::::::::
So, I'd like to explain to her, in this public post, the philosophy behind a strategic play in poker called the "semi-bluff". While the name might hint at a similarity to an outright "bluff" where one has nothing to back up one's play, the semi-bluff is made with a hand that has a not-insignificant chance (but often less than 50-50) of winning, but such that the oppositioncan't afford the _risk_ of calling.
So what I'm now saying, is that, similar to Bush's "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" it's time that our senators were "put to the test" and forced to reveal themselves as "either with _us_ or with that terrorist in the oval office". _They_ are the ones who can't afford to take the chance. What do _we_ have to lose? Our "hands" are _already_ losers
if we don't make the big bet.
What is the value of a Democrat whose behavior is identical to that of a Republican? "War" will be the continual perpetual justification for martial law, our "voting machines" will _remain_ "trade secret", and we'll wonder how it's possible that 90% of the "counted" voters disagree with us and agree with the incumbent Fuehrer, who promises he'll continue the war to protect us from "The Enemy".
- Lenny Gray -
