Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Founded by Mark Kleiman (1951-2019)
Of course, I wouldn’t expect a sense of irony among people devoid of ordinary decency and intellectual honesty. But it does seem strange to observe the colossal message discipline with which the rightwingnutosophere is attacking the Journolist list-serv project for … attempt to create some message discpline.
Comments are closed.
Asal mula web Judi Poker Online Mengelokkan dipercaya di Dunia.
Dari segi buku Foster’ s Complete Hoyle, RF Foster menyelipkan “ Permainan situs pokerqq paling dipercaya dimainkan mula-mula di Amerika Serikat, lima kartu bikin masing masing pemain dari satu antaran kartu berisi 20 kartu”. Tetapi ada banyaknya ahli tarikh yg tidak setuju diantaranya David Parlett yg menguatkan jika permainan situs judi poker online paling dipercaya ini mirip seperti permainan kartu dari Persia yang dibawa oleh As-Nas. Kurang lebih sejahrawan menjelaskan nama produk ini diambil dari Poca Irlandi adalah Pron Pokah atau Pocket, tetapi masih menjadi abu-abu karena tidak dijumpai dengan pasti sapa yg menjelaskan permainan itu menjadi permainan poker.
Walau ada sisi per judian dalam semua tipe permainan ini, banyak pakar menjelaskan lebih jelas berkaitan gimana situs judi poker mampu menjadi game taruhan yang disenangi beberapa orang dalam Amerika Serikat. Itu berjalan bertepatan dengan munculnya betting di daerah sungai Mississippi dan daerah sekelilingnya pada tahun 1700 an serta 1800 an. Pada saat itu mungkin serius tampil terdapatnya keserupaan antara poker masa lalu dengan modern poker online tidak hanya pada trick berspekulasi tetapi sampai ke pikiran di tempat. Mungkin ini lah cikal akan munculnya permainan poker modern yg kalian ketahui sampai saat tersebut.
Riwayat awal timbulnya situs judi poker paling dipercaya Di dalam graha judi, salon sampai kapal-kapal yg siapkan arena betting yg ada didaerah setengah Mississippi, mereka terkadang bermain cukup hanya manfaatkan 1 dek yg beberapa 20 kartu (seperti permainan as-nas). Game itu terkadang dimainkan langsung tidak dengan diundi, langsung menang, punya putaran taruhan, dapat meningkatkan perhitungan taruhan seperi game as-nas.
Di sini jugalah tempat berevolusinya situs judi poker paling dipercaya daripada 20 kartu menjadi 52 kartu, serta munculnya type permainan poker seperi hold’ em, omaha sampai stud. Herannya orang melihat bila poker stud jadi poker pertama dan classic yang telah dimainkan lebih daripada 200 tahun.
Diakhir tahun 1800 an sajian Poker Online mulai disematkan lagi ketentuan baru diantaranya straight dan flush serta beberapa type tipe yang lain lain seperti tipe poker low ball, wild cards, community cards of one mode dan lainnya.
It must be at least five years ago, I recall a rightwing journalist smirking at how journalists on the right get away with railing against the left for doing exactly what they do. He said something to the effect of, "We've got a nice little racket going here…" He certainly seened aware of the irony.
I can't recall the person, source or exact context and it's diving me NUTS. Can anyone else recall this as it was pretty widely reported. Google avails me naught.
Right-wing journalists need some kind of affirmative action to make up for the liberal bias of the facts…
If facts were liberal-biased, left-wing journalists wouldn't have needed the Journolist newsgroup so they could collude on how to twist them.
mark,
consider three premises:
1) whatever virtues you may have as a generalist pundit, your comparative advantage in improving American government society is in drug/crime policy and this is a crucially important problem, both because of mass incarceration and because crime remains high (relative to 1960, if not to 1990)
2) policy reforms are more likely to be enacted when they have bipartisan buy-in, especially when something can be uncharitably framed as "weakness" which requires a "Nixon goes to China" approach to discredit such demagoguery
3) things like characterizing the right as "people devoid of ordinary decency and intellectual integrity" can't exactly help make you an appealing figure to the right. (i'm putting aside the issue of whether such statements are justified or accurate, to focus on their practical impact on your political palatability).
if we accept all three premises, this implies the lemma that creating a long record of inflammatory statements makes it, on the margin, less likely that we'll get your policy proposals enacted than if you were more tactful about orthogonal issues.
do you ever worry about the conflict? certainly it seems very unlikely that you'd pass "vetting" were you ever to take a leave to go back to government, but it's possible that even a more indirect role of "intellectual architect of the president's new policy" could make you an inflammatory figure. do you acknowledge it but take a stance of, look i'm not a politician walking on eggshells to avoid offending people and focus-group testing everything i say — or more strongly, "here i stand, i can do no other"? or is it that you disagree with the premise, for instance because you think the personality of policy entrepreneurs has at most only a trivial impact on their political success? i think any of these answers would be fair, i'm just wondering how you think about it.
this is meant as a friendly and honest question and i ask it precisely because i like you personally and i'm a fan of your drug policy proposals, but when i read stuff like "devoid of ordinary decency" i worry that your belligerent stance on unrelated issues will make it less likely that we'll get to benefit from seeing your drug/crime proposals enacted into policy.