Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« October 2006 »
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Sleepless in Fulham: Rambling and gambling by David Young
Monday, 2 October 2006
Those we have loved.
Topic: Poker

What has happened to the Victor Poker Cup? The website merely refers to 2005. I can find no reference to this year.

What about the World Sports Exchange London Open? Last year's event at Billingsgate was described as 'inaugural'. There is no mention of 2006 on the website.

While I'm at it, has anyone seen the Walsall Quartermillion kicking around anywhere?

They all seem to be suffering from a chronic case of Chuck Cunningham Syndrome!

Monday, 2 October 2006 - 9:27 AM BST

Name: "anonymous"

All dinosaurs. Like your soon to be beloved USA.,,1885259,00.html

You are a dinosaur too DY.

Life moves on and you'll get left behind.

Remember, your land was Welsh speaking before English existed. Your patron saint is a Palestinian. Things change. The unchanging get swept away.


Monday, 2 October 2006 - 11:15 AM BST

Name: "David Young"

I wasn't aware that St Andrew was a Palestinian, but thanks for informing me. Not sure what that has to do with the US current account deficit but I'm sure it'll all become clear in time.

Monday, 2 October 2006 - 11:16 AM BST

Name: "anonymous"

And RIP online poker.

Cheers Bush and the moralistic, god-fearing, people-hating, hypocritcal bunch of cunts that put you in power.



Monday, 2 October 2006 - 2:02 PM BST

Name: "David Young"

Obviously I'm unhappy about the forthcoming change in the law - and in particular the bizarre way in which it was done as an irrelevant addition to a bill on port security. But I should point out that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans on this matter. Back in 2002, Eliot Spitzer, the New York state Attorney General who is the current Democrat candidate for Governor of New York state, made a nuisance of himself for Citibank and actually got them to pay up an unofficial $400k fine for processing payments to gambling sites. They also agreed to stop processing online gambling transactions. That isn't his only interference in the gambling business.

I know that it's cathartic for secular, left-leaning poker players to blame the American religious right for this moralising interference in our lives, but the sad fact is that it crosses the political divide. Remember it was Al Gore's wife Tipper who foamed at the mouth about pop music lyrics -

Monday, 2 October 2006 - 2:54 PM BST

Name: "anonymous"



When the Labour Party does something you don't like you attack the Labour Party. When the Palestinians do something you don't like, you attack the Palestinians. When Islamicists do something you don't like, you attack the Islamicists. But, when Bush's party (and when he signs the bill off, we can just say Bush) does something you don't like, you bring up Tipper Gore's campaign against music that originated twenty years ago. You are in danger of becoming a joke. Think for yourself man and free yourself from these ludicours political ties. 


Monday, 2 October 2006 - 3:20 PM BST

Name: "David Young"


I have no political ties with the Republican Party. I am not even a member of the Conservatives, though I intend to join at some point. I made it clear at the time of the 2005 election that I agreed with Labour's proposals to build more housing in the south of England and that I was dismayed at the Tory's opposition to it. I criticised Israel when it said that it was considering cancelling polling in East Jerusalem for the Palestinian elections (it didn't in the event).


Monday, 2 October 2006 - 3:30 PM BST

Name: "Mr X"

You can try and justify yourself DY but at the end of the day you support Israel. Israel should not exist and that is the bottom line. They inprison Palestinians in their own land. The only reason why Israel existed is that America and Britain did not want the dirty leaches who should have been done away in Germany, walk foot on their land.

Monday, 2 October 2006 - 3:46 PM BST

Name: "anonymous"

"David Young" wrote:


It just seems bizarrre that you find it difficult to criticise the people responsible for this bill, especially when those who want to see online poker banned are the type of religious nuts you can't stand. In case you're in any doubt, they can mainly be found funding Bush, and he can mainly be found trying to keep them sweet. Hence this ludicrous and hypocrtical bill. 


Mr X, can we keep Israel out of at least one thread. Yes, I know DY mentioned it, but it's taking over his entire blog.  

Monday, 2 October 2006 - 4:10 PM BST

Name: "David Young"

I generally don't say much about US domestic politics. It's the unfair mischaracterisation of their foreign policy that motivates me to write. Obviously I don't agree with preventing people from using their own money as they wish. I mentioned Spitzer and Mrs Gore because some people seem to think that this sort of puritanism is something new that started under GWB. That's utter nonsense. America has always had a puritan streak that I've never really understood. The reason why Vegas is as big as it is, is that for most of the 20th century, gambling was illegal everywhere outside Nevada. That's been true under both Democrat and Republican administrations.

And Nevada voted Republican in the last election. 


Monday, 2 October 2006 - 5:21 PM BST

Name: "anonymous"

Of course this strain of puritanism has always existed in the US. The difference now is that it has a representative in the White House. 

It's like prohibtion all over again. They are prepared to criminalise a whole strata of the population because a few fundamentalists don't like people enjoying themselves.

You know, as well as I do, that in the post-war years, the only president under whom this kind of legislation could have been passed, is George W Bush.  



Monday, 2 October 2006 - 6:14 PM BST

Name: "Andy Ward"

I do remember the PMRC David.  They got stickers put on heavy metal albums.

Does it really compare to this ?


Tuesday, 3 October 2006 - 12:06 AM BST

Name: "David Young"

I haven't explained just how angry I am about this attack on online poker, because everyone else is diving in to do it for me. But for the sake of full disclosure, I'm seething about it. I have at least one relative with shares in Partygaming and in the back of my mind I'd always figured that if I wanted or needed to go back to working 9-5 for a living, then employment with an online poker site would be an easy way back and one of the only avenues where my recent experience as a player would be relevant. So yes, I'm affected, my family is affected and I'm furious.

And it doesn't stop there. One reason why the US has trouble getting allies for a 'war on terror' is that it's wasted so much in resources on an unwinnable 'war on drugs' that's getting nowhere and which could scupper the recovery of Afghanistan. Wiping out the value of shares of a company listed on the FTSE100 and arresting the directors of others is a great strategy for making British politicians nervous about wanting to be seen standing by the US. Do we really need an unwinnable 'war on gambling'? The war on terror is winnable, these other wars on what free people do with their veins and their credit cards aren't.

Stupid, stupid stupid.

But please don't tell me that only the Republicans could have done this, because there is no evidence I can see for that. I've already shown you what the Democrat's candidate for the Governor of New York has ALREADY DONE. He sent Jay Cohen to jail and stopped Citibank customers betting.


Tuesday, 3 October 2006 - 1:45 AM BST

Name: "Richard123"

The war on terror is not winnable. Just like Vietnam. I suppose you are on of these people who say that America won that war. They didn't. They had to pull out. Britain had to negotiate with the IRA, and a bunch of Neo-Con Americans will only fule more terrorism. This is a war in which you can not win. We will have to negotiate and that will happen.

Friday, 6 October 2006 - 3:37 PM BST

Name: "Commie Boy"

"The war on terror is winnable"

How can you win a war on a concept? Will it be followed by "the war on scary stuff" or "The fight against bad feeling"?

"Terror" is a catch all term. It means different things to different people. It can be trotted out by politicians to apply whenever they want it to.

I must admit I do need the governement's help on this one though. Me and friends have been too scared to go out because of the terror. My mum refuses to go outside in case there is terror waiting for her. I can't decide whether I need to be "terrified" at terror stuff or just a little bit frightened at none "terror" related bad things. It's all very confusing. Just hope my government can protect me from those pesky concepts.

I'm off to hide under my bed again now until the day when it's all over and a leading representative of the U.S or British government strides confidentaly up to the microphone and says: "it's all over people. We have eliminated terror in the world. There is no longer any need for you to worry and so we will relax lots of rules and you don't need our protection anymore" It's that day that keeps my faith in George and Tony when all else fails. GOD bless them.



View Latest Entries