Posted on 09/30/2006 9:43:50 AM PDT by Alterboy1964
I have a second job playing online poker. It was created by internet poker rooms worldwide (except in the US). I win on average $4-5 an hour...You think I might find a way around this?
no idea...
This is a JOKE !!! I can't believe my party passed this !!!!
freakin bluenose idiots.
Thanks for the link. No, I'm not defending internet gambling, and I'm certainly not defending Congress!
That sounds like an admission that this probably isn't going to do squat to stop the people who are using it as a money laundering channel. If they're having to launder money, they're most likely already criminals. The only involvement the otherwise law abiding participants have in that criminal activity is that they're being used as cover. It doesn't seem like we're getting much return on what the could be a very costly proposition, both directly and in terms of unintended consequences.
I can't wait to see what happens when we get around to the First Commandment.
I guess you're just going to have to make up your mind...
Are you dumb going on "dumberer"?
...or are you a self-proclaimed genius playing petty games to try and convince someone of how smart you are?
I'm sincerely glad you're laughing.
No, I'm not super smart. But since you've got my dumb/dumberer level figured out, then surely you know what my angle was on the guessing game. (And it wasn't a floating number that would change depending on the guess; it was a single pre-selected number.)
Come on, you're a smart person. You can figure it out. Unless you'd prefer to flame and name-call instead. What's the point in that. It only hurts you.
Oh, and because of you, the game is over. I've already FReepmailed someone else on this thread with the correct answer, and the explanation.
You buzzkill you.
LOL.
You are so misguided.
Albert J. Nock argues in his essay, "On Doing the Right Thing," that the moral development of the individual is stunted every time the State extends its activity into new areas because the area available for the unhindered and free exercise of the human moral faculties is thus reduced.
In fact, he argues, in moral philosophy there is a fundamental assumption that individuals are responsible for their actions. It makes no sense to say that an individual should or should not do something on moral grounds (e.g. place a bet on a football game) if that individual cannot freely choose between different courses of action (if betting is illegal). Nock argues that literally there can be no such thing as morality unless one has the freedom to choose between alternatives, without external sources of coercion.
They themselves may not be "Socialist" but what they're doing certainly is.
A little ignorance is dangerous, a lot lethal.
Follow?
"I don't think so."
You're being redundant, we know what you think.
"I truly believe that all those men, and President Bush, are in power today only through the will of God."
You do, huh.
Well I know they're in power today because "conservatives" poured-out in droves & voted for them.
More & more of those "conservatives" are beginning to question what they've done when they see crap legislation like this, also.
That's a fact.
"And if Frist, Hastert, Kyl, Leach etc are in powr by the will of God, how can they stand idly by and allow sinful and destructive behaviours to be committed on a widescale level."
You're not an American citizen.
Cat's out of the bag.
"There is also good reason to limit gambling on the moral grounds I discussed in my previous post. I think there is good reason to restrict others things too such as homosexual marraige, pornography, excessive drinking and deviant sexual practices...As I explained earlier while some may argue that what people do in the privacy of their own homes is not directly harmful to others, it destroys the moral pricipals of a society and therefore is just as dangerous if these individuals would go out and commit violent crimes...It is truly sad that our country has come to a point where the need exists to pass legislation against these types of behaviors and that people would not refrain from this type of stuff on their own. But sadly that is not the case...We can thank the Republican leadership for standing up for morailty and not caving into the popular will of the masses."
What're you really here to do, bucko.
You're no conservative, "neocon", "paleocon" or otherwise.
...gig's up, pal. ;^)
http://www.online-casinos.com/news/news2971.asp
update.
U.S. LAW AGAINST ONLINE GAMBLING CONDEMNED (Update)
"This last minute deal reeks of political gamesmanship" says PPA, but the horseracing business is delighted with its carve out.
Saturday's news that political sleight-of-hand had managed to push through an anti-online gambling measure attached to an unrelated Port Security bill (H.R. 4954) elicited furious reactions over the weekend in both the media and on message boards.
Most posters deplored what was seen as the "stealth" introduction of the measure by Republican Senator Bill Frist, who pulled political strings to attach a compromise version of a stalled anti-online gambling proposal to an essential port security act, which went through after a late night session of Congress. There was also concern and anger that the wishes of millions of American online players had apparently been brushed aside.
"The American people should be outraged that Congress has hi-jacked a vital security bill with a poker prohibition that nearly three fourths of the country opposes," said Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance, a grassroots advocacy organisation of more than 110,000 poker enthusiasts.
"Allowing this bill to become law would run contrary to public opinion and would damage an already fractured relationship between government and the electorate. The millions of Americans who enjoy playing this great game will have the last voice in this debate come Election Day."
Bolcerek pointed to research which shows that 74 percent of Americans oppose federal attempts to ban Internet poker.
"Congress has an opportunity to regulate and tax online poker leading to potentially billions of dollars in annual revenue for the federal government and the states," said Bolcerek. "If the goal of Congress is to protect people from the possible dangers of gambling, a prohibition is the worst way of achieving it. All it will do is push poker underground, essentially creating online speakeasies, which will provide no protection for youths, no services for the problem gambler and leave only the most unscrupulous operators in the game"
Most players and industry observers were taking a "wait-and-see" position before assessing the true impact of the legislation, which mainly seeks to hamper and disrupt the financial channels through which US players fund their online gambling entertainment at offshore venues not subject to US law.
The bill falls short of clarifying whether the 1961 Wire Act applies to casino and poker gambling online because it was dropped from Frist's compromise attachment. This is being viewed as a small victory for the online gambling community as it is thought unlikely such revisions will be added in the future.
In fact, Frist as the main architect of the stealth ban admitted: "Although we can’t monitor every online gambler or regulate offshore gambling, we can police the financial institutions that disregard our laws.” There are strong reservations within the US banking sector as to whether this can be done effectively, however.
The horseracing industry was clearly pleased that its carve-outs were intact and praised the move, particularly noting that any 'harmful elements' in future 'rule-making' would be prevented . The Frist measure contains language that recognises the horse racing industry's right to offer account wagering under the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 - an important historical carve-out together with state lotteries.
"This is a very significant landmark recognition by the [United States] government of our industry's legal right to conduct wagering under the IHA and of our industry's important position as an agribusiness that supports 500,000 jobs," said Greg Avioli, chief executive officer of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association and Breeders' Cup Ltd. "The bill also includes language that will prevent the addition of harmful elements in any rulemaking required by the bill. This language was crucial for our industry."
Other provisions are still being debated, for instance whether the law can be used to control American ISPs, or whether affiliates and other entities providing gambling information might be vulnerable if based on US soil or carried out by American citizens.
The reaction to any final US regulations that might be developed in the 270 day implementation planning period could be serious. Legal advisers for one major online payment processor have already indicated to the portal Gambling911.com that they plan on joining in on any pending litigation that might materialise as a result of this bill. A third party risk meeting is slated this coming Thursday in London, the portal claims.
One of the best assessments was posted at The RX message board after a detailed but lay study of the legislation. The conclusions were that:
continued...
I've been watching the contract on this bill passing and, after Saturday morning, it seemed a done deal. But I've noticed today that several large ASK orders have been placed in the upper 80's and 90's. This seems very suspicious to me since I would expect the price to be well into the upper 90's given that the bill only needs Bush's approval, and Bush has NEVER in his 6 years failed to sign any bill sent to him by Congress.
But since the ASK orders are relatively large (several hundred lots each), this must be "sharp" money.
Methinks something is afoot.
This is interesting.
Regulate could mean banning.
The problem, of course as you already know, is that there is no way that states can effectively regulate internet commerce.
Freedom is what conservatism is about but freedom is not the same thing as license. Moreover, the purpose of law is to impose morality.
The fact that some internet commerce could be intrastate does not mean that the federal government has no authority to regulate it since clearly much internet commerce is interstate and some of it is international. Again, the states do not have the ability to effectively police internet commerce, which is why gambling proponents like you keep coming up with this red herring argument.
I'm not a "gambling proponent", I'm an "original intent" proponent. I've never set foot in a casino or placed and online bet in my life. I just happen to agree with Clarence Thomas on the subject of the New Deal Commerce Clause and the "substantial effects" doctrine.
The problem is, this isn't really about interestate commerce, or even tax issues - it's about people competing with state-sponsored gambling (ala the lotteries), or gambling companies/groups that lobby hard to reduce their competition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.