Skip to comments.
Congress bans internet gambling
Reuters/Washington Post ^
| 9/30/06
| Peter Kaplan
Posted on 09/30/2006 9:43:50 AM PDT by Alterboy1964
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260, 261-270 next last
To: tacticalogic
I realize that while Congress has abused the commerce clause many times since the 1930s, that doesn't mean that it is abusing the clause again with this piece of legislation.
In fact, the federal government has legitimate reasons for banning internet gambling besides its interest in regulating interstate commerce. The biggest reason would that it would be very easy for internet gaming sites to defraud their customers by using software that would only allow the house to win. A particular customer could gamble repeatedly at a website, always lose, and never realize that no one else ever wins either. And it would be very hard for law enforcement to police these sites, much harder than it would be for them to oversee gambline establishments that exist physically within their jurisdictions.
To: steadfastconservative
On most of these sites you don't play against the house, you play against other players.
Now the house could be some of the other players but there are ways of determining that.
242
posted on
10/02/2006 8:06:17 AM PDT
by
Just another Joe
(Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
To: steadfastconservative
In fact, the federal government has legitimate reasons for banning internet gambling besides its interest in regulating interstate commerce. The biggest reason would that it would be very easy for internet gaming sites to defraud their customers by using software that would only allow the house to win. A particular customer could gamble repeatedly at a website, always lose, and never realize that no one else ever wins either. And it would be very hard for law enforcement to police these sites, much harder than it would be for them to oversee gambline establishments that exist physically within their jurisdictions.Whether they have a reason to want to is a different issue than whether the original intent of the Commerce Clause grants them the authority to do so.
243
posted on
10/02/2006 8:17:29 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: Alterboy1964
I've had a couple of buddies lose a few grand on these Texas Hold'em poker websites. They are really awful. What's awful, the websites or the buddies?
I'd lay long odd that nobody was twisting your buddies' arms.
244
posted on
10/02/2006 8:19:10 AM PDT
by
Oberon
(What does it take to make government shrink?)
To: Alterboy1964
I can't see how any bill that stands between me and my money won't end up being abused.
245
posted on
10/02/2006 8:22:09 AM PDT
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: Semper911
I don't believe they forbade such transactions, they persuaded the CCs, so to speak.
246
posted on
10/02/2006 8:24:05 AM PDT
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: Alterboy1964
Repaying the Abramoff money?
To: Alterboy1964
This isn't about helping people, it's about increasing Casino revenues and taxes.
The same week North Carolina began it's lottery the state legislature banned video poker machines. No need for people to be gabling on anything other than a state run franchise.
To: Old Professer; BritExPatInFla
I don't believe they forbade such transactions, they persuaded the CCs, so to speak. I see that you are replying to my comment at #10. If you read it, you will see that I said just that. Here it is again should you decide to read it:
The precedent was set when they banned the sale of online cigarette sales by forbidding credit card companies from allowing the transaction. (Perhaps forbidding is too strong a word, because the credit card companies agreed to this in exchange for some favor, but I can't remember what that favor was.)
Then at #212, freeper BritExPatInFla, posted that the favor was bankruptcy reform, which is exactly correct.
249
posted on
10/02/2006 12:13:52 PM PDT
by
Semper911
("We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it." -Marge Simpson)
To: linda_22003
You give the politicians waaaaay tooo much credit. They do not know good from bad, right from wrong nor do they care what the people who elected them want. They are there to function on behalf of special interest--no matter if it is a minority.
To: Snoopers-868th
I didn't think I needed to add a "sarcasm" label, but I guess I did.
To: Alterboy1964
I've had a couple of buddies lose a few grand on these Texas Hold'em poker websites. They are really awful. It's about time Congress took a stand against these websites that are preying on the most vulnerable members of our society. So are your buddies too stupid to engage in SELF RESTRAINT?? What ever happened to personal responsibility?
252
posted on
10/02/2006 12:53:19 PM PDT
by
Tatze
(This tagline is brought to you by the Admin Moderator!)
To: Alterboy1964
So you support yet another intrusion into the lives of Americans? We're not talking about murdering a baby here. We're talking about TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO SPEND THEIR MONEY. I'm sorry, I'm not a gambler, but I don't support this legislation.
253
posted on
10/02/2006 1:14:51 PM PDT
by
RockinRight
(She rocks my world, and I rock her world.)
To: Alterboy1964
But perhaps some sort of restriction on the amount an individual could buy in a given week or month.And how pray tell would that be inforced?? More government watchdog programs? Maybe they should make sure we buy enough veggies too.
254
posted on
10/02/2006 1:17:05 PM PDT
by
Millee
(A joke then, a joke N.O.W.)
To: Just another Joe
Are you saying the odds are worse or better live? Just curious as I'm not an online gambler.
255
posted on
10/02/2006 1:17:25 PM PDT
by
RockinRight
(She rocks my world, and I rock her world.)
To: Millee
All they have to do is relocate to another country. Congress can't stop that!
256
posted on
10/02/2006 1:23:17 PM PDT
by
Tatze
(This tagline is brought to you by the Admin Moderator!)
To: RockinRight
When its for real money, I would say they odds are the same. In poker you lose the ability to notice "tells" or stare somebody down, but everybody has the same disadvantage.
And its going to be more real, I think, than the play money games, where there is no incentive to not lose. Which is why there are so many "All-In A$$h*l3s" (I call them that because they do that every hand, just to go get more play money after each hand).
257
posted on
10/02/2006 1:36:18 PM PDT
by
Tatze
(This tagline is brought to you by the Admin Moderator!)
To: Semper911
The precedent was set when they banned the sale of online cigarette sales by forbidding credit card companies from allowing the transaction. (Perhaps forbidding is too strong a word, because the credit card companies agreed to this in exchange for some favor, but I can't remember what that favor was.)
The favors were the new, recent restrictive laws passed on bankruptcy.
258
posted on
10/02/2006 1:42:21 PM PDT
by
Centurion2000
("Be polite and courteous, but have a plan to KILL everybody you meet.")
To: RockinRight
If you're a beginner the odds are better online.
You'll hit a lot more "miracle" hands online.
259
posted on
10/02/2006 2:35:11 PM PDT
by
Just another Joe
(Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
To: Semper911
Sorry; I have a bad case of foot in front of brain disease. :)
260
posted on
10/02/2006 4:55:46 PM PDT
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260, 261-270 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson