Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act fo 2006

[ROCKET 0]

i agree that this is a crock, but do a little research and realize that this was pushed forward by extreme conservatives. This legislation was written by Sen Kyl (AZ Republican), and Congressmen Leach (IA Republican) and Goodlatte (VA Republican). It was added as a rider into an existing bill by Sen. Frist (TN Republican Senate Majority Leader) and done w/the approval of Rove/Bush/co. It's conservative Republicans that want to legislate morality that wrote and pushed this bill thru. Just like it was a Republican push back in the day for prohibition.

 

the nanny state is an attempt to appeal to the evangelical wackjob base, which has unfortunately become the heart of the republican party. liberals weren't united in opposition to the bill, but they were virtually the only voices of dissent.

 

 

My liberal slant was aimed at the liberal fock tards who are posting in this thread with their typical bleeding heart bs about the govt. stepping in and saving us from ourselves. As far as politicians they are all corrupt IMO and are bought and paid for by lobbyists and big business. I laugh at all the people who bash one side and really think the other side is on their side. Both sides pretty much suck IMO. I'm a conservative by nature but don't align myself with the puppets in Washington.

 

ETA: As far as the bill itself I feel like we should let Vegas take in all the $$ from internet gambling and not some Carribean Island so I'm not really opposed to the bill if the $$ is going out of the country. I can legally bet horse racing from my home via. online or over the phone thru my local track (If I wanted to, I don't) so why not legalize sports betting too and keep the $$ here? I could care less as I bet thru a local bookie anyways.

[Niners_fan 0]

How Ironic you use the word GAY to describe a bill that infringes on our freedoms and liberties. . .you understand using the word GAY in that manner equates homosexuals with stupid and continues a negative stereotype of a group yet your arguement taken out of context is exactly what the homosexual community say when asking not to have GAY Marriage banned.

 

 

I knew some retard would make a dumbass post like this when I WAS OBVIOUSLY RANTING about the bill. Inappropriate and unneccesary is that better??? Anyway this bill came about mostly due to huge increase in the online poker sites which has drawn younger and younger children into playing even if its for free. I saw a cbs news report when the bill was being discussed that stated this and apparently the government broadened the scope of the bill to include sports gambling sites which affects a good number of us on this site including myself. When I saw this report a couple months ago it seemed like they were just going to shutdown the poker sites but sadly they have expanded the segments affected.

[kutulu 1,551]

I'm playing poker on line right now.

[GiantsRule 0]

I'm playing poker on line right now.

 

And I just placed bets on players I never heard of from teams I didn't know existed.

[DrJ 0]

I'm playing poker on line right now.

 

Same here, and I've made a couple bucks tonight too.

 

Boy, I hope I don't spiral out of control and blow my entire $25 bankroll - I might have to sell my family.

[KingofBeer 0]

Same here, and I've made a couple bucks tonight too.

 

Boy, I hope I don't spiral out of control and blow my entire $25 bankroll - I might have to sell my family.

 

I can't believe you are allowed to use your own money how you want to in the privacy of your own home. I know they call this the land of the free, but come on, enough is enough. This has to stop!!!!

[GiantsRule 0]

I can't believe you are allowed to use your own money how you want to in the privacy of your own home. I know they call this the land of the free, but come on, enough is enough. This has to stop!!!!

 

What's next? You gonna crack open a beer and sip it in front of the TV? In front of the TV?!?

[football_scooter 0]

Boy, I hope I don't spiral out of control and blow my entire $25 bankroll - I might have to sell my family.

 

I'll give ya $40 for 'em...

 

I can't believe you are allowed to use your own money how you want to in the privacy of your own home. I know they call this the land of the free, but come on, enough is enough. This has to stop!!!!

 

I have a buddy who's wife got all spun on eBay....cost him $15K. I doubt I've even risked $15K in my lifetime in all gambling, including the lotto. Should the Gov't step in and regulate eBay usage?

[DrJ 0]

I'll give ya $40 for 'em...

 

Not necessary, I won $6 tonight. I'm rich beatch!

 

Hey pro nanny whiners, am I supposed to be upset about the $6 that I robbed some poor guys of, or the $.20 I sent to Aruba to do it?

[seattleslew 0]

Honestly, I've been a drinker and smoker and gambler all my life up until about 2 years ago. I quit everything and now I am 2 years away from law school...

 

Woa...this is a step forward????

[football_scooter 0]

Woa...this is a step forward????

 

Really - I respect gamblers. Lawyers are a bunch of c0cksuckers.

 

Hey pro nanny whiners, am I supposed to be upset about the $6 that I robbed some poor guys of, or the $.20 I sent to Aruba to do it?

 

See, I actually AM upset about the $.20 you sent to Aruba. That coulda been sent to our own gov't on a regulated site, whereby the gov't can also immediately tax your winnings.

 

Deficit = gone.

 

 

Same with prostitution - regulate it, condoms, taxes, no aids = good society.

 

Same with (illegal) drugs - regulate, tax, help those who can't handle their sh!t and it'll all work out.

 

 

Just ask the Dutch. Works damn well.

 

Holy crap - I think I'm a libertarian? Oh, wait - Holland is a socialist democracy. Whew.

[urmother 0]

My liberal slant was aimed at the liberal fock tards who are posting in this thread with their typical bleeding heart bs about the govt. stepping in and saving us from ourselves. As far as politicians they are all corrupt IMO and are bought and paid for by lobbyists and big business. I laugh at all the people who bash one side and really think the other side is on their side. Both sides pretty much suck IMO. I'm a conservative by nature but don't align myself with the puppets in Washington.

 

ETA: As far as the bill itself I feel like we should let Vegas take in all the $$ from internet gambling and not some Carribean Island so I'm not really opposed to the bill if the $$ is going out of the country. I can legally bet horse racing from my home via. online or over the phone thru my local track (If I wanted to, I don't) so why not legalize sports betting too and keep the $$ here? I could care less as I bet thru a local bookie anyways.

 

well, if we don't look at what the parties are both doing it's easy to make 'em appear very similar. let's give credit where credit's due. fact is this was a completely republican effort, whether you love it or hate it.

 

i'm for keeping the $$$ in the US too by LEGALIZING AND REGULATING online poker in the US. w/our ridiculous deficit it's seem absolutely wasteful to throw away a huge revenue source to other countries, but that's the route the republicans have chosen on this legislation for better or worse.

[Bigal1 0]

As I read this yesterday I wondered what was going to happen with my online account,so I called up and asked Here was the reply " Its business as usual for the next 8 months and then we will have in place a alternate funding method " Its almost ready now we were prepared for this.Now I bet on sports as a hobby last night I made $38 on the baseball game.For the week including monday im up $418.Now if I was to lose my first bankroll of $128 dollars its the price of my hobby,kinda like fishing.You need gas,bait ,eguipment,and a boat,now that hobby cost more than $128 to fish 1 day.I enjoy wagering on prop bets for example I bet monday night on the giants (money line) and Julius Jones under 97 yards rushing money line. I enjoy the props because its not about spreads you do a little homework and you can win these things.I have 2 fantasy teams and I do alot of research so it helps .Another example was under 63.5 yards for Rueben Droughns on sunday against Denver that was the easiest $52.50 I ever made.Now Im not saying I made 10k like others on this board ,Im just saying if you love to wager on sports there is a smart way to use it as a hobby.Im all for legalizing this and letting Vegas control it ,but as far as someone tlling me I cant play on sunday after working all week ,thats wrong.Iv been a guest on this board over a year now and this is my first post ,take it easy on me

[DrJ 0]

" Its business as usual for the next 8 months and then we will have in place a alternate funding method " Its almost ready now we were prepared for this.

 

Ding ding ding ding!!!!

 

So all that they've effectively done is wasted time writing up this bill, wasted time attempted to pass it, wasted time writing it into other bills so that it would pass, and now they'll have to waste tax dollars to enforce it.

 

All the while, the gamblers will still be gambling.

 

For the life of me I just don't get how anyone would support this BS. Disagree with gambling all you like, but pointless and wasteful legislation isn't the answer...

 

Unless you're a lawyer wannabe, of course, because exploiting pointless and wasteful legislation is how you plan to make your living.

[football_scooter 0]

Iv been a guest on this board over a year now and this is my first post ,take it easy on me

 

Welcome aboard...I just love lesbians! Is your girlfriend hot? I mean, Bi-gal is quite a handle.

 

I knew a bigal at Netsports too - is that you?

 

 

Just the obligatory "1st post ball busting". Glad you finally sacked up and posted something.

[Bigal1 0]

Welcome aboard...I just love lesbians! Is your girlfriend hot? I mean, Bi-gal is quite a handle.

 

I knew a bigal at Netsports too - is that you?

Just the obligatory "1st post ball busting". Glad you finally sacked up and posted something.

No Im not from that site My name is AL and im big (fat) that is!! I love fantasy football and wagering! I am in the Insurance business and have alot of desk time !!

[skins56 0]

i agree that this is a crock, but do a little research and realize that this was pushed forward by extreme conservatives. This legislation was written by Sen Kyl (AZ Republican), and Congressmen Leach (IA Republican) and Goodlatte (VA Republican). It was added as a rider into an existing bill by Sen. Frist (TN Republican Senate Majority Leader) and done w/the approval of Rove/Bush/co. It's conservative Republicans that want to legislate morality that wrote and pushed this bill thru. Just like it was a Republican push back in the day for prohibition.

 

the nanny state is an attempt to appeal to the evangelical wackjob base, which has unfortunately become the heart of the republican party. liberals weren't united in opposition to the bill, but they were virtually the only voices of dissent.

 

Legislating morality huh? So what is it considered when liberals tell me the moral thing to do is raise the minimum wage? Or the moral thing to do with my hard earned money is to pay for poor people in ridiculous social programs who have refused to work hard and earn theri own money. This isn't a one way street buddy, both parties are a joke.

 

For the record, I'm conservative, I'm against this bill, and I'm begging for the democrats to find a legitimate candidate so I have a choice when I vote. No, Hillary Clinton is not it.

[football_scooter 0]

No Im not from that site My name is AL and im big (fat) that is!!

Damn...I liked you better when I thought you were a hot bisexual. Now that you're a fat guy named "Al" I've kinda lost interest. Good luck though.

[Dont_Fook_Wit_me 0]

Whats next, Las Vegas closed?????

[hawk82 0]

What happens in these situations is that we (tax payers) end up paying for the rehab, bankruptcy, etc...

 

I somewhat agree with the alcohol statement earlier. Anything taken to an addiction level is deadly....especially tobacco (chewed for 8 years). Even with the taxes paid buying tobacco related products we are still coming out behind in regards to health care costs, exposure to second hand smoke, etc.

 

O.K. - Forget I said any of this. Let's just ignore all of it and the human race will become smarter and more advanced because of it....Natural Selection.

 

WHAT the???

[phillybear 364]

but the reality is 99% of gamblers are LOSING their asses.

 

This statement is so wrong that my head nearly exploded from the thought of it.

 

While it is very true that I am up very, very nice sum of money from gambling over the last 15-20 years, and seem to enjoy success in the majority of those years, and those that read my posts in the college football gambling threads on this site will confirm I have been winning for 3 years now, I am nowhere near as well off as one of my buddies. He hasn't worked a day his whole live. Been gambling since he was a teenager. Bought a condo for cash, drives a BMW, owns multiple properties. All from sports gambling. I don't have the same courage laying large sums of money, and don't bet year round like him and dozens of sports. Maybe 85% of the population will lose gambling. Maybe 15% will continue to turn a profit, but I think I am lowballing the number.

 

If everyone lost at gambling in the long run, then bookies would be billionaries. And that just doesn't happen. They make a nice living most years, but they aren't that rich. And casinos don't make all that much of sports gambling, but rely on cards, craps, slots, more than anything else.

 

The bottomline is that the vast majority of people bet as a hobby. They have fun with it. The people that are betting over their heads and getting into tons of trouble as giving the rest of us a bad image.

[football_scooter 0]

What happens in these situations is that we (tax payers) end up paying for the rehab, bankruptcy, etc...

 

I somewhat agree with the alcohol statement earlier. Anything taken to an addiction level is deadly....especially tobacco (chewed for 8 years). Even with the taxes paid buying tobacco related products we are still coming out behind in regards to health care costs, exposure to second hand smoke, etc.

This is the misconception about legalization.

 

"If you legalize pot, eveyone will become a stoner and society will pay the medical bills for those who can't hang and OD on cheetohs!"

 

Please.

 

If you legalize drugs, you can tax them. All that "black money" is now above board and the gov't can institute policy to ensure that a % of that income goes to rehab clinics.

 

Likewise with gambling. Hell, they already do it with State Lotto's...a % goes to schools. Legalize all gambling and put another % to GambAnon.

 

The thing is that just like drug prohibition, the access is still there. People will get high on legal drugs, buy illegal ones from the black market or get "legal illegal" drugs by swiping thier parents perscription vicoden or codeine. Or even worse we hurt society more by forcing people to extremes like huffing paint, which is a hell of a lot worse for your brain cells than toking a joint or 3.

 

Likewise with gambling. People can, right now, go spend every penny they have on bad odds gambling like scratchers, lotto tickets, or they can go to bet on horse racing, or go to a card room to play poker, or to an Indian Casino for the tightest slots ever, or to Vegas, Reno, Atlantic City or any of the mid-west riverboat gambling. Where's the outcry for the public good over all of these forms of gambling.

 

But no - betting a 6 team NFL teaser online is soooooo much worse for society that we need government intervention.

[unclemercy 51]

As I read this yesterday I wondered what was going to happen with my online account,so I called up and asked Here was the reply " Its business as usual for the next 8 months and then we will have in place a alternate funding method " Its almost ready now we were prepared for this.Now I bet on sports as a hobby last night I made $38 on the baseball game.For the week including monday im up $418.Now if I was to lose my first bankroll of $128 dollars its the price of my hobby,kinda like fishing.You need gas,bait ,eguipment,and a boat,now that hobby cost more than $128 to fish 1 day.I enjoy wagering on prop bets for example I bet monday night on the giants (money line) and Julius Jones under 97 yards rushing money line. I enjoy the props because its not about spreads you do a little homework and you can win these things.I have 2 fantasy teams and I do alot of research so it helps .Another example was under 63.5 yards for Rueben Droughns on sunday against Denver that was the easiest $52.50 I ever made.Now Im not saying I made 10k like others on this board ,Im just saying if you love to wager on sports there is a smart way to use it as a hobby.Im all for legalizing this and letting Vegas control it ,but as far as someone tlling me I cant play on sunday after working all week ,thats wrong.Iv been a guest on this board over a year now and this is my first post ,take it easy on me

 

 

big gay al, or whatever... please continue to post and reply. you seem to have a lot to offer... seriously

[Bigal1 0]

Now Im a big fat gay guy Wow Iv progressed !! In the past, 10 years ago I gambled for a part time job some years I made 10 - 15 k, some years I lost 10k! Bottom line is my wife and kids didnt loose their house or I didnt miss any meals Now that I make more than enough money at my job, I do it as a hobby.If your into it for a living you need to have the sack to bet big but also back off. If you need to steal to pay your debt than your betting too big.Plain and simple nothing fancy to this advice.If you dont like wagering get out of the conversation .As for the political bull ######,well thats it its just bull ###### ! Online gaming lets the hobbiest have more options.Bookies have not disappeared in 100 years and neither will online gaming .

[urmother 0]

Legislating morality huh? So what is it considered when liberals tell me the moral thing to do is raise the minimum wage? Or the moral thing to do with my hard earned money is to pay for poor people in ridiculous social programs who have refused to work hard and earn theri own money. This isn't a one way street buddy, both parties are a joke.

 

For the record, I'm conservative, I'm against this bill, and I'm begging for the democrats to find a legitimate candidate so I have a choice when I vote. No, Hillary Clinton is not it.

 

 

thre's a significant difference between civil liberties and funding choices. telling people they can't gamble, can't drink or have to put up the 10 commandments in their classroom are issues of liberty and the separation of church and state (or lack thereof). the nanny staters believe they should be able to make moral decisions FOR you.

 

what to fund w/our tax dollars is a completely different question. i'm not supportive of extended welfare, but i have a friend who just got fired from her job after 26 years (basically so they could pay her MUCH less retirement.) she's divorced and she's got up to 6 mos of support coming her way as long as she keeps meeting the criteria to get it. she's not a societal drain and I'm glad that support is there for her. she may need some job retraining and the gov't providing it may mean she'll be able to get herself a job again that much faster. while some folks may frame minimum wage/school funding etc as moral issues and others may frame 'em as big gov't i see them simply as pragmatic decisions. ie. is it worth funding this particular project? is it a smart investment to build roads or an unnecessary expense? is it an investment to provide medicare/healthcare for the american people or is it an expense? and w/limited resources i think all of these questions merit real debate.

This isn't a one way street buddy, both parties are a joke.

 

these types of comments aren't productive at all imo. if folks deal w/the reality of what the 2 parties are actually doing, the issues they prioritize, and how competently they run gov't there are HUGE differences that will jump out. it's worth noting that the anti-poker/gambling legislation was a completely republican led effort they succeeded in passing. that's very specific and people can feel what they want about it. contrasting that w/vague assertions and how much you like dislike hilary (i don't like her either) is fine, but it moves people away from real debate. as an example, virtually no one supports a true welfare state. but should there be a catch for people in a legitimate transition after being fired? for how long? should we offer gov't retraining? how much and for how long? should we subsidze/fund programs like headstart? these are real questions that go beyond the rhetoric that merit discussion above vague accusation.

[DeaLerZ 0]

i feel we have lost the majority of our freedom already, but because we are so caught up in our own lives, we don't even realize it, and don't have time to to take a stand because we are trapped... we need our constant flow of money to keep our current state of life... and most of us are afraid to get away with that to take the time to make a difference with anything political... so instead we give our opinions which usually don't come from PURE facts and bicker and bant at each other to try and prove the other one wrong....

 

when in reality we should be on the same side, and see the big picture that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, the middle class will dissappear if things don't change, that the government keeps using bullshit reasons to make laws so that they can control more of the money WE make, because they would rather use our money for a war that they were completely wrong about, hints the 8.6 trillion deficit.... because its KEEPING us safe, when in reality its just causing more of the world to hate us... and causing our economy to go in a continuous downward spiral... but hey they are doing the RIGHT THING

 

we think getting an education and going to college is the best thing to do, so that we can get a "great" job and support our family...having a college education still isn't enough anymore, we are wasting our whole lives preparing to be "SOMETHING", but many of us have no idea what it is... school is just another form of control like everything else... its limits our creativity and forces us to do things we don't want to do with the underlying message of "go to school so you can be what you want to be".. of course school is helpful but all it really does in the real world is show businesses that we can finish what we started....so is it really necessary to pay all that money to go to college?... when the job you finally get will train you to do things that school never came close to teaching you how to do...

 

the point of all my bantering is that the government will continue to take away our small freedoms to make more money.... the patriot act being the worst of them all... and unless our nation gets on the same side instead of arguing and getting no where, there is nothing that will ever change our downward spiral.....

 

gambling is bad, alcohol is bad, smoking is bad, sex can be bad( i wonder if they'll figure out how to tax that???)... but the point is we are still going to do all of those things and thats what makes us free and human... but the government's morality standpoint on everything is just to make more money from us that WE earn, and to control everything we do......

 

the worst thing you can do when you have freedom is nothing, after all in the worlds history freedom has been extremely rare, and if we stay apathetic and let these rich ###### who are in power, keep making the rules to benefit themselves than our freedom as we know it will dissappear

 

i have no agree/disagree type opinions with what any of you said.. most everyone who took this seriously brought up great points... with the common theme that "SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH WHATS GOING ON"

 

- thanks for reading my random organized thoughts

feel free to agree/disagree..

[Yer mom 2]

i feel we have lost the majority of our freedom already, but because we are so caught up in our own lives, we don't even realize it, and don't have time to to take a stand because we are trapped... we need our constant flow of money to keep our current state of life... and most of us are afraid to get away with that to take the time to make a difference with anything political... so instead we give our opinions which usually don't come from PURE facts and bicker and bant at each other to try and prove the other one wrong....

 

when in reality we should be on the same side, and see the big picture that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, the middle class will dissappear if things don't change, that the government keeps using bullshit reasons to make laws so that they can control more of the money WE make, because they would rather use our money for a war that they were completely wrong about, hints the 8.6 trillion deficit.... because its KEEPING us safe, when in reality its just causing more of the world to hate us... and causing our economy to go in a continuous downward spiral... but hey they are doing the RIGHT THING

 

we think getting an education and going to college is the best thing to do, so that we can get a "great" job and support our family...having a college education still isn't enough anymore, we are wasting our whole lives preparing to be "SOMETHING", but many of us have no idea what it is... school is just another form of control like everything else... its limits our creativity and forces us to do things we don't want to do with the underlying message of "go to school so you can be what you want to be".. of course school is helpful but all it really does in the real world is show businesses that we can finish what we started....so is it really necessary to pay all that money to go to college?... when the job you finally get will train you to do things that school never came close to teaching you how to do...

 

the point of all my bantering is that the government will continue to take away our small freedoms to make more money.... the patriot act being the worst of them all... and unless our nation gets on the same side instead of arguing and getting no where, there is nothing that will ever change our downward spiral.....

 

gambling is bad, alcohol is bad, smoking is bad, sex can be bad( i wonder if they'll figure out how to tax that???)... but the point is we are still going to do all of those things and thats what makes us free and human... but the government's morality standpoint on everything is just to make more money from us that WE earn, and to control everything we do......

 

the worst thing you can do when you have freedom is nothing, after all in the worlds history freedom has been extremely rare, and if we stay apathetic and let these rich ###### who are in power, keep making the rules to benefit themselves than our freedom as we know it will dissappear

 

i have no agree/disagree type opinions with what any of you said.. most everyone who took this seriously brought up great points... with the common theme that "SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH WHATS GOING ON"

 

- thanks for reading my random organized thoughts

feel free to agree/disagree..

 

 

Lets wrap it up here, that was a solid Springers final thought. I think I heard Let Freedom Ring in the background as I read this.

 

[urmother 0]

Lets wrap it up here, that was a solid Springers final thought. I think I heard Let Freedom Ring in the background as I read this.

 

 

agree. good stuff.

 

**also, when i chose my handle on here last year i had no idea there was another one so close "Yer Mom."

[Yer mom 2]

agree. good stuff.

 

**also, when i chose my handle on here last year i had no idea there was another one so close "Yer Mother."

 

 

Mother knows best! Gotta go check out some College betting lines now.....

[skins56 0]

thre's a significant difference between civil liberties and funding choices. telling people they can't gamble, can't drink or have to put up the 10 commandments in their classroom are issues of liberty and the separation of church and state (or lack thereof). the nanny staters believe they should be able to make moral decisions FOR you.

 

what to fund w/our tax dollars is a completely different question. i'm not supportive of extended welfare, but i have a friend who just got fired from her job after 26 years (basically so they could pay her MUCH less retirement.) she's divorced and she's got up to 6 mos of support coming her way as long as she keeps meeting the criteria to get it. she's not a societal drain and I'm glad that support is there for her. she may need some job retraining and the gov't providing it may mean she'll be able to get herself a job again that much faster. while some folks may frame minimum wage/school funding etc as moral issues and others may frame 'em as big gov't i see them simply as pragmatic decisions. ie. is it worth funding this particular project? is it a smart investment to build roads or an unnecessary expense? is it an investment to provide medicare/healthcare for the american people or is it an expense? and w/limited resources i think all of these questions merit real debate.

these types of comments aren't productive at all imo. if folks deal w/the reality of what the 2 parties are actually doing, the issues they prioritize, and how competently they run gov't there are HUGE differences that will jump out. it's worth noting that the anti-poker/gambling legislation was a completely republican led effort they succeeded in passing. that's very specific and people can feel what they want about it. contrasting that w/vague assertions and how much you like dislike hilary (i don't like her either) is fine, but it moves people away from real debate. as an example, virtually no one supports a true welfare state. but should there be a catch for people in a legitimate transition after being fired? for how long? should we offer gov't retraining? how much and for how long? should we subsidze/fund programs like headstart? these are real questions that go beyond the rhetoric that merit discussion above vague accusation.

 

To accuse me of making a vague accusation is missing my point entirely. I don't want to debate what is legitimate and what isn't when it comes to government assistance. My point is that democrats legislate morality just like republicans do. I haven't heard a democrat who supports a minimum wage hike not make it a morality issue or call it "the right thing to do" which implies morality. So whether you're forcing that belief on me or forcing me to not play poker online, you're interfering in my life. Thats my point, republicans used to favor limited government (not anymore), democrats have never favored limited government. I just don't want the government interfering in my life. Example, I hate being around smokers. Our city is now trying to pass a smoking ban in all restaurants and bars...I'm against the ban because I don't think that should be the government's role.

 

And as far as your friend who lost her job after 26 years, we all can come up with examples of one or two people who are negatively/positively affected by something that produces the opposite effect for the majority of people. Those types of comments are definitely counter productive. I think we can all admit that there's no such thing as a perfect system in anything that will be great for everyone, you have to do whats best for the majority, and your friend is in a very small minority.

 

 

the point of all my bantering is that the government will continue to take away our small freedoms to make more money.... the patriot act being the worst of them all...

 

I agree with a lot of what you said but I have to hear more of your thoughts on this part. I want you to tell me how the Patriot Act has taken away from your own personal freedoms. I can only speak from my own experience but I can tell you that my own life hasn't been negatively affected one bit. I'm not trying to be a smartass, I've just always wondered this and am curious to hear.

[De Novo 0]

Go ahead all you "winners", blast me and tell me how much you won last week, month, or year. We both know you are full of it.

I won $20k playing poker online last summer. I've played with people who have made over $1 million this year playing poker online. Hell, one of them made over $600k in the month of September. He was essentially laid off his job, and he's moving out of the country. That's close $1 million the government will never collect again. Seems pretty stupid to me.

[urmother 0]

To accuse me of making a vague accusation is missing my point entirely. I don't want to debate what is legitimate and what isn't when it comes to government assistance.

 

but when it comes to welfare that is the real debate. not some rhetoric crap about welfare being bad or necessary, but a real look at what we should/shouldn't provide. i think most people agree that job retraining is a valuable gov't service, that short-term support makes sense, and that longterm leachers need to be x'ed out of the system. how best to do all that is tough of course. but ideologically it's a non-issue that folks agree on. yet it still gets conservatives huge points so they talk it up. w/a majority in the house, senate and presidency why haven't the republicans reformed welfare any if they had ideas on how it could run better. moot.

 

My point is that democrats legislate morality just like republicans do.

meh, not really.

 

I haven't heard a democrat who supports a minimum wage hike not make it a morality issue or call it "the right thing to do" which implies morality. So whether you're forcing that belief on me or forcing me to not play poker online, you're interfering in my life.

yes, but the ONLY real arguments against online poker are nanny-state ones. minimum wage and funding choices might be framed in terms of morality, but they're really questions about how to best run our economy.

 

 

Thats my point, republicans used to favor limited government (not anymore), democrats have never favored limited government. I just don't want the government interfering in my life. Example, I hate being around smokers. Our city is now trying to pass a smoking ban in all restaurants and bars...I'm against the ban because I don't think that should be the government's role.

i'm in the same boat. hate smoke, but hate smoking bans.

And as far as your friend who lost her job after 26 years, we all can come up with examples of one or two people who are negatively/positively affected by something that produces the opposite effect for the majority of people. Those types of comments are definitely counter productive.

an anecodtal example doesn't make an argument i agree, but most people are so stuck on the idea that all welfare is inherently awful i think it's important to use real life examples to show what the system is supposed to be for. and personally to be honest i don't know welfare abusers (altho i'm sure there are some.) her and a couple college buddies that got married/pregant before they graduated are the only ones i've known ever on assistance. but again, if republicans had a better system in mind they would have instituted it.

[jeffuconn 0]

This was bound to happen ... the whole Poker "boom" was absurd.

 

First off, they let that fat fock Chris Moneymaker win that tourney ... thereby insuring that the "everyman" fratboy doofus would think they could do the same.

 

Next, they had that other fat fock Raymer win, thereby insuring that every fat, balding, miserable middle aged numb nuts with a few extra scheckels to spare would try to follow suit.

 

All of you who tossed money at this "craze" were played BIG TIME. You bought into the hype/promise, and came on these boards (and countless others) crabbing about your "bad beats", etc. SHUTUP!!

 

You slew your own golden goose, and those folks behind the marketing of this craze all saw the dollar signs painted on your size 44 bellies. Pathetic.

 

You ruined the whole "offshore" experience for others .... those of us who used those books for horses or football/baseball, etc. are now screwed, because you HONESTLY thought you could take juniors college fund and make like Raymer or Moneymaker. You focking fools.

 

Now, go back to your basements with the other losers, and throw your chips at each other.

 

PT Barnum was so right, there IS a sucker born every minute.

 

 

I agree with your opinion. The more money that the US was not capturing by being able to tax this new market infuriated the US governement. They should just open up gambling online and have it government regulated. Instead of what is going to happen is more and more offshore gambling companies are going to find ways to work around our laws eventually and the gambling will not stop.

 

Man I love playing poker but it is friggin pointless playing for nothing so I enjoyed the occasional $.50/$1 game on the online poker sites. And like fantasy football it is a game of skill to a certain degree not gambling.

[Eriadoc 4]

Go ahead all you "winners", blast me and tell me how much you won last week, month, or year. We both know you are full of it.

 

It's not hard at all to play long-term winning poker, if you have discipline. I don't play big stakes at all. I'm up about $2800 so far this year and about $7000 over the past three years. That's not much money, so it's not like I'm claiming to be some poker guru or anything. Calling people full of ###### for winning consisently is pretty out of place, when it's not that hard to win long-term.

[skins56 0]

but when it comes to welfare that is the real debate. not some rhetoric crap about welfare being bad or necessary, but a real look at what we should/shouldn't provide. i think most people agree that job retraining is a valuable gov't service, that short-term support makes sense, and that longterm leachers need to be x'ed out of the system. how best to do all that is tough of course. but ideologically it's a non-issue that folks agree on. yet it still gets conservatives huge points so they talk it up. w/a majority in the house, senate and presidency why haven't the republicans reformed welfare any if they had ideas on how it could run better. moot.

meh, not really.

 

 

yes, but the ONLY real arguments against online poker are nanny-state ones. minimum wage and funding choices might be framed in terms of morality, but they're really questions about how to best run our economy.

i'm in the same boat. hate smoke, but hate smoking bans.

 

an anecodtal example doesn't make an argument i agree, but most people are so stuck on the idea that all welfare is inherently awful i think it's important to use real life examples to show what the system is supposed to be for. and personally to be honest i don't know welfare abusers (altho i'm sure there are some.) her and a couple college buddies that got married/pregant before they graduated are the only ones i've known ever on assistance. but again, if republicans had a better system in mind they would have instituted it.

 

I don't think we're disagreeing on a lot except that I think you're talking semantics when you say that raising taxes on the wealthy, raising minimum wage, and welfare in general aren't moral issues. No matter what you say you have to admit that liberal politicians use them in that way. Its not unlike today's republicans using gay marriage to get votes but saying its morally the right thing to do. If you can't accept that then we have nothing to debate.

 

I teach in an alternative school for former high school dropouts. The abuse of social programs is very evident every day and its pretty disgusting. Trust me on that one.

 

"but again, if republicans had a better system in mind they would have instituted it." Come on man, I can tell you have a better understanding of our political system than to believe this. I'm sure just about every person on Capitol Hill has an idea that would improve our welfare system...getting it passed is a whole other issue. One of the draw backs of a representative democracy...tough to get anything done.

 

 

 

 

Man I love playing poker but it is friggin pointless playing for nothing so I enjoyed the occasional $.50/$1 game on the online poker sites. And like fantasy football it is a game of skill to a certain degree not gambling.

 

I think thats a perfect comparison between poker and fantasy football...I think the luck/skill factors are very similar...especially when you look at results over longer periods of time.

 

It's not hard at all to play long-term winning poker, if you have discipline. I don't play big stakes at all. I'm up about $2800 so far this year and about $7000 over the past three years. That's not much money, so it's not like I'm claiming to be some poker guru or anything. Calling people full of ###### for winning consisently is pretty out of place, when it's not that hard to win long-term.

 

I agree with you man...I started playing consistently in March of this year online, I only play $10 and $20 games because I'm a teacher first of all and because I do it for fun. Since March, I made about $1500...not a lot of money but its money I didn't have before and I have/had fun doing it. It didn't take time from me being productive or spending time with my family, it just took the time that I used to spend on video games.

[tampa_fan_01 0]

Dr. J - where are you playing? And is PayPal obeying this new law as of now?

 

I liked playing online. Ive loved playing cards, and it was an easy way to make a few bucks. Sure, here and there I struck out, but never high stakes. Lets just put it this way- to supplement my income, I'd deopsit $50 every two weeks to party poker. I'd buy out at $150 without fail, and whatever was left I could just play with. If I lost, I'd wait till my next check and put in $50. And if I lose my inital $50, then I cant play for two weeks. Simple rules that I followed, and I made alot more money last year to keep my electricity on than if I would have had without internet gambling.

 

I cant get to Vegas or some riverboat in the middle of TEXAS. I'm not saying everyone should pay for money online, I dont suggest it to anyone. But for people who do, its a good way to do it without having to go out once a year and blow alot of money on a hotel in Vegas.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

I think of sports betting as investing your money. In most cases a person has more control over betting sports than online stock investing. It's hard to be privy to information that the majority holders have. Online stock investing, you are crossing your fingers that the majority holders don't sell a major portion to cut the stock price dramatically.

 

I do keep track of where I am on the balance sheet each year. Wish I was doing better this year after losing in college football, NFL, and a very long baseball season. I'm fortunate to have been playing with profits after the superbowl in 2006, so I still am not in the red this year. Last year was better(2005). If I was losing money, I'd quit.

 

 

I agree with the posters that said sports betting or gambling in general is no different than the risky plays during the .com era. But the public perception is that if it's labelled "Gambling", then it must be bad. However, stock "investing" is given a postive connotation because of the label.

 

I don't agree with the posters that think taxing gaming industries will balance the federal budget. I personally feel elements of government are corrupt and we, "the public", don't know where all the money is spent, nor will we ever. The budget is not intended to balanced.

 

September 10, 01, this news came out...

 

More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

 

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

[DrJ 0]

Dr. J - where are you playing? And is PayPal obeying this new law as of now?

 

I play at Ultimatebet.com. They don't take Paypal transactions, so I don't know. I guarantee there will be some way that you can transfer funds when all of the sites are obeying the law though.

 

September 10, 01, this news came out...

 

More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

 

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

 

Can't account for, or won't account for?

 

When they spend $2 billion researching top secret weapons, I would imagine they don't put that on the books under "Top Secret Weapons Development".

[AnaheimRams 28]

an anecodtal example doesn't make an argument i agree, but most people are so stuck on the idea that all welfare is inherently awful i think it's important to use real life examples to show what the system is supposed to be for. and personally to be honest i don't know welfare abusers (altho i'm sure there are some.) her and a couple college buddies that got married/pregant before they graduated are the only ones i've known ever on assistance. but again, if republicans had a better system in mind they would have instituted it.

 

Just wanted to clarify here... unemployment is NOT Welfare nor is it "government assistance". Unemployment is an insurance program that you pay into (through your employer) every day. Well... not every day... but you get the idea.

 

Same thing with Worker's Comp... it's insurance.

 

I'm self employed, and I don't pay unemployment or workers comp insurance on myself. If I get hurt working or lose my business... I'd get a big "Fock You" from the State if I applied for either. As it should be.

 

However... if that did happen, I could easily get welfare and food stamps... indefintely... which is NOT as it should be.

[ROCKET 0]

Just wanted to clarify here... unemployment is NOT Welfare nor is it "government assistance". Unemployment is an insurance program that you pay into (through your employer) every day. Well... not every day... but you get the idea.

 

Same thing with Worker's Comp... it's insurance.

 

I'm self employed, and I don't pay unemployment or workers comp insurance on myself. If I get hurt working or lose my business... I'd get a big "Fock You" from the State if I applied for either. As it should be.

 

However... if that did happen, I could easily get welfare and food stamps... indefintely... which is NOT as it should be.

 

Self-employed here too and do the same thing as you. The one part you left out about being self-employed is we have the option of covering ourselves with WC and unemployment insurance. We choose not to in order to save $$ and feel the risk of not having it is minimal. We could be covered if we wanted to be.