Internet gambling

scaeagles · 10-03-2006, 05:57 AM

The (in effect) ban on internet gambling will presumably be signed today (or soon, anyway).

I go back and forth on this. Being that I have a libertarian slant, it ticks me off that the republicans want to continue to be the nanny. However, gambling can be (or perhaps is) as addicitve as crack to some, and I'm not for allowing people to manufacture crack in their homes.

I don't know. I suppose I'm against this bill, but I can see the arguments for it.

Moonliner · 10-03-2006, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

The (in effect) ban on internet gambling will presumably be signed today (or soon, anyway).

I go back and forth on this. Being that I have a libertarian slant, it ticks me off that the republicans want to continue to be the nanny. However, gambling can be (or perhaps is) as addicitve as crack to some, and I'm not for allowing people to manufacture crack in their homes.

I don't know. I suppose I'm against this bill, but I can see the arguments for it.

Addictive personalities will always find something to be addicted to. This and similar measures treat the symptom not the disease.

It really is just another example of special interest politics. It was not a bill that would ever have the support to pass on it's own so it was tacked onto the "must pass" ports bill.

To hell with a representative government, we'll just keep up business as usual in Washington seems to be the mantra of the day.

Alex · 10-03-2006, 08:54 AM

I'm a casual online poker player so I'm a bit bummed out. Though the language says "predominantly games of chance" and this I'm sure this definition will be challenged by somebody. Poker is increasingly a game of chance the worse you are at it (whereas roulette has no skill element that can increase your odds of winning beyond certain probalistic levels).

What really annoys me is that when they couldn't get the ban passed on its own they attached it, at the very last minute, to a port security bill that they knew had to be passed for political reasons going into the election. This practice is almost as malignant, in my view, as earmarking.

The fact that there are carvouts for bingo and lotteries is amusing and cuts into the moral highground of the proponents since bingo and lottery are the greatest scams in all the legitimate gambling world.

As you probably know, the fact that stupid people will do stupid things isn't a valid argument for disallowing non-stupid from doing that activity. The fact that some people find an act immoral without direct harm to others is not valid reason to disallow others from doing that activity. So the addiction and morality problems don't fly with me. And the common argument against brick-and-mortar gambling doesn't apply either since online poker can't be blamed for localized increases in petty crime.

What it really is, is protectionism for American gambling corporations. It'll be interesting to see how the specifics shake out and I don't think it iwill kill it completely though the marketplace will likely consolidate.

Not Afraid · 10-03-2006, 08:55 AM

If there's such concern about people getting addicted then alcohol should be illegal as well.

Nephythys · 10-03-2006, 09:08 AM

The gov't needs to stay the hell out of our lives-

We have this-
Some law about what kind of TV we will have (WTF is that?)
Some place in the US is trying to make transfat in food ILLEGAL

Down with the Nanny state- AUGH!

Jupiter · 10-31-2006, 04:39 PM

I agree let us live our lives and the country would be much happier. hell i heard today that they are trying to encourage abstinence amonst singles 30 & under. dont know if it is true heard it on the radio. they said would be spending 100 million on this campaign. i think they would be fools to do so. birth control i would understand better. but that i think they are just being fools.

Nephythys · 10-31-2006, 04:48 PM

You think the gov't should pay to teach people about birth control but are fools to encourage abstinence?

How about it's not the gov't's business either way?

Though I happen to like the idea of abstinence- it's 100% effective and teaches people self control and personal reponsibility- rather than birth control that fails.

But aside from that- the gov't should not be doing it- nor should the schools- what happened to parents? and if you are over 21- it's STILL not the gov't's business.

Strangler Lewis · 10-31-2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Though I happen to like the idea of abstinence- it's 100% effective and teaches people self control and personal reponsibility- rather than birth control that fails.

All forms of "insurance," from car insurance to birth control to antibiotics to the ability to move back home with mom and dad, diminish personal responsibility.

Ghoulish Delight · 10-31-2006, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

You think the gov't should pay to teach people about birth control but are fools to encourage abstinence?

When they've been proven to encourage it in foolish ways, then yes, they are fools.

A complete sex ed curriculum covers dangers, protections, AND absitnence in truthful, fact-filled ways. It's also been proven to be significantly more effective in prevention of disease and unwanted pregnancy than any "abstinence only" or stupid "virginity pledges". Color me not surprised that being honest and straightforwad does more good than hiding from reality.

Nephythys · 10-31-2006, 05:21 PM

Personal responsibility is dying daily- it makes me sad and angry.

10-03-2006, 05:57 AM	#1
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Internet gambling The (in effect) ban on internet gambling will presumably be signed today (or soon, anyway). I go back and forth on this. Being that I have a libertarian slant, it ticks me off that the republicans want to continue to be the nanny. However, gambling can be (or perhaps is) as addicitve as crack to some, and I'm not for allowing people to manufacture crack in their homes. I don't know. I suppose I'm against this bill, but I can see the arguments for it.
	Submit to Quotes

10-03-2006, 08:54 AM	#3
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I'm a casual online poker player so I'm a bit bummed out. Though the language says "predominantly games of chance" and this I'm sure this definition will be challenged by somebody. Poker is increasingly a game of chance the worse you are at it (whereas roulette has no skill element that can increase your odds of winning beyond certain probalistic levels). What really annoys me is that when they couldn't get the ban passed on its own they attached it, at the very last minute, to a port security bill that they knew had to be passed for political reasons going into the election. This practice is almost as malignant, in my view, as earmarking. The fact that there are carvouts for bingo and lotteries is amusing and cuts into the moral highground of the proponents since bingo and lottery are the greatest scams in all the legitimate gambling world. As you probably know, the fact that stupid people will do stupid things isn't a valid argument for disallowing non-stupid from doing that activity. The fact that some people find an act immoral without direct harm to others is not valid reason to disallow others from doing that activity. So the addiction and morality problems don't fly with me. And the common argument against brick-and-mortar gambling doesn't apply either since online poker can't be blamed for localized increases in petty crime. What it really is, is protectionism for American gambling corporations. It'll be interesting to see how the specifics shake out and I don't think it iwill kill it completely though the marketplace will likely consolidate.
	Submit to Quotes

10-03-2006, 08:55 AM	#4
Not Afraid HI! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 17,108	If there's such concern about people getting addicted then alcohol should be illegal as well.
	Submit to Quotes

10-03-2006, 09:08 AM	#5
Nephythys Yeah, that's about it- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In a state of constant crap to get done Posts: 2,688	The gov't needs to stay the hell out of our lives- We have this- Some law about what kind of TV we will have (WTF is that?) Some place in the US is trying to make transfat in food ILLEGAL Down with the Nanny state- AUGH!
	Submit to Quotes

10-31-2006, 04:39 PM	#6
Jupiter Long Live the Chief Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Parker Posts: 14	I agree let us live our lives and the country would be much happier. hell i heard today that they are trying to encourage abstinence amonst singles 30 & under. dont know if it is true heard it on the radio. they said would be spending 100 million on this campaign. i think they would be fools to do so. birth control i would understand better. but that i think they are just being fools.
	Submit to Quotes

10-31-2006, 04:48 PM	#7
Nephythys Yeah, that's about it- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In a state of constant crap to get done Posts: 2,688	You think the gov't should pay to teach people about birth control but are fools to encourage abstinence? How about it's not the gov't's business either way? Though I happen to like the idea of abstinence- it's 100% effective and teaches people self control and personal reponsibility- rather than birth control that fails. But aside from that- the gov't should not be doing it- nor should the schools- what happened to parents? and if you are over 21- it's STILL not the gov't's business.
	Submit to Quotes

10-31-2006, 05:21 PM	#10
Nephythys Yeah, that's about it- Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In a state of constant crap to get done Posts: 2,688	Personal responsibility is dying daily- it makes me sad and angry.
	Submit to Quotes