Reply With Quote
Internet gaming ban?
I am sorry, I have been out of town so I do not know if this has been covered in this forum or not...but what the ?!?!?!
Yep, the Republicans, champions of smaller government and capitalism.
Jackasses.
Internet gaming ban?
It is relatively old news, but I have been out of town so could not voice my frustration.
Apparantly national defense is contingent on eliminating internet gambling.
the ed up part is, it was included on a bill about port security!
The current Republican leadership won't rest until they can dictate morality in this country, so its no surprise.
Gambling is bad.
It says so in the Bible!
How can something so ignorant as this bill actually be passed without every senator involved losing all support among their cons uents...
Internet gaming = National Security issue...
I give up.
^^Ever heard of money laundering. Just checking
You see, if you gamble on the Internet, you support TERRORISM!
Bas s, all of you.
Moonlight Gambler . . . awesome song!
Luckly for gamblers, the Republicans are as effective at writing rules/regulations as they are at conducting wars. Which means that the proposed legislation will contain so much ambiguity and legal loop-holes that it will actually make it easier to legally partake in a freindly game of cards over the net in the future.
Bank on it.
God damn, I had 2 ing threads on this. Search function baby, search function.
You're just mad because this more reasonably toned thread generated more hits and responses.
Use that search function like I said and let me know how this thread is longer than the other 2 which both have more posts.
I'm off to fume. You guys are funny.
Sorry for causing you such pain Manny! I am not exactly the Spurstalk vet. and expert. I did not know about the search function.
I'm an
It shant happen again.
Ha, another response in the "Reasonable" thread.
No pain, just thought you might want to read about the subject you were interested in.Sorry for causing you such pain Manny! I am not exactly the Spurstalk vet. and expert. I did not know about the search function.
I'm an
It shant happen again.
Indeed. Such an informative read this one.
That works for me, thanks.
Somebody check how Harry Reid voted on this. Bettin he voted FOR the ban. Too much interest in Vegas for this ban for him to be against it, IMO. Just guessing, here.
Vegas was against the ban. You won't be able to see how the Senate voted for the measure because of the procedure they used to pass it. House Votes are available, however.
October 19, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
The G.O.P.’s Bad Bet
By CHARLES MURRAY
Las Vegas
LAST week President Bush signed a law that will try to impede online gambling by prohibiting American banks from transferring money to gambling sites. Most Americans probably didn’t notice or care, but it may do significant political damage to the Republicans this fall and long-term damage to Americans’ respect for the law.
So, a month before a major election, the Republicans have allied themselves with a scattering of voters who are upset by online gambling and have outraged the millions who love it. Furthermore, judging from many hours of online chat with Internet poker players, I am willing to bet (if you’ll pardon the expression) that the outraged millions are disproportionately electricians, insurance agents, police officers, mid-level managers, truck drivers, small-business owners — that is, disproportionately Republicans and Reagan Democrats.
In the short term, this law all by itself could add a few more Democratic Congressional seats in the fall elections. We are talking about a lot of people (an estimated 23 million Americans gamble online) who are angry enough to vote on the basis of this one issue, and they blame Republicans.
In the long term, something more ominous is at work. If a free society is to work, the vast majority of citizens must reflexively obey the law not because they fear punishment, but because they accept that the rule of law makes society possible. That reflexive law-abidingness is reinforced when the laws are limited to core objectives that enjoy consensus support, even though people may disagree on means.
Thus society is weakened every time a law is passed that large numbers of reasonable, responsible citizens think is stupid. Such laws invite good citizens to choose knowingly to break the law, confident that they are doing nothing morally wrong.
The reaction to Prohibition, the 20th century’s stupidest law, is the archetypal case. But the radical expansion of government throughout the last century has created many more.
For example, all employers are confronted with rules and regulations from Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that they regard with contempt — not because they cut into profits, but because they are, simply, stupid. They impede employers yet provide no collateral social benefit. And so employers treat the stupid regulations as obstructions to be fudged or ignored. When they have to comply, they do not see compliance as the right thing to do, but as placating an agency that will hurt them otherwise.
The same thing applies to lesser degrees to all of us who find ourselves doing things that we know are pointless (think of various aspects of tax law) only because we fear attracting a bureaucracy’s attention. For millions of Americans, our day-to-day relationship with government is increasingly like paying protection to the Mafia — keeping it off our backs while we get on with our lives.
The temptation for good citizens to ignore a stupid law is encouraged when it is unenforceable. In this, the attempt to ban Internet gambling is exemplary. One of the four sites where I play poker has blocked United States customers because of the law, but the other three are functioning as usual and are confident that they can continue to do so. They are not in America, and it is absurdly easy to devise ways of transferring money from American bank accounts to ins utions abroad and thence to gambling sites.
And so the federal government once again has acted in a way that will fail to achieve its objective while alienating large numbers of citizens who see themselves as having done nothing wrong. The libertarian part of me is heartened by this, hoping that a new political coalition will start to return government to its proper functions. But the civic-minded part of me is apprehensive. Reflexive loyalty to the rule of law is an indispensable cultural asset. The more honest citizens who take for granted that they are breaking the law, the more their loyalty to the law, and to the government that creates it, is eroded.
Charles Murray is a scholar at the American Enterprise Ins ute.
===================
AEI is obviously pro-business. OSHA is their evil incarnate. He fails to mention that OSHA also protects workers health and lives from amoral corps. Corps can't be entrusted reliably to protect their employees.
Last edited by boutons_; 10-19-2006 at 09:36 PM.
Any online poker players here???
I play NL holdem at Partypoker and it's very quiet around there without all the Americans. It's also harder to win, becuase the Europeans are generally tighter players.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
