Reply With Quote
OK...I downloaded Full Tilt and tried sending them some cash, but my debit card was denied. Now what?
So if someone had never been to an online poker site, but suddenly found him or herself compelled to give it a try, what would one expect at, say, Full Tilt's site?
Hypothetically speaking, of course...
OK...I downloaded Full Tilt and tried sending them some cash, but my debit card was denied. Now what?
So Las Vegas was not concerned that gamblers were playing at home, spending their money overseas rather than unloading cash in their city, casinos and strip clubs.
That's just plain common sense.
Politicians understand the art of spin, say something but do something else. The cool thing is I don't listen to them because they are full of . All of them.
Dude, if gambling is so successful and creates so much revenue for cities like Vegas and Shreveport, then why don't all states do it?
Because of Vegas.
Send them some type of money order, cashier's check or something and wait 4-5 days, then play.
Cards aren't going to work.
That's like saying people stop going to Football games if they're televised.
I didn't figure they would, but the site made it seem like "no problem! we still take debit cards!"
Sequ, per usual is wrong. Cards may work, but you may have to set up an ewallet service if your card doesn't work. These are services like Paypal where they deduct from your banking account then you can transfer the money to the site.
You can also do an echeck with both PokerStars and FullTilt. You should probably go with Stars as opposed to Full Tilt ASF. They have 1 dollar tournaments and the like so you don't have to in vest much money.
Manny is the only mofo on earth that knows whats up. I forgot.
If you can wait a few days, just send them some type of money order or something. or you can listen to Manny and have some type of gambling track record on your bank account and be a suspect later on in life.
Yeah, because a money order absolutley CANNOT be tracked.
Like all "morality" laws, they are not so much designed to stop the behavior as to make it difficult and shut up the ing Puritans.
I'm far from the only one unless you're only talking about between the 2 of us. Between the 2 of us, I am the only one who knows whats going on.
Gambling track record? LOL, they take your name at the site and verify all the information. These sites aren't some back alley bookie, they're entirely regulated and legit. You have "records" simply by signing up. Not that it matters.
Well, both of my Poker sites have announced that they will restrict US users. Since I have limited options on a Mac I'm pretty much done.
I wonder if these sites are jumping the gun in order to rally players to make their voices heard at the polls on Nov. 7?
Spurm, Full Tilt has a full Mac client out.
o rly...
I'll check it out. Thanks.
Hi guys...I need your help. I've decided to write my law paper on this internet gambling ban. Basically, I'm supposed to take a legal controversey and analyze it "objectively"...so I can't really take a side. However, I'd like to understand the views from those who feel strongly against this ban (i.e. Manny, Spurminator, etc) and those who don't. I'm supposed to write about the opposition between the moral principles and the legal requirements of this proposed law.
So basically, what do you guys think may be the moral implications of this internet gambling ban becoming effective or of the current way internet gambling is regulated? I know someone else mentioned earlier that they think it's good because this way children won't be able to get on and gambling online so it regulates it in that sense. However, not sure how many youngsters have credit cards anyways to begin with...
Thanks in advance for your help guys! I'll make sure to quote ya'll in my paper as "Some male respondents feel..."
P.S If you guys give me some really good quality stuff to use in my paper...there may just be an authentic Philly cheesesteak or Soft Pretzel coming your way in the mail
From my perspective, the legislation is poor based on many different reasons:
1) I do not believe in government legislated morality.
2) Futility
3) Manner in which the legislation passed.
4) Government hypocrisy
In regards to my first qualm with it, I don't agree with government legislated morality in any form. I do not like legislation regarding alcohol consumption, pornography, drug use, or censorship because it is the act of using the government to impose the moral views of one segment of society on another. If the religious right in this country does not believe gambling is right, then by all means they should feel free to abstain from the practice but they have no right to stop consenting adults from deciding for themselves how they want to spend their time and money.
Secondly, the law is largely unenforceable. No one believes this will stop internet gambling in the least. While it has pushed out some of the larger and better regulated sites, there are still plenty of sites available. Many have declared their intentions to stay in the market. Also, the banking industry has already declared that they have very little ability to stop transactions in the way that politicians desire and the law itself states that the banks will not be required to do very much. Unenforceable laws merely keep the market in a gray semi legal area.
The legislation itself was nothing more than a political move. When you look at the people passing it, the proximity to an election, the unenforceable nature and the carve outs for horse racing and state run lotteries, its nothing but a hypocritical attempt to pander to the religious right in an effort to get them out to the polls next Tuesday. Its crap. The legislation will not help anyone with a gambling addiction but it will stop adults from engaging in an entertaining activity the government has no right to keep them from partaking in.
Interesting...where did you read that the proposed gambling ban had to do with opposition from religious activists?
What I don't understand is what exactly is their reasoning behind this proposed gambling ban? To keep children from gambling online since it can't really be regulated? To keep religious people happy who think that gambling is wrong? I understand that the true reasoning behind the government is probably because they aren't able to profit from the taxes on the winnings that people make. And so if they can't make any money off it, then they probably think no one else should either, hence the ban. But, I'm sure that's not how they put their reasoning...
P.S. Manny, your PM's are full....
Las Vegas.
The religious right is adamantly against gambling activities such as this. The congressmen (Frist and Leech specifically) passed the legislation largely because it is an issue that motivates those specific voters to get out and vote (similar to the way they use the issue of gay marriage). Also Frist has presidential asperations and passing this legislation is a good way to secure support from that segment for a presidential run in the form of money (campaign donations) and votes.
Your home=free. All the time.
Vegas=cash. Once in a while.
Exactly. It ain't the religious politicians that are stopping gambling on the internet.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
