Which Presidential Candidate Best For Pool
- Thread starter Jude Rosenstock
- Start date
You proved the point.
Exactly , they now have a FAT chance at being able to do so. But that is not what was intended by the second amendment when our fore fathers wrote it.
They specifically stated that if this government fails, pick up and start again, and if you read some of the other documents written by our founding fathers, you will see that they completely intended for us to stand up and start over if the governemtn ever started getting to the point where the people couldn't stand up and take it back over. We have, through fear and misgivings, been led to the point where we have no choice but to accept whatever the "governement" decides to do to us. This is exactly why we currently have income taxes, which we were bamboozled into accepting. The American public would have never accepted the eighteenth amendment had they not been railroaded first by the world war one emergency executive order and then the senate and congress' railroading of the eighteenth amendment through right after. We have not been a democratic republic since the "New Deal" we are now a socialist republic and become more so every day as more of our contitutional rights are stripped away and we do nothing to stop it. Just get on a plane today and you will see what I mean. A poool cue is a dnagerous weapon???? Stop succumbing to the pussification of America and stand up and take personal responsibility for your actiobns and your safety. We do not have militias. We have a standing army which was also never intended by our founding fathers. Read the consititution. It reads that all officers shall be sworn in by the states and called to national duty IN A TIME OF NEED. Right now is it always a time of need????
And the constitution doesn't say oh you can buy a hunting rifle and only a hunting rifle. IT techinically gives private citizens the right to own nuclear weapons. IT is designed to not let the government have power through arms over the people PERIOD. Now see what we started. This should have never been an issue between two pool players. I hope that we can look past this argument when we meet at the swanee this weelend. I take it you're going to be there?
jay helfert said:
Exactly , they now have a FAT chance at being able to do so. But that is not what was intended by the second amendment when our fore fathers wrote it.
They specifically stated that if this government fails, pick up and start again, and if you read some of the other documents written by our founding fathers, you will see that they completely intended for us to stand up and start over if the governemtn ever started getting to the point where the people couldn't stand up and take it back over. We have, through fear and misgivings, been led to the point where we have no choice but to accept whatever the "governement" decides to do to us. This is exactly why we currently have income taxes, which we were bamboozled into accepting. The American public would have never accepted the eighteenth amendment had they not been railroaded first by the world war one emergency executive order and then the senate and congress' railroading of the eighteenth amendment through right after. We have not been a democratic republic since the "New Deal" we are now a socialist republic and become more so every day as more of our contitutional rights are stripped away and we do nothing to stop it. Just get on a plane today and you will see what I mean. A poool cue is a dnagerous weapon???? Stop succumbing to the pussification of America and stand up and take personal responsibility for your actiobns and your safety. We do not have militias. We have a standing army which was also never intended by our founding fathers. Read the consititution. It reads that all officers shall be sworn in by the states and called to national duty IN A TIME OF NEED. Right now is it always a time of need????
And the constitution doesn't say oh you can buy a hunting rifle and only a hunting rifle. IT techinically gives private citizens the right to own nuclear weapons. IT is designed to not let the government have power through arms over the people PERIOD. Now see what we started. This should have never been an issue between two pool players. I hope that we can look past this argument when we meet at the swanee this weelend. I take it you're going to be there?
Last edited:
Scary what some people consider a comeback.Flex said:
There is one thing we can do, and we have. For those of you not old enough to remember, the Viet Nam war became a VERY unpopular war by the end of the 60's. Even moreso then the Iraq war today. What transpired was a series of marches on Washington by anti-war groups. These were private citizens banding together to make their voices heard.
Literally hundreds of thousands and even millions of people marched to the steps of Congress and demanded that we get out of Viet Nam. It was too big a force for the police or military to control. They just got out of their way. These combined voices were heard loud and clear, and the withdrawal of our forces from Viet Nam began in earnest.
It was the will of the people that brought an end to that conflict, not a military or political decision. This was the closest to an insurrection I have seen in this country. The masses were fully prepared to storm Congress and throw the bums out. They were breathing down their necks and they had to do something to save their asses and their jobs. Bottom line, it worked!
Literally hundreds of thousands and even millions of people marched to the steps of Congress and demanded that we get out of Viet Nam. It was too big a force for the police or military to control. They just got out of their way. These combined voices were heard loud and clear, and the withdrawal of our forces from Viet Nam began in earnest.
It was the will of the people that brought an end to that conflict, not a military or political decision. This was the closest to an insurrection I have seen in this country. The masses were fully prepared to storm Congress and throw the bums out. They were breathing down their necks and they had to do something to save their asses and their jobs. Bottom line, it worked!
To the poster that claimed GWB is a "cowboy"..... please don't insult cowboys. 
Since the original poster asked a specific question regarding the best candidate for "pool", I'd like to throw in my 2 cents worth (without getting bashed....)
I believe it must be a democratic candidate and I do feel that Hillary is the best candidate for our industry. I think she will concentrate on security, health care and the economy. She delegates duties very well and will have a better overall view of all issues. By virtue of making moves to improve the economy it can't help but improve our industry. Everyone knows that when the dollar is down and there isn't any "free" money floating around that people cut entertainment dollars first. Historically - looking back, when pool was doing well, poolrooms making good business, plenty of players and tournaments - those time periods were those that were governed by Demo's. When the Republicans come into office, everything tightens up- there aren't any entertainment dollars available and so pool dries up. I know that within the past 8 years we have lost 11 pool rooms in an 8 county area. I'd tell you how many bars we've lost, but geeze, I quit counting after about 50! People have no money for leagues or tournaments and it just dries up everything.
I lived in Arkansas during the Clinton reign as Governor and was a supporter during his presidency. I, for one, liked the fact that he/they tried to concentrate on issues that were important to America while at the same time recognizing the states rights to govern issues important to themselves and not overly attacking our personal rights as individuals. That's one of the beef's that I've always had with Republicans.... they tend to want to govern *me* a little too much. I like to make some decisions on my own!
Again.... just my 2 cents... I don't want to get bashed for my opinion and I've decided my vote, so I don't want to debate. I am just answering the OP's question.
Since the original poster asked a specific question regarding the best candidate for "pool", I'd like to throw in my 2 cents worth (without getting bashed....)
I believe it must be a democratic candidate and I do feel that Hillary is the best candidate for our industry. I think she will concentrate on security, health care and the economy. She delegates duties very well and will have a better overall view of all issues. By virtue of making moves to improve the economy it can't help but improve our industry. Everyone knows that when the dollar is down and there isn't any "free" money floating around that people cut entertainment dollars first. Historically - looking back, when pool was doing well, poolrooms making good business, plenty of players and tournaments - those time periods were those that were governed by Demo's. When the Republicans come into office, everything tightens up- there aren't any entertainment dollars available and so pool dries up. I know that within the past 8 years we have lost 11 pool rooms in an 8 county area. I'd tell you how many bars we've lost, but geeze, I quit counting after about 50! People have no money for leagues or tournaments and it just dries up everything.
I lived in Arkansas during the Clinton reign as Governor and was a supporter during his presidency. I, for one, liked the fact that he/they tried to concentrate on issues that were important to America while at the same time recognizing the states rights to govern issues important to themselves and not overly attacking our personal rights as individuals. That's one of the beef's that I've always had with Republicans.... they tend to want to govern *me* a little too much. I like to make some decisions on my own!
Again.... just my 2 cents... I don't want to get bashed for my opinion and I've decided my vote, so I don't want to debate. I am just answering the OP's question.
jay helfert said:
Very true. We will be in the Middle East for the long haul no matter which president is in office or what political party is a majority in Congress. Looking back in GWB's 8 yrs., it was and is an administration with a war agenda from the very start. It is 8 yrs. of backwardness on purpose or in consequence. An incompetent and senile administration.
We marched and stayed in Iraq to be at the heart/backyard of any future potential threat. How true is the saying, "Keep your friends close, your enemies closer". Geographically, Iraq is the best ideal place to be in having materiel and personnel (soldiers) in place to mobilize to any part of the Middle East if and when necessary. It is also next to the major source of our prized asset and lifeline of our economy (and of the world) , the black gold, which we and the world cannot do without, at least for the near future. Adding to its strategic value, Iraq at the time was an easy picking because of its internal troubles and for having a leader despised by many. In the process, Saddam was also a bonus goodie bag for GWB to impress daddy with a hunting trophy.
We all now know that the WMD, remove a tyrant out of power, liberate the Iraqy people etc etc etc is a bunch of lies use by GWB and his possey to rationalize, seek support and appease the American people for the military action in Iraq.
I see no immediate resolve for this conflict other than a revolutionary concept and alternative fuel source that will veer our dependence from oil-rich Middle East. Even then, assuming that such wishful thinking comes to a fruition, it is not going to be without significant impact to many of our industries (especially the automotive industry). Keep in mind that oil is what keeps our country going. It's the blood that keeps the country and the world alive. Disrupt it and the world will be guaranteed anarchy.
May God bless and enlighten whoever our next president will be for he or she has work cut out for him or her. More importantly, may God bless our troops and their families for the innumerable and endless sacrifices that they have given and will be asked more to give. Make the troops and their families part of your daily and/or nightly prayers. If you do not pray, offer a moment of reflection in silence. It won't cost you any but do many good.
Last edited:
jay helfert said:
I've always interpreted the Second Amendment as the right of every law abiding citizen to keep and bear arms uninfringed, so that when called upon to become part of a regulated militia, the regulated militia is able to secure a free state.
For me, it's that direct and simple. The trouble starts when the extreme right and extreme left bend and distort the interpretation to suit political agendas. I've been shooting guns since I was 10 y.o. and own my own gun collection just like my pool cue collection. I see nothing wrong with gun regulation either for as long as it is SENSIBLE regulation.
Last edited:
Yes Jay absolutely.
Thgis was exasctly why we were given the right to peacably assemble, but if you look into it, more and more in recent years, the government has illegally infringed on our right to peacably assemble using ridiculous arguments that directly go against the consititution. I believe that the effectiveness of the anti war marches of the past and the one you cited is the reason for this. It goes largely ignored by the mainstream media, but you can find plenty of instances of this if you look around enough. I also agree with gun legislation to a certain extent. I'm not saying that I think any US citizen should be able to have a nuke. LOL. I do, however, feel that through fear and intimidation, the average citizen is not aware of the realities of life and of gun use and has allowed the government to strip away too many of our rights. I can argue about the founding fathers intentions all day long, they also thought that only white land owners should be citizens, which I completely disagree with, especially considering that I only look white and am mostly native American.
Yolu're also right about our need for intelligence and the uselessness of the airport security legislation. I did interrogation intelligence analysis down at GTMO and had to make the suggestion to the FBI to do checks into large purchases of instant ice bags, by medical corporations that could've been fakes setup to get large quantities of explosives, considering that pure 100% ammonium nitrate is in the ice packs and it is currently untraceable. You coulf also go online and purchase a 14" carbon fiber knife that no metal detector in the world can detect. So our so called airport security is only another way for the government to impose restrictions on us and deny us more freedom.
You didn't answer my question though, Will you be at the swannee this weekend???
jay helfert said:
Thgis was exasctly why we were given the right to peacably assemble, but if you look into it, more and more in recent years, the government has illegally infringed on our right to peacably assemble using ridiculous arguments that directly go against the consititution. I believe that the effectiveness of the anti war marches of the past and the one you cited is the reason for this. It goes largely ignored by the mainstream media, but you can find plenty of instances of this if you look around enough. I also agree with gun legislation to a certain extent. I'm not saying that I think any US citizen should be able to have a nuke. LOL. I do, however, feel that through fear and intimidation, the average citizen is not aware of the realities of life and of gun use and has allowed the government to strip away too many of our rights. I can argue about the founding fathers intentions all day long, they also thought that only white land owners should be citizens, which I completely disagree with, especially considering that I only look white and am mostly native American.
Yolu're also right about our need for intelligence and the uselessness of the airport security legislation. I did interrogation intelligence analysis down at GTMO and had to make the suggestion to the FBI to do checks into large purchases of instant ice bags, by medical corporations that could've been fakes setup to get large quantities of explosives, considering that pure 100% ammonium nitrate is in the ice packs and it is currently untraceable. You coulf also go online and purchase a 14" carbon fiber knife that no metal detector in the world can detect. So our so called airport security is only another way for the government to impose restrictions on us and deny us more freedom.
You didn't answer my question though, Will you be at the swannee this weekend???
Last edited:
DeepBanks said:
Honestly, that was a very strange comment he made during the debates. Even fellow Republicans were like, "Dude, what do you even mean by that?" Don't get me wrong. I don't want to get into a discussion on what Bill would/wouldn't do in the White House. I'm just saying that comment was really off the wall and I'm not sure it helped his campaign.
How about Pat,
but I believe he died before ever getting elected. he ran and ran.
Cuaba said:
Spoken like someone who wasn't around back then. The "kids" that didn't want to go to Nam were fleeing to Canada and Australia. Eventually most got a 'pardon' to return many years later. If you came back sooner, you got locked up.
fanthom said:
Sometimes the obvious explanation is the correct one. GWB and friends "invaded" Iraq to get at it's oil riches. Remember oil money put him in office. He was just repaying a favor. I'm sure he was pressured behind the scenes (and probably promised beaucoup bucks) to invade and get control of the oil fields. Al Queda was not even in Iraq at the time. Their bases were hidden in the hills of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, and our intelligence knew this.
GWB will leave office wealthy, and probably show up on the Board of Exxon-Mobil in a short time. His 1% cut should leave him sitting pretty for the rest of his life. HE SOLD US OUT!
Jaden said:
I'm helping Mark run it. See you there.
Many people thought it was to lower oil prices
He WAS heavily invested in oil and the invasions did drive prices up, standing to make him a pretty penny, and most of the oil prices being driven up was based on speculation of conflict and not actual demand. One would be remisce(sp.) if they didn't atleast consider the possibility that the intention of going in was to drive up oil prices or to consider the possibility that it was atleast a secondary benefit to GWB and the other oil conglomerates. I personally don't think that this is the case, but I can't say for sure because hindsight looks to be pretty damagin in this regard, but I am a little bit in the know about the idea of the geo political idea about invading iraq, because I created briefings and did intelligence analysis on the idea and it is a sound one. If we could create a stable democratic like government and start to show the benefits of a market economy in the middle east, the younger generation will see the benefits and make decisions that are based on that and hopefully spread into the rest of the middle east. It is basically an attempt to secularize the middle east, which if you know anything about radical Islam, we will need if we are to avoid an outright Islamic war.
philw said:
He WAS heavily invested in oil and the invasions did drive prices up, standing to make him a pretty penny, and most of the oil prices being driven up was based on speculation of conflict and not actual demand. One would be remisce(sp.) if they didn't atleast consider the possibility that the intention of going in was to drive up oil prices or to consider the possibility that it was atleast a secondary benefit to GWB and the other oil conglomerates. I personally don't think that this is the case, but I can't say for sure because hindsight looks to be pretty damagin in this regard, but I am a little bit in the know about the idea of the geo political idea about invading iraq, because I created briefings and did intelligence analysis on the idea and it is a sound one. If we could create a stable democratic like government and start to show the benefits of a market economy in the middle east, the younger generation will see the benefits and make decisions that are based on that and hopefully spread into the rest of the middle east. It is basically an attempt to secularize the middle east, which if you know anything about radical Islam, we will need if we are to avoid an outright Islamic war.
jay helfert said:
NO Sh*T. And at the expense of many innocent lives. Did you see the TV report when he went for his latest (perhaps last as president) MidEast visit and one where he was holding hands with the king of Saudi Arabia. A good caption for that would be, "Your highness, you showed me a new dimension, thank you for giving me the most memorable time. . ."
