCain will gamble on.

    Otherwise, I agree with you completely. All tax money (other than military) is pretty much a gamble, and a bad one. This is why I support all tax cuts. The less money those idiots have to gamble with, the better.
     
  9. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    Iraq was never something we had to do, it was a option. I dont care if you think it was the right one or not, but it was never something we had to do. Yes American would still be here today and 20 years from now without ever attacking Iraq.
     
  10. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    With a few smoking cities, and some amazing well armed and funded terrorist... but yeah.

    If you think about it, we didn't have to go after Bin Ladin either, by that logic.
     
  11. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,862
    Likes Received:
    473
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Except for a few small facts, here and there:

    Iraq did not attack the United States.

    Iraq did not have the military capability of attacking the United States.

    Iraq was never a threat to the United States.

    Al Qaeda, which did attack the United States, was not a part of Iraq, nor was it operating in Iraq until after the invasion.

    No smoking cities, at least here in the US.

    And did we go after Bin Laden?:confused:
     
Loading...

Share This Page