Posted on 03/15/2007 1:04:39 PM PDT by kms61
The Financial Times online edition (subscription required for full article) has noted from an interview that Barney Frank, the democratic House Financial Services Committee chairman, is working on legislation to repeal the ban on online gambling in the US that was passed last year. "Working on" is hard to define without more information
It is not clear at all if this is a "total repeal" or just a loosening of the laws. It is also a question as to whether or not this legislation could even make it to the White House through Congressional votes, and it is unclear of this would be for 2008 and beyond or if it was sooner. But either way, you have to look no further than Cryptologic (CRYP) to see how this could impact other stocks in the sector (they make online gaming software) if there is any truth to this. CRYP has even managed to defy a weak market if you look at the shares.
In Australia, companies like Betcorp and Lasseters Corp were hit hard last year because of the ban. In the UK, companies like PartyGaming Plc and 888 Holdings were also hit in 2006 over such issues. Gigamedia (GIGM) and American Wagering (BETM) were also noted in a story late yesterday along with pari-mutuel horseracing company Youbet.com (UBET). We have all missed the PartyPoker commercials as well.
Once again, take heed that "an interview" and "legislation" can be taken way out of context and there is always the possibility that this could be dead before it even gets started. My own call in so far has partially confirmed this, but with no details yet known. Many of the European online gaming stocks also made some rather large moves last week because of some loosening of regulations in the EU. There is not even assurance that it will make it to the form of a bill, so if you take any of this as "gospel" or as "fact" then the point has not been stressed enough that there may be no follow-through in reality.
I did put in a phone call to Congressman Frank's office and was told that this is true, but I have not been able to get the details from the Financial Services Committee as of yet. I am awaiting a call back to give more details.
Jon C. Ogg March 14, 2007
Jon Ogg can be reached at jonogg@247wallst.com; he does not own securities in the companies he covers.
I bet he's for Newt.
Off-topic, but where does Thompson stand on spending? I was leaning toward Hunter, but after I saw that he was pro-pork, I reconsidered. Rudy is a gun-grabber, and McCain is a joke. Ugh.
Ja, Mein Fuhrer!!!!
SEIG HEIL!!!!!
Uncle adolph sure woulda loved your attitude.
Immoral scum, indeed.
And all hell was breaking loose. Don't you remember?
No...
Oh yeah, man. Fire, brimstone, dogs and cats living together. Real Biblical stuff.
You're assuming that there is a difference. Democrats believe that abortion and welfare are right for government to impose on us. BMIC seems to believe that it's right for the government to impose his will on us as well.
You have no valid argument.
Paul
Just read the above. The existing laws hurt .... who? Oh, by all means, let's repeal those laws so these companies can go back to making their billions.
You need to think -- if the companies are making billions, where do they get that money? Right. Which means the odds are you're going to lose.
This then places a burden on the rest of us to take care of your dumb a$$ -- which is unfair in that, had you WON, you wouldn't have shared it with the rest of us.
We've got enough trouble with people embezzling to pay for their gambling addictions as it is. Legalize online gambling and all heck's gonna break loose.
That's none of your business!!
Man I wish "conservatives" (who sound more and more like the socialist democrats banning guns and free speech/political adds) would keep thier damn noses out of everyone's business and take care of themselves. We adults don't need you, we don't need your hypocritical morality and we don't need your nanny state, fascist, moral busybody legislation.
Embezzlement is illegal, punish that. People have been losing thier shirts to gambling for centuries before there was internet gambling, in fact I have 2 close family members who lost thier homes, jobs and retirements due to a gambling addiction, they didn't participate in any online gaming. Bookies and casinos.
Women embezzle all the time to cover a shopping addiction, are you going to stick your nose into this matter and try to ban excessive shopping? How about racking up huge credit card debts? You want to restrict how people use credit via govt. force?
Do you oppose state lotteries? What about the stock market?
This then places a burden on the rest of us to take care of your dumb a$$ -- which is unfair in that, had you WON, you wouldn't have shared it with the rest of us.
Maybe it's early in the morning, but that argument sounds borderline socialist.
The reason for this law is that there are large numbers of people who do not have the basic moral "fiber" to stick to working hard and making an honest living, who get lured into games of chance, and the result has been countless ruined lives. We who DO have such moral fiber are sick and tired of paying for the damage your kind cause to yourselves, your families, and our society as a whole.
You sound like an SS Trooper jonesing to turn on the Chemical "showers" in a death camp to "purge our ranks" of the morally inferior. It is both disturbing and disgusting, but not surprising. Jesus had men like you pegged, HE said you are whitewashed tombs, clean on the outside but full of death on the inside.
You are as close-minded as they get.
The mindset this man has is the same mindset that crucified Jesus. I would bet dollars to donuts that if THE LORD showed up today this guy would denounce HIM if he didn't join a Morality PAC.
He doesn't understand the nature of GOD and he doesn't understand his own nature. GOD gave us total and complete freedom and HE will also hold us personally accountable for our actions, and allow us to live with the consequenses. If GOD sees fit to not limit our freedom who is he to imply GOD made a mistake? This is a cursed world and each person in thier hearts are completely depraved and capable of the most horrible evil. The only thing that seperates this guy from people like Stalin or Mao or Hitler or Osama Bin Laden is opportunity.
If he had the opportunity to "purge" with a gun knowing he wouldn't be caught, he'd do it.
Not if they did what was promised -- use the profits for schools thereby lowering my taxes. I figured it was a good way to get people to contribute to education who normally didn't pay taxes. In other words, a good cause (like church bingo).
But that didn't happen (of course it didn't happen) so I'm in favor of scrapping the whole shebang.
"What about the stock market?"
The stock market is fine. It's the speculators I have a problem with -- they contribute nothing, they accomplish nothing, they do nothing. They're scumbag parasites who take advantage of the legitimate investors. Line 'em up and shoot 'em for all I care.
"Maybe it's early in the morning, but that argument sounds borderline socialist."
No, what we HAVE is socialism. My way gets some money back.
the party has turned its back on Social Conservatives / the religious right.
Yeah, the page bonin', man whore massaging, meth buying religious right. Yep, that group is certainly giving the GOP a lot of clout when it comes to moral issues. How about you fulfill the Great Commission first, then come play politics.
How many folks have you brought to Christ in the last year with this attitude? I'm curious.
Then let Him take care of the losers.
As it is, it comes out of my pocket. And the Gospel according to robertpaulsen is: "Those with the Gold Make the Rules".
You need to think -- if the companies are making billions, where do they get that money? Right. Which means the odds are you're going to lose.
Do you oppose state lotteries? What about the stock market?
This then places a burden on the rest of us to take care of your dumb a$$ -- which is unfair in that, had you WON, you wouldn't have shared it with the rest of us.
Maybe it's early in the morning, but that argument sounds borderline socialist.
No it's elitist. If he were to invest all of his money and savings into a his dream business and it goes totally bust, well then the rest of us have to come and bail him out which is unfair, had he succeeded, he wouldn't have shared the profits with the rest of us.
I'm beg your pardon, you were right is socialist.
As it is, it comes out of my pocket.
Really, so exactly how much money did you lose in '06 to cover the mistakes of druggies or gamblers or "losers" of another variety?
Then let Him take care of the losers.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, so get your nose out of people's business and quit pushing this responsibility on the govt. Haven't you figured out yet that every nannystate law comes with bigger more expensive government. You spend more money to restrict people from possibly doing something you imagine is costing you money.
If you would be intelligent enough to look past the dopehead stereotype plastered on Libertarians you'd see that much of that philosophy would give you what you want AND allow people to be free. No govt. welfare and no big govt. agencies to restrict people's moral misbehavior. No welfar and smaller govt. means lower taxes AND more local control.
You could go live in a town that restricts this stuff with all of the others who believe the same and Joe could go live in a town that doesn't restrict these things and each can pay for his own.
What is wrong with that?
"Nope not freedom to engage in self and family-destructive, essentially antisocial behavior. We really need to purge our ranks of the libertarian dope-fiends, drunks, and gambling addicts. You're all just immoral scum and a huge drain on the morally upright, productive members of our society."
Who gave you more credence than the Holy Spirit that individually guides each person? Why would you want to deprive other human beings from the rewards of heavenly life by using their free will in the manner that God wills? What value is a Godly life if that life is forced with government guns? How can a choice that is made while staring down the barrell of a gun be considered a free choice, resulting in an earned reward?
I'm amazed at the Righteous Right when they openly state tht they would like to deprive me of the use of the gift God bestowed upon me, my free will, therefore taking away any value of the reward that follows.
It is an open admission that they are so arrogant that they think they know better than God. They think that God made an error in giving man a free will.
"We who DO have such moral fiber are sick and tired of paying for the damage your kind cause to yourselves, your families, and our society as a whole."
Ah, the socialism isn't working so we better try fascism argument. My favorite, and I somehow knew it was coming.
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.