Unoffical empeg BBS

Quick Links: Empeg FAQ | RioCar.Org | Hijack | BigDisk Builder | jEmplode | emphatic
Repairs: Repairs

Page 4 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#287709 - 05/10/2006 17:29 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: ]
canuckInOR
carpal tunnel

Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
Quote:
You can dump on the politicians all day, but if you're going to trash the country itself then get the F out.

And here I thought that one of the principle ideas of the country was respecting the freedom of speech. Way to embody that principle, there, Billy.

Top
#287710 - 06/10/2006 00:18 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: JeffS]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
I realize I was being argumentative in my last post. I apologize. And I tried to find a better word for "copout" but failed. Anyway.

I have to agree with our Canuck on this, though. Don't not vote. Vote Libertarian. It sounds like the politics for you. If you can just convince more people like you that the people they're voting for don't represent them, maybe you can help pull the Republican party back from the loonybin. I'd far rather have an opponent I can respect.

Also, while I think that outlawing gambling is stupid, I'm more outraged by the piggybacking.

And, for the record, while I'm not opposed to a large government in general, there is one aspect of the smaller government ideal I'm very fond of: fewer laws. My problem mostly lies in having fifteen laws that say the same thing in different ways and that try to tell judges how to judge, as opposed to the general idea of "less governance", but that's one area where I strongly disagree with the people I tend to vote for. Most of what they believe in in general matches what I think, so I just have to grin and bear it. I just thought I'd throw that out there, though, to commiserate on the "not representative" score.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top
#287711 - 06/10/2006 01:41 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: wfaulk]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
wfaulk said:

Vote Libertarian.

Hey, we actually agree on something.


Quote:
canuckinLA said:

And here I thought that one of the principle ideas of the country was respecting the freedom of speech. Way to embody that principle, there, Billy.


It is one of the founding principles, and I like to exercise it by saying if you don't like the country then you should find another one. If it's just the current politics that you don't like then vote.

Top
#287712 - 06/10/2006 02:00 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: ]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
Actually, I hate the Libertarians.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top
#287713 - 06/10/2006 02:07 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: canuckInOR]
jimhogan
carpal tunnel

Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
Quote:
Please don't "not vote". If you can't stomach voting for a member of either ruling party (and I can't say I blame you), then vote for either an independant or third-party candidate who you can stomach.

Depending on certain litmus tests, if you are a litmus test kinda person, this could be a tough go. Say, for example, you had previously held your nose and voted for the Vicious Thug Party for the single reason that they professed to be pro-life. So now, they are not all you hoped. The Libertarian or Green parties would not seem like a very comfy refuge for Ohio's disaffected pro-life or anti-gay-marriage voters. I have not seen any sign of the "Pro-Life and Anti-Gay-Marriage But Not The Republicans!" Party. Yet.

Hmmm, on the 7th, I'll be damned if I will bother to vote for my calculating Democratic incumbent who voted to let our rabid administration off the leash. Libertarian? Dreamy-eyed nut jobs. So this begs the question of whether I will get off my ass on the 7th to go bullet vote a couple of Greens just to feel good.

So, who made popcorn and watched Bill Moyers' show on Jack Abramoff? Uplifting, wusnit? Abramoff, Delay, Ralph Reed and their devout, prayerful supporters. I was nearly physically ill. Yet folks who want us to "live right" gave these scumbags money and probably felt all good inside when they voted for Delay.

I may be with Jeff. I may stay home. I think I am getting too old to be an unwarranted idealist or to harbor false hopes about our continuing political disaster. The American Devolution.
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.

Top
#287714 - 06/10/2006 02:22 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: wfaulk]
JeffS
carpal tunnel

Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Also, while I think that outlawing gambling is stupid, I'm more outraged by the piggybacking.
No, this is exactly right. I'm bummed about the gambling, but I can accept it. In fact, if this bill had come through and been voted on on it's own merrits, I wouldn't have been overjoyed, but I would have felt like the system was working and I just ended up on the wrong side of the will of the people. But this way just made me feel as if I were completely at the mercy of a few people in a position of power. THAT is what I don't like. And like I said, I've been feeling this way more recently about a lot of the goings on, this was just the big slap in the face I couldn't ignore.

Quote:
If you can just convince more people like you that the people they're voting for don't represent them, maybe you can help pull the Republican party back from the loonybin.
Yeah, I've actually read an article by a conserative Repulican who just ranted about this and what's become of the party and how awful it is. There are people who want to turn it around, but I don't know if it's possible.

Most likely I'll find some completely unelectable person who represents me and vote for him/her. Doesn't accomplish much in the grand scheme of things, but it'll make me feel better.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

Top
#287715 - 06/10/2006 02:30 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: wfaulk]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Actually, I hate the Libertarians.


Care to explain why?

Libertarianism isn't yet well definied, but the main principle is don't tread on me. It's classical liberalism.

Liberals can have their gay marriages and legalized pot, and conservatives can stop funding welfare and instead donate the money to their favorite charity.

What's there not to like? You won't bother me, and I won't bother you.

Granted, the government won't babysit us and we'll have to provide for ourselves, but the government also won't tell us what to do.

The only divisive issue I would see is abortion. An unborn baby's rights versus a grown woman's rights.

I think we can agree that the government shouldn't tell us what to do, as long as we aren't directly hurting anyone else. You can smoke all the pot you want, and have all the buttsex you want, but you can also keep your guns (as long as you don't commit crime) and more of your paycheck.

Top
#287716 - 06/10/2006 03:12 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: ]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
Well, there's a notable difference between libertarianism (the ideology) and Libertarianism (the political party). The most significant of my problems lies with the party. Mostly that they're totally crazy. I know it sounds like I'm painting with a wide brush, but I've met a lot of them and they are. I'd be happy to find some that aren't.

On the other hand, though, while I may agree with the notion behind their stances, I disagree with most of the ways they want to do it. In particular, I completely disagree with the notion that a laissez-faire economy does anything more than make the rich richer. I also think that while democracy can have a "tyranny of the majority" element to it, the lessening of government just makes it happen more. You need a government to protect minorities. Not having a government is just going to make it worse. Of course, you also need an administration that is willing to actually do that.

So, while I agree that people in society should be free to do what they please, I disagree that companies should be considered people and I disagree that a lessening of governmental restrictions is a means to that end.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top
#287717 - 06/10/2006 07:13 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: JeffS]
julf
veteran

Registered: 01/10/2001
Posts: 1307
Loc: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Quote:
Most likely I'll find some completely unelectable person who represents me and vote for him/her. Doesn't accomplish much in the grand scheme of things, but it'll make me feel better.

Well, in Ukraine they have an "against all" option. But lacking that option, I tend to "vote against" - usually I can't find anyone to vote *for*, but a bunch of people I don't want to vote for, so voting for a random other person does the trick...

Top
#287718 - 06/10/2006 08:04 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: julf]
pca
old hand

Registered: 20/07/1999
Posts: 1102
Loc: UK
Quote:
Well, in Ukraine they have an "against all" option.


Interesting. I wonder if any other countries have such a thing, I'm not heard of it before. Some friends and I have agreed for years that in the UK we need a "None of the above" party, especially if we could get it listed on the end of the ballot

pca
_________________________
Experience is what you get just after it would have helped...

Top
#287719 - 06/10/2006 10:29 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: wfaulk]
JeffS
carpal tunnel

Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
I completely disagree with the notion that a laissez-faire economy does anything more than make the rich richer. I also think that while democracy can have a "tyranny of the majority" element to it, the lessening of government just makes it happen more. You need a government to protect minorities. Not having a government is just going to make it worse. Of course, you also need an administration that is willing to actually do that.
Wow, agree with almost everything you said here- never thought I'd see the day!

The one part I'm don't quite agree is that "lessening the government just makes it happen more". I'd say "lessening the government TOO MUCH just makes it happen more". I think governmnet could be smaller than it is and accomplish what we both agree it needs to do- and likely more.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

Top
#287720 - 06/10/2006 13:25 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: wfaulk]
webroach
old hand

Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
Quote:
In particular, I completely disagree with the notion that a laissez-faire economy does anything more than make the rich richer.


Sooooo, I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and guess that you're a huge fan of Ayn Rand?
_________________________
Dave

Top
#287721 - 06/10/2006 15:16 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: webroach]
JeffS
carpal tunnel

Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Sooooo, I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and guess that you're a huge fan of Ayn Rand?
LOL- too funny because I almost posted the same thing!
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

Top
#287722 - 06/10/2006 15:36 Online Poker Ban -> Ayn Rand in five easy steps [Re: JeffS]
pgrzelak
carpal tunnel

Registered: 15/08/2000
Posts: 4859
Loc: New Jersey, USA
Okay... I should know better...

I have avoided this thread because I have no interest in online poker, although the idea of it being banned is annoying. But I finally peeked in and saw that the last two postings were references to Ayn Rand...

I have got to stop trusting the subject lines on these threads...
_________________________
Paul Grzelak
200GB with 48MB RAM, Illuminated Buttons and Digital Outputs

Top
#287723 - 06/10/2006 15:38 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: pca]
julf
veteran

Registered: 01/10/2001
Posts: 1307
Loc: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Quote:
Interesting. I wonder if any other countries have such a thing, I'm not heard of it before. Some friends and I have agreed for years that in the UK we need a "None of the above" party, especially if we could get it listed on the end of the ballot

"Entities that include "None of the Above" on ballots as standard procedure include the United States Libertarian Party, the Green Party, Nevada ("None of these candidates"), Ukraine ("Against all"), and Spain (votos en blanco). Russia had such an option on its ballots ("Against all") until it was abolished in 2006."

(from the wikipedia entry [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_Above]
None of the Above[/url]

Top
#287724 - 06/10/2006 15:58 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: JeffS]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
I doubt anyone would argue that the US Government is particularly efficiently run, especially from a bureaucratic point of view.

Howver, I think that most of the services that the government provides now are necessary, and I think there should be more. It was that element that I was referring to as government size, not the bureaucratic aspects.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top
#287725 - 06/10/2006 16:02 Re: Online Poker Ban -> Ayn Rand in five easy steps [Re: pgrzelak]
JeffS
carpal tunnel

Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
I have avoided this thread because I have no interest in online poker, although the idea of it being banned is annoying. But I finally peeked in and saw that the last two postings were references to Ayn Rand...
If you think Ayn Rand and poker is a big stretch, man you have missed the thread completely!
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

Top
#287726 - 06/10/2006 16:10 Re: Online Poker Ban -> Ayn Rand in five easy steps [Re: JeffS]
pgrzelak
carpal tunnel

Registered: 15/08/2000
Posts: 4859
Loc: New Jersey, USA
As I am discovering!!!
_________________________
Paul Grzelak
200GB with 48MB RAM, Illuminated Buttons and Digital Outputs

Top
#287727 - 06/10/2006 16:10 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: webroach]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
Well, I'm in agreement with her personal dislike of children. Other than that, we're pretty much diametrically opposed. I don't call 'em Randroids for nothing.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top
#287728 - 07/10/2006 06:19 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: wfaulk]
TigerJimmy
old hand

Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
This is a really well thought out point of view, and one I totally agree with. I don't consider myself a "capital L" Libertarian, but I do tend toward Jeffersonian Democrat or classical liberal.

However, I agree with you that the markets can not be allowed to run unconstrained. "Market fundamentalism" is a bad thing -- market participants will not care for the market mechanism itself. This has been demonstrated repeatedly. The goverment needs to protect the market mechanism from unfair behaviors of market participants through regulation. George Soros convinced me of this in his fantastic book "Open Society".

The goverment also needs to protect the minorities. That includes minorities like gamblers, homos, cigarette smokers, and dope fiends.

What we currently have in the US is about as far away from classical liberalism as you can get. The US is one of the most heavily regulated and policed societies in the world. This is not an opinion. My opinion is that people should be more upset about it than they are.

Even the original poster of this thread has said about the internet gambling ban (the whole reason for the thread), "I can accept it."

Sigh. If you don't have an ideological foundation, it is impossible to draw the line. When people say that the US is the "best there is", I think what they mean is that classical liberal philosophy, on which the US society was based, is the best philosophical foundation to build society. Why do we keep getting farther and farther away from it? Its the money, of course. Special interests rule the country, not voters.


Edited by TigerJimmy (07/10/2006 06:23)

Top
#287729 - 07/10/2006 12:10 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: TigerJimmy]
julf
veteran

Registered: 01/10/2001
Posts: 1307
Loc: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Quote:
The US is one of the most heavily regulated and policed societies in the world.

And despite that, I am constantly shocked by the rampant corruption at large in the US...

Top
#287730 - 07/10/2006 12:56 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: julf]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Quote:
The US is one of the most heavily regulated and policed societies in the world.

And despite that, I am constantly shocked by the rampant corruption at large in the US...


...such as?

Top
#287731 - 07/10/2006 21:39 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: ]
TigerJimmy
old hand

Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
Enron and Worldcomm jump immediately to mind. The special interest lobbies and their huge "campaign contributions" are another example.

Top
#287732 - 08/10/2006 00:54 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: TigerJimmy]
gbeer
carpal tunnel

Registered: 17/12/2000
Posts: 2665
Loc: Manteca, California
Congress would have been my pick. I recall my Political Science prof saying,
"90% or the laws passed are intended to allow 10% of the population screw the other 90%."

On topic. The whole issue is about taxes. If the online poker could be reliably taxed, congress would be all for it.
_________________________
Glenn

Top
#287733 - 08/10/2006 03:08 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: JeffS]
JeffS
carpal tunnel

Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Ok, for those who are interested in the original topic, here is what Bill Frist had to say.

His claims that internet gambling is illegal, from what I know, are largly overstated except for Washington state where gambling online was recently made a felony.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

Top
#287734 - 08/10/2006 06:49 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: ]
julf
veteran

Registered: 01/10/2001
Posts: 1307
Loc: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Quote:
Quote:
the rampant corruption at large in the US...


...such as?


Could list a loooong list of examples, but more illustrative for me was hearing a friend (with normally extremely high moral standards and intergrity) comment on some red tape I was facing here in Amsterdam "Isn't there someone you can pay?". It's just the assumption that that is how you get things done with officials.

Top
#287735 - 08/10/2006 11:26 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: JeffS]
pgrzelak
carpal tunnel

Registered: 15/08/2000
Posts: 4859
Loc: New Jersey, USA
Quote:
...gambling online was recently made a felony...

!?!?!? Um, isn't that a touch extreme?
_________________________
Paul Grzelak
200GB with 48MB RAM, Illuminated Buttons and Digital Outputs

Top
#287736 - 08/10/2006 11:37 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: pgrzelak]
JeffS
carpal tunnel

Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
!?!?!? Um, isn't that a touch extreme?
Yes, it is.

Democrat legislation too, just to show that this craziness is coming from both parties.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.

Top
#287737 - 08/10/2006 18:21 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: JeffS]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
Just out of curiosity, couldn't you just get a foreign bank account? Surely there's a legitimate online UK or Swiss bank who would give one to you. I haven't done any research into it, never having needed anything like that, but it might be possible. Of course, that might make you more likely to have an IRS audit.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top
#287738 - 08/10/2006 19:42 Re: Online Poker Ban in US [Re: wfaulk]
g_attrill
old hand

Registered: 14/04/2002
Posts: 1172
Loc: Hants, UK
Quote:
Just out of curiosity, couldn't you just get a foreign bank account? Surely there's a legitimate online UK or Swiss bank who would give one to you. I haven't done any research into it, never having needed anything like that, but it might be possible. Of course, that might make you more likely to have an IRS audit.


I was going to suggest that is a way around it, but the risk of committing various other offences is higher. Also if the gambling sites specifically prohibit US residents you might need to do dodgy things to carry on using them.

Gareth

Top
Page 4 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >