#287619 - 02/10/2006 12:04
Online Poker Ban in US
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Actually, hasn't necessarily been banned; Frist went after financial institutions and gambling sites (excluding lotteries, horseracing, and fantasy leagues) rather than the players. He attached this legislation to an unrelated port safety bill that really could not be reasonably opposed (since the main legistlation was so important and no one really cares that much about online gambling). So far two major poker rooms have closed their doors to US players, and more are expected to follow. I'd post news links, but this stuff seems to be coming in fast. Anyway, very frustrating as poker has become quite a hobbie of mine. Even more frustrating to me is the way this has been handled in the government. I've been following Frist's actions in this regard for a while, and especially the last few weeks. What is most frustrating is that this was attached to an unrelated "must pass" bill, which means that this legislation really represents a few people in congress rather than the American people, and that these people decided (arbitrarily it seems, though of course I know better) that it is immoral to play a skill game like poker but perfectly fine to bet the farm on horses. Guess it's time to cash out. At least I'm ahead by 2,000% of my initial investment. I hate politics. 
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#287620 - 02/10/2006 12:08
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 18/01/2000
Posts: 5680
Loc: London, UK
|
Quote:
...attached this legislation to an unrelated ... bill that really could not be reasonably opposed
This is one of the things that puzzles me about the US legislative system: the piggy-backing of unrelated legislation on another bill, just so you can get it through with minimal questioning.
How do people justify that?
_________________________
-- roger
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287621 - 02/10/2006 12:17
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Maybe you should examine the people who attached that rider and compare them to who you vote for.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287622 - 02/10/2006 12:20
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: Roger]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
How do people justify that?
Moral superiority, especially in this case. It's against the rules in the House of Representatives, but allowed in the Senate. Go figure.
The great thing is that if someone votes against the bill based on the ridiculous rider, he'll get beaten up next election for "voting against making our ports more secure".
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287623 - 02/10/2006 12:25
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Maybe you should examine the people who attached that rider and compare them to who you vote for.
All politicans do this garbage- I can't help voting for someone who does. Voting is like choosing a cell phone provider- you're hosed no matter what you do.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287624 - 02/10/2006 12:27
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Moral superiority, especially in this case.
I'd buy this a lot more if this didn't specifically exclude horse racing. Truth is, Frist is just doing what he can to get the votes- he probably doesn't care a lick about gambling online.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287625 - 02/10/2006 12:27
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Perhaps, but this is the only one you've been interested in commenting on.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287626 - 02/10/2006 12:29
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
I'd buy this a lot more if this didn't specifically exclude horse racing. Truth is, Frist is just doing what he can to get the votes- he probably doesn't care a lick about gambling online.
I didn't say it was his moral superiority. The people who put him in office are likely to agree with this mess and aren't inclined to vote him out of office because of the means.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287627 - 02/10/2006 12:29
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
addict
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 510
Loc: NY
|
I'd buy this a lot more if this didn't specifically exclude horse racing.
Around here, horse racing is a state racket. That's most likely why.
_________________________
Heather
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." -Susan B Anthony
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287628 - 02/10/2006 12:30
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: Roger]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Since I was following this pretty closely, one of the interesting things that happened is that Frist first tried to do this with a defense authorization bill. His fellow republicans slammed him (and others) for this because they wanted to pass the bill "clean". He pulled the port safety stuff at the last minute (though probably he was planning it all along) and didn't get the pushback- the port safety bill wasn't nearly as important to pass "clean" as the defense authorization bill.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287629 - 02/10/2006 12:36
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Perhaps, but this is the only one you've been interested in commenting on.
I've said before that I was frustrated about being forced to choose between two evils. I said before the last election that I didn't like choosing between Bush or Kerry, because I didn't like either choice, and neither one represented my voice.
But even having known all that before in my head, I've been a bit naive in my heart. I always knew this stuff goes on, but this is the first time I really experienced it in my face because I was following the issue closely. I've (wrongly) assumed that this kind of stuff washes out- that in the end the will of the people cuts through the politics of it all.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287630 - 02/10/2006 12:36
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: Heather]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Around here, horse racing is a state racket. That's most likely why.
I'm certain that's why.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287631 - 02/10/2006 12:38
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: Roger]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 06/04/2005
Posts: 2026
Loc: Seattle transplant
|
Quote:
This is one of the things that puzzles me about the US legislative system: the piggy-backing of unrelated legislation on another bill, just so you can get it through with minimal questioning.
How do people justify that?
I'm curious how this whole piggy-backing started. At this point, I can only assume it was some evil lobby.
It doesn't make sense to me... unless you see it as a Machiavellian tool.
Isn't the line item veto a limp wristed attempt to fight back? We don't even have that!
_________________________
10101311 (20GB- backup empeg)
10101466 (2x60GB, Eutronix/GreenLights Blue) (Stolen!)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287632 - 02/10/2006 12:39
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
I didn't say it was his moral superiority. The people who put him in office are likely to agree with this mess and aren't inclined to vote him out of office because of the means.
True, but the initial question was how people could justify attaching this stuff to unrelated bills. Frist (who did the attaching) can only justify it because it suits his poltical needs.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287633 - 02/10/2006 12:44
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: Robotic]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Isn't the line item veto a limp wristed attempt to fight back? We don't even have that!
It's not limp-wristed at all. It would be perfect for this situation, as it would a require a 66% supermajority to overrule it, and there's no way you're going to get half the democrats to agree with it. You probably couldn't get half the Republicans to agree with it.
But it only existed for a few years. The Supreme Court found it unconstitutional, which is probably reasonable.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287635 - 02/10/2006 15:07
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: Roger]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Quote:
Quote:
...attached this legislation to an unrelated ... bill that really could not be reasonably opposed
This is one of the things that puzzles me about the US legislative system: the piggy-backing of unrelated legislation on another bill, just so you can get it through with minimal questioning.
How do people justify that?
Because the only people that have the power to remove the means to piggy-back are the ones that use it all the time. Usually stuff is tossed in that only helps a local district so that when the politician returns home, he can brag that he bought them a new bridge or something. Everyone seems to do it, so nobody wants to do anything about it.
Another attempt I saw to cut down on this was to attach the person's name to such last minute additions. While this has more to do with "pork" than stuff like gambling bans, I've heard it has severely helped cut down on pork added to bills. Of course, I heard it from someone being interviewed who helped write the legislation... 
I forget the name of it, but a Google search found this:
Quote:
The reforms -- part of a much larger bill aimed at curtailing the influence of lobbyists on Congress -- would require greater disclosure about special projects inserted into spending bills by lawmakers, also known as earmarks or pork. Most significantly, the legislation would require members of Congress to attach their names to their proposed earmarks, which sometimes are inserted secretly and anonymously.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060427-112911-7083r.htm
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287636 - 02/10/2006 17:05
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 17/01/2002
Posts: 3995
Loc: Manchester UK
|
Quote:
Voting is like choosing a cell phone provider- you're hosed no matter what you do.
I'll be using that next time I end up in a conversation about politics.
_________________________
Cheers,
Andy M
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287637 - 02/10/2006 17:35
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: Roger]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31565
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
This is one of the things that puzzles me about the US legislative system: the piggy-backing of unrelated legislation on another bill, just so you can get it through with minimal questioning.
Yeah, I hate it, too.
Honest question: is there nothing similar in the UK legislative system?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287638 - 02/10/2006 17:52
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: tfabris]
|
old hand
Registered: 14/04/2002
Posts: 1172
Loc: Hants, UK
|
Quote:
Quote:
This is one of the things that puzzles me about the US legislative system: the piggy-backing of unrelated legislation on another bill, just so you can get it through with minimal questioning.
Yeah, I hate it, too.
Honest question: is there nothing similar in the UK legislative system?
Not as obvious no, but look at the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and the Road Safety Bill 2005 for an example of how lots of general things can be stuffed into a single Act. However all the items are debated in full, so it's not possible to "slip something in" as it were. The Parliament Act(s) are worth mentioning, in that it is interesting legislation which restricts the powers of the House of Lords.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287639 - 02/10/2006 20:08
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
It's almost time for the American Revolution 2.0.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287640 - 03/10/2006 02:09
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
It's really sad that *this* is the issue where I get to say, "I told you so." This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about with the "drug war", and every other way our liberty is eroded. These things are all related. Why does that seem so difficult for people to understand? We are now in another ludicrous situation where we are not allowed to voluntarily spend OUR OWN MONEY as we see fit! At what point will people finally become uncomfortable? A politician (or anyone) thinking that crack is bad and should be outlawed for the protection of everyone is ideallogically *identical* to those who would outlaw smoking, gambling, drinking, self-protection, homosexuality, what you grow in your garden, or eat, or where you pray, with whom you have sex, or any other personal choice. They only differ in the details. All believe that the public is composed of "subjects" who are morally children in need of a daddy-government. Read your history! Totalitarianism is *always* the result, but slowly -- by degrees. "Liberty is seldom lost all at once." If one lacks an idological framework that places individual liberty first, then its just a matter of where you draw the line. Eventually, the line will be drawn somewhere such that even unconcerned citizens will be uncomfortable. It's too late then, though. People wake up! Stop wanting to be a subject. Make the moral decision to consider yourself and everyone else a responsible moral agent that reason dictates MUST be allowed to make their own choices -- even bad ones. A "daddy-government" creates a society of spoiled children. Go to any shopping mall to see the result. Quote:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Martin Niemöller
Edited by TigerJimmy (03/10/2006 02:35)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287641 - 03/10/2006 02:22
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
- U.S. Declaration of Independence
It's OK for the government to hold state-run lotteries where the house has the advantage, but free individuals playing poker against each other online with their own money? Noooo! Motherfuckers.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287642 - 03/10/2006 02:22
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: ]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
No almost about it, Billy.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287643 - 03/10/2006 02:32
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
By the way, I intend to continue playing. Playing poker online is not made illegal by this bill. What is illegal is for financial institutions to allow transactions to "illegal online gambling" organizations.
In other words, it is *not* your money. Just like its not really your property.
Minorities are the ones that civil liberties are designed to protect. Mob rule is exactly what our system is supposed to avoid. It is supposed to be impossible for a minority group, whether they are gamblers, dope smokers, or homosexuals to be put down by those with authority (assuming, of course, they mind their own business about it).
In this case, we have a fanatical religious minority, who happens to have a particular representative in power, subjecting a large group of people to the whims of his own values. This is what most politically motivated action intends -- to make everyone behave in accordance with the wishes of the minority. We are, theoretically, supposed to have protections against that.
Anyone still think that America is the land of the free? Wake up.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287644 - 03/10/2006 02:35
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: wfaulk]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
A lot of democrats supported the earlier online gambling ban attempt. Republicans aren't the only ones who are absolutely certain they know what's best for everyone.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287645 - 03/10/2006 06:28
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31565
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
JeffS, there's something I've been wondering, mostly unrelated to what's being discussed here. I hope you don't mind if I hijack this thread for the purpose of understanding it. Let me preface this with a quote from an old 70's-era Galactica episode: "I do not question... merely ask enlightenment." In other words, I'm not trying to ask this question because I disagree, or to cast aspersions. I honestly would like to learn something new. And it strikes me that you're a person who is in a position to answer honestly, because you've been very open about this topic in the past, and I respect your opinion and respect the way you stand by your values. Okay, here we go: Gambling and Christianity. My understanding is that certain sects consider gambling a sin, and others don't. Being a Christian who gambles, I hope you might be able to answer the obvious questions that arise from this seeming inconsistency. To wit: What are the parts of the Bible, if any, that say anything on the topic? If there aren't any, on what do the non-gambling sects base their belief? And if the Bible does list specific prohibitions against it, how do the gambling sects (or, for that matter, you personally) justify it? I don't really want to spur a generalized religious debate here in this thread (although, with this group of people, such threads can be fun), I'm mostly just looking for those specific data points on this very narrow topic. I don't want to debate the correctness or morality of one side or the other, I just want to learn where the dichotomy comes from. Oh, and if I've somehow got my facts wrong and I started this whole thing with a false premise (that some Christian sects allow gambling and others do not), then please correct me on that, too. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287646 - 03/10/2006 10:20
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Tony, I just typed a REALLY long response to your post and lost the whole thing. I will try to reconstruct it later, because I think you'd be interested.
The short answer is the Bible does not cover gambling; Christians who are opposed to it do so based on principals such as not taking something without giving value in return and the protection of "family values". I researched all of this before really playing with any seriousness and found all of thse arguments to be lacking.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287647 - 03/10/2006 10:38
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
It's really sad that *this* is the issue where I get to say, "I told you so." This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about with the "drug war", and every other way our liberty is eroded. These things are all related. Why does that seem so difficult for people to understand? We are now in another ludicrous situation where we are not allowed to voluntarily spend OUR OWN MONEY as we see fit! At what point will people finally become uncomfortable?
I think the issue with some of the things you've listed, including gambling, is undestanding what the net effect is on society. Nothing occurs in a vaccume, everythign we do affects others. This is potentially true of gambling, drugs, whatever. I don't really have enough information on any of these subjects to know the answers, but I can see where the government might need to step in. However if it does it should be on the basis of protecting society from individual choices, and not an attempt to save individuals themselves. It is a fine line to cross to do this, I agree, and certainly the burden of proof regarding the effects gambling has on society have not been met. That may be true of all of the items you listed.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287648 - 03/10/2006 10:45
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
By the way, I intend to continue playing.
This will be hard to do if the sites pull out though. I probably will stop because I really have personal moral issue breaking the law, and poker isn't important enough to me to take a stand on this (as wrong as I think it is). But even if I were willing to continue playing, if the big sites stop accepting players and players are forced to smaller, less reputables sites, I'd be uncomfortable with that. I think it'll be very interesting to see what Poker Stars does, cause that will tell us a lot of how this is going to go with the big sites over the long haul (despite what Full Tilt and UB are now claiming they'll do).
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index