| Author |
Message |
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 2:27pm Post subject: Discuss: Online Gambling Prohibition News |
|
|
But who will mod the mods?!
Joined: 04 Dec 2003
Posts: 4989
WPP: 105
Location: Comic-Con
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 2:40pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 809
WPP: 72
Location: wisconsin
|
|
Heres some quotes from Sen. Frist, the person who wants to be President in 2008:
Before the voting, Frist claimed: “Gambling is a serious addiction that undermines the family, dashes dreams, and frays the fabric of society. Congress has grappled with this issue for 10 years, and during that time we’ve watched this shadow industry explode.
“For me as majority leader, the bottom line is simple: Internet gambling is illegal. Although we can’t monitor every online gambler or regulate offshore gambling, we can police the financial institutions that disregard our laws.”
edit: By the way, this really sucks, and I think the bill really has some teeth. I'm a nit and am being cautious about playing/withdraw/deposit after the bill is signed into law. However, it will be interesting to see what the big companies (neteller, party, PokerStars) come out with on Monday.
Im also wondering what this does as far as claiming internet poker for taxes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 2:50pm Post subject: |
|
|
High Card
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 6
WPP: 325
Location: California-Arizona
|
|
that quote is obscene. It just shows how hypocritcal these douchbags are for craving out horse-race betting and even putting out those sorry ass scratcher lotto tickets, which have broken more people than playing some cards.
And if George W's reign of stupidity is followed up by this douchebag sneaking his way into Pres. in 2008, i'll be heading north or south of the border quick. Hell, even Red China is looking better than this shit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 3:41pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 1461
WPP: 122
Location: wearing the honors of honor and whatnot
|
|
the big companies all going to have statements monday, woopdee fricken do
too little too late |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 4:53pm Post subject: |
|
|
Flush
Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Posts: 575
WPP: 712
Location: Chi-town
|
|
| yah, seriously, if we elect another idjit, Im seriously making plans on living somewhere else. This country is starting to make me sick. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 4:56pm Post subject: |
|
|
Flush
Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 476
WPP: 121
|
|
The problem is not the President.
Congress / Senate = the problem |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 5:06pm Post subject: |
|
|
Straight Flush
Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Posts: 5405
WPP: 59
|
|
| boostNslide wrote: | | yah, seriously, if we elect another idjit, Im seriously making plans on living somewhere else. This country is starting to make me sick. |
100 senators
44 democrats
the bill that the gambling thing was attached to passed 90 -10 last i heard.
assuming that all 10 nays were democrats that still leaves 34 idjits.
i hope u dont vote democrat either boost. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 5:09pm Post subject: |
|
|
HABITUAL LINE-STEPPER
Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 4992
WPP: 73
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
|
|
there are compelling moral reasons to want gambling banned
Where the problem lies is in the hypocrisy, not in the desire to ban gambling. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 5:11pm Post subject: |
|
|
Flush
Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Posts: 575
WPP: 712
Location: Chi-town
|
|
| frist was the ring leader, hes trying to make a run for pres in 08, if he gets elected, I dont intend to stay here. What dont you understand? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 5:29pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 809
WPP: 72
Location: wisconsin
|
|
| vqc wrote: | | boostNslide wrote: | | yah, seriously, if we elect another idjit, Im seriously making plans on living somewhere else. This country is starting to make me sick. |
100 senators
44 democrats
the bill that the gambling thing was attached to passed 90 -10 last i heard.
assuming that all 10 nays were democrats that still leaves 34 idjits.
i hope u dont vote democrat either boost. |
this was Frist's brainchild. It would have never passed had the Dems been the ones pushing for it. Read about the politics of it on this news story:
http://www.online-casinos.com/news/news2970.asp
The bill passed by unanimous consent because it was attached to the Port Security bill on the Senate. It passed 400+ to 2 in the house for the same reason. The reason it was attached to that bill was because of the Senate Majority leader (Frist R-TN) attached it there. He had been shopping around and championing the cause for weeks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 5:48pm Post subject: |
|
|
Straight Flush
Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Posts: 5405
WPP: 59
|
|
| TerryToma wrote: | | vqc wrote: | | boostNslide wrote: | | yah, seriously, if we elect another idjit, Im seriously making plans on living somewhere else. This country is starting to make me sick. |
100 senators
44 democrats
the bill that the gambling thing was attached to passed 90 -10 last i heard.
assuming that all 10 nays were democrats that still leaves 34 idjits.
i hope u dont vote democrat either boost. |
this was Frist's brainchild. It would have never passed had the Dems been the ones pushing for it. Read about the politics of it on this news story:
http://www.online-casinos.com/news/news2970.asp
The bill passed by unanimous consent because it was attached to the Port Security bill on the Senate. It passed 400+ to 2 in the house for the same reason. The reason it was attached to that bill was because of the Senate Majority leader (Frist R-TN) attached it there. He had been shopping around and championing the cause for weeks. |
theres no way im saying that frist isnt a retard
im juts saying that i would be happier if it came out 55-45 or 56-44. I would at least have a little hope that someone is paying attention to wats going on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 6:10pm Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 3910
WPP: 104
Location: ISHPERMING MISHIGEN
|
|
Hello Carl,
Thank you for your email.
We appreciate and share your concerns about the bill which passed in
the US Congress today regarding the funding of internet gaming, as an
attachment to a Port Security bill.
PokerStars' management and legal team are examining the bill at this
time. Until we understand the potential impact of the bill, we cannot
comment on how it will impact our players or PokerStars. Please note
that the bill includes a 270-day window for enforcement procedures to
be established, so we do not expect to see any immediate changes in
the ability to transfer funds to and from PokerStars.
Also please remember that your money is safe on PokerStars. All
player funds are in a segregated account at the Royal Bank of Scotland.
As always, we thank you for playing on PokerStars.
Regards,
VeronicaC
-------
Meh, wasn't a very good response but I can't wait to see what they plan on releasing to the public... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 7:02pm Post subject: |
|
|
Flush
Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 476
WPP: 121
|
|
Renton, I disagree.
I think the idealogical problem does indeed have to do with wanting gambling banned in the first place, I am not as conerned with politicans being hypocritical as I am with sickening political ideas of the American voting majority. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 7:08pm Post subject: |
|
|
HABITUAL LINE-STEPPER
Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 4992
WPP: 73
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
|
|
| What is sickening about regulating a degenerate person's ability to throw his life away? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 7:17pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 1461
WPP: 122
Location: wearing the honors of honor and whatnot
|
|
| you're probably right, let's ban alcohol, who's with me! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 7:19pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 1461
WPP: 122
Location: wearing the honors of honor and whatnot
|
|
| now that i think about it, all you non-christians are just throwing your lives away by not loving jesus b/c you're going to hell. love jesus or else you're banned motherfuckers! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 7:19pm Post subject: |
|
|
Straight Flush
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 7448
WPP: 71
Location: Doncaster, Eng-er-land
|
|
| just pm your br and then ill deposit for you. gg senate amirite...? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 7:20pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 1461
WPP: 122
Location: wearing the honors of honor and whatnot
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 7:23pm Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 1678
WPP: 140
Location: Kansas
|
|
| VQC -- I'm surprised ten people voted nay on this bill. The bill was for PORT SECURITY, banning online gambling was just added onto it. When it comes time to be re-elected nobody wants to be the candidate that voted nay on securing our ports, nobody wants to look weak on terrorism now-a-days. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 7:23pm Post subject: |
|
|
Flush
Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 476
WPP: 121
|
|
| Renton, it is okay to use the government as a public conglomerate to HELP someone, but it is not okay to help someone by outright restriction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 7:25pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 809
WPP: 72
Location: wisconsin
|
|
| Ultimate George wrote: | | VQC -- I'm surprised ten people voted nay on this bill. The bill was for PORT SECURITY, banning online gambling was just added onto it. When it comes time to be re-elected nobody wants to be the candidate that voted nay on securing our ports, nobody wants to look weak on terrorism now-a-days. |
there was no vote in the Senate, it was passed by unanimous consent literally in the middle of the night. only 2 people in the house voted against it. noone would dare vote against the port security bill. imagine what would happen if there was a port attack.
The 89-10 vote was for the security fense with the southern border. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 7:28pm Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 1678
WPP: 140
Location: Kansas
|
|
| TerryToma wrote: | | Ultimate George wrote: | | VQC -- I'm surprised ten people voted nay on this bill. The bill was for PORT SECURITY, banning online gambling was just added onto it. When it comes time to be re-elected nobody wants to be the candidate that voted nay on securing our ports, nobody wants to look weak on terrorism now-a-days. |
there was no vote in the Senate, it was passed by unanimous consent literally in the middle of the night. only 2 people in the house voted against it. noone would dare vote against the port security bill. imagine what would happen if there was a port attack.
The 89-10 vote was for the security fense with the southern border. |
Okay, shows how much I know.
Either way nobody really wants to look weak here... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 7:30pm Post subject: |
|
|
Flush
Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 476
WPP: 121
|
|
Well, if I can be optimistic for a moment...
There are various interests which do not like this bill. Obviously American poker players, ESPN, American Banks, WTO.
These organizations can put atleast some amount of pressure on politicans...
If there was another bill proposed to strike the anti gambling sections from the Port Security bill, in a democractic House and Senate, could it pass?
I believe the most major issue is that... under the World Trade Agreement the US cannot limit foriegn companies from competing in markets the US competes in domestically, therefore the US cannot legally stop buisness from being conducted between citizens and foreign poker corporations.
Secondly, the Banks do not want to have to regulate transactions as it adds increased cost, as well as a small hit from poker players switching to foriegn banks.
So if the democrats gain control, is there realistically any chance this is nullified in favor of some form of regulation? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 7:30pm Post subject: |
|
|
HABITUAL LINE-STEPPER
Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 4992
WPP: 73
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
|
|
| Phantaroth wrote: | | Renton, it is okay to use the government as a public conglomerate to HELP someone, but it is not okay to help someone by outright restriction. |
i agree with you, I am just showing you the other side.
America is all about the minority of people. Thats how all laws are created. Five people out of 300 million can't handle driving after they drink two beers, so we outlaw drinking and driving. 10% of gamblers are fucked up, so we make a law to eradicate gambling. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 7:34pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
