Trump got covid

[Darkoz]

I've never seen a "conservative" care so much whether one person falls under the umbrella of every government regulation he can conceive.

My understanding is that conservatism is about law and order.

Government regulations are the law, until they are repealed.

People care about whatever they care about...don't let that bother you.

My take is conservatism is about law and order as written

Liberalism is about "just" law and order.

Example: years ago I think there was a Georgia case in which an overbroad statutory rape law led to a 16 year old boy sentenced to ten years prison for having consensual sex with his OLDER 17 year old girlfriend.

It it just for a teenager to get ten years for having sex with his girlfriend (and an older one at that)?

The DA had a decades long we'll respected career as a conservative no bending law and order man. And true to form he refused to budge. He said that was the law. End of story. The boy had to serve his time.

Liberals fought to get him out (governor finally exonerated the kid after four years in prison.

That might make it appear liberals are not for law and order but that simply isn't true

[coach belly]

a 16 year old boy sentenced to ten years prison for having consensual sex with his OLDER 17 year old girlfriend.

How about a 17 YO boy having sex with a 16 YO girl?

Is there a line?

How about a 27 YO boy with a 16 YO girl...if it's consensual?

Who draws the line?

I think the voters draw the line.

The judicial branch is a function of the voters.

[Darkoz]

a 16 year old boy sentenced to ten years prison for having consensual sex with his OLDER 17 year old girlfriend.

How about a 17 YO boy having sex with a 16 YO girl?

Is there a line?

How about a 27 YO boy with a 16 YO girl...if it's consensual?

Who draws the line?

I think the voters draw the line.

The judicial branch is a function of the voters.

And there you have conservatism at work.

Coach would put a 17 year old in prison for ten years for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend.

[coach belly]

a 16 year old boy sentenced to ten years prison for having consensual sex with his OLDER 17 year old girlfriend.

How about a 17 YO boy having sex with a 16 YO girl?

Is there a line?

How about a 27 YO boy with a 16 YO girl...if it's consensual?

Who draws the line?

I think the voters draw the line.

The judicial branch is a function of the voters.

And there you have conservatism at work.

Coach would put a 17 year old in prison for ten years for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend.

I can't put anyone in prison. I would think you'd understand that.

I would leave it up to the judicial system...the voters draw the line.

How else could it be?

[coach belly]

a 17 year old in prison for ten years for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend.

What is the age of consent?

Is it different for men and women?

[Darkoz]

It was for many years. It goes by state laws

Some states had an age of consent only for females which made adult women having sex with boys okay (male on male sex was usually prohibited by homosexuality laws) and teenage boys having sex with girls their own age illegal

Nowadays it's just minors regardless of gender.

NYS is 17. California is 18.

Most states are 16 (the more rural the state the lower the age)

One state in the US was 14 up till 2008 when it was raised to 16.

Most state laws also address the nearness in age issue with a three year rule (a 19 year old dating a 16 year old would be legal, while a 19 yr. Old dating a 15 year old would not). It should be obvious why those lines were drawn

[mickeycrimm]

.

Casinos are crooked the way they ply people with booze to hopefully have them shoot off every last cent they have. GTFO. Now you're taking up for casinos? You going darkside on us next?[/QUOTE]

How did you contrue what I said as advocating for the casinos. My take is Darkoz is not a gambler. Therefore, he cannot be an advantage gambler. At least when it comes to this play he brags about. He manipulates machines into showing a wager he is not really making. When you make a bet you have a chance to lose. He has no chance to lose. He is creating the illusion that he gambled. He is not gambling. Therefore, he is not an advantage gambler. If he ever publishes the book it won't be on how to gamble with an advantage. It will be on how to scam the casinos.

Over the years I've posted on numerous advantage plays in video poker, video slots, video keno, video blackjack. I've never seen any of that from darkoz. All he's written about is how he scammed the casinos. I don't have a problem with him beating casinos. He's just not an advantage gambler. He's gotten called on it and thats why he is doing all the name calling. It's all deflection.

[accountinquestion]

I've never seen a "conservative" care so much whether one person falls under the umbrella of every government regulation he can conceive.

My understanding is that conservatism is about law and order.

Government regulations are the law, until they are repealed.

People care about whatever they care about...don't let that bother you.

There are business conservatives and religious conservatives if I may make some random arbitrary distinction. I am referring to a business conservative. Most of them would not really hold it against you for not dotting your T's and such to follow every little government regulation.

There are laws the dictate behavior and then there are laws of bureaucracy. Mickey was talking about bureaucracy. Outside of Bible thumpers, I believe most "conservatives" are not hardcore about following bureaucratic laws.

You might not know this if you have not known a lot of entrepreneurs. They tend to be "conservative".

As far as laws or morality/behavior/ethics it is nonsensical to suggest liberals are against these things.

[mickeycrimm]

I've never seen a "conservative" care so much whether one person falls under the umbrella of every government regulation he can conceive.

My understanding is that conservatism is about law and order.

Government regulations are the law, until they are repealed.

People care about whatever they care about...don't let that bother you.

There are business conservatives and religious conservatives if I may make some random arbitrary distinction. I am referring to a business conservative. Most of them would not really hold it against you for not dotting your T's and such to follow every little government regulation.

There are laws the dictate behavior and then there are laws of bureaucracy. Mickey was talking about bureaucracy. Outside of Bible thumpers, I believe most "conservatives" are not hardcore about following bureaucratic laws.

You might not know this if you have not known a lot of entrepreneurs. They tend to be "conservative".

As far as laws or morality/behavior/ethics it is nonsensical to suggest liberals are against these things.

The difference between a liberal and a conservative is a liberal says yes to everything except lower taxes and less government.

[accountinquestion]

How did you contrue what I said as advocating for the casinos. My take is Darkoz is not a gambler. Therefore, he cannot be an advantage gambler. At least when it comes to this play he brags about. He manipulates machines into showing a wager he is not really making. When you make a bet you have a chance to lose. He has no chance to lose. He is creating the illusion that he gambled. He is not gambling. Therefore, he is not an advantage gambler. If he ever publishes the book it won't be on how to gamble with an advantage. It will be on how to scam the casinos.

Over the years I've posted on numerous advantage plays in video poker, video slots, video keno, video blackjack. I've never seen any of that from darkoz. All he's written about is how he scammed the casinos. I don't have a problem with him beating casinos. He's just not an advantage gambler. He's gotten called on it and thats why he is doing all the name calling. It's all deflection.

Freeplay angles don't seem like crook behavior to me. I get it, you have to find something to fault him on. He's a liberal or whatever, right?

If the business that freeplay angles took $$ from didn't ply people with booze to get them to lose their last cent, then perhaps I could see the argument - Yes, darkoz is a crook.

It is a No honor amongst thieves sorta thing. Hard to consider someone a crook when casinos do so much sleazy shit. I mean, you can say darkoz isn't an AP I guess or whatever - much like Ex-AP does to others. I haven't seen anything that says Darkoz is a crook. I guess playing on someone else's card might be against TOS .. but meh. Not an argument I'd ever make.

[Darkoz]

.

Casinos are crooked the way they ply people with booze to hopefully have them shoot off every last cent they have. GTFO. Now you're taking up for casinos? You going darkside on us next?

He manipulates machines into showing a wager he is not really making. When you make a bet you have a chance to lose. He has no chance to lose. He is creating the illusion that he gambled. He is not gambling. Therefore, he is not an advantage gambler. .[/QUOTE]

Can you please pm me how to do this?

Creating an illusion that I gambled? No chance to lose?

On a negative expectation game?

What the hell are you talking about?

Whatever it is I would like to learn how to do it.

[mickeycrimm]

How did you contrue what I said as advocating for the casinos. My take is Darkoz is not a gambler. Therefore, he cannot be an advantage gambler. At least when it comes to this play he brags about. He manipulates machines into showing a wager he is not really making. When you make a bet you have a chance to lose. He has no chance to lose. He is creating the illusion that he gambled. He is not gambling. Therefore, he is not an advantage gambler. If he ever publishes the book it won't be on how to gamble with an advantage. It will be on how to scam the casinos.

Over the years I've posted on numerous advantage plays in video poker, video slots, video keno, video blackjack. I've never seen any of that from darkoz. All he's written about is how he scammed the casinos. I don't have a problem with him beating casinos. He's just not an advantage gambler. He's gotten called on it and thats why he is doing all the name calling. It's all deflection.

Freeplay angles don't seem like crook behavior to me. I get it, you have to find something to fault him on. He's a liberal or whatever, right?

If the business that freeplay angles took $$ from didn't ply people with booze to get them to lose their last cent, then perhaps I could see the argument - Yes, darkoz is a crook.

It is a No honor amongst thieves sorta thing. Hard to consider someone a crook when casinos do so much sleazy shit. I mean, you can say darkoz isn't an AP I guess or whatever - much like Ex-AP does to others. I haven't seen anything that says Darkoz is a crook. I guess playing on someone else's card might be against TOS .. but meh. Not an argument I'd ever make.

I'm not making a moral argument. I'm not condemning what he is doing. I'm just pointing out that what he is doing does not fit the definition of gambling which encompasses chance, consideration and remuneration.

[mickeycrimm]

I was referring to his activities in the casinos as being crooked.

I'd sure like to know what he's doing in the casinos.

I understood multi-carding before I ever read DO, I realized the possibilities just based on my card & my wife's.

As long as I've been around, you've been willing to explain, in detail, the nuts and bolts of machine AP.

I appreciate that, and regret the way I treated you in the past.

I regret the things I said to you in the past too. We should just move on, forget the past, and let bygones be bygones. I like showing KJ and redietz that people don't have to be enemies forever. Its a life lesson those two have never learned.