ajzepp Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 The only positive I can find in all this is that I would be forced into retirement as the greatest poker player in the history of TBD. Aside from that, I can't believe how much this sucks. I love talking with (i.e. antagonizing, insulting, baiting, or all-out harrassing) people from all over the world who show up at the tables. And even though I only play small stakes, it's more often than not a nice little secondary profit center for me.....it takes my mind off the stressors of the day and is downright FUN. This really sucks.... If this really is the end of online poker, then I'm going to just have to figure out where to go for live play....Just like you can't take the sky from Captain Malcolm Reynolds, you can take the tables from me!
Chilly Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Just like you can't take the sky from Captain Malcolm Reynolds, you can take the tables from me! 793573[/snapback] When setting the stage for a protest statement, its important to get it right.
mtdoak Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 its such a shame how it went through. Frist pushed it through by attaching it a port security bill at the last minute. The bill WOULD NOT have passed on its own. Either way, look for it to face alot of opposition.
ajzepp Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 When setting the stage for a protest statement, its important to get it right. 793578[/snapback] Must be some sort of damn Freudian thing.....
ajzepp Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 its such a shame how it went through. Frist pushed it through by attaching it a port security bill at the last minute. The bill WOULD NOT have passed on its own. Either way, look for it to face alot of opposition. 793583[/snapback] This must REALLY suck for you, huh? You do pretty well at the limit tables from what you said, right? This is bogus, man....
Bill from NYC Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 This is bogus, man.... 793587[/snapback] Come to NYC and drown your sorrows in a few generous helpings of french fries. They won't have any trans fats, so it won't even be bad for your health, I suppose. It kinda sucks when the rules effect YOU, huh my friend?
MattyT Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 A guy on another (non-Bills) message board said that if Bush signs this bill into law that he will not vote for him again.
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Come to NYC and drown your sorrows in a few generous helpings of french fries. They won't have any trans fats, so it won't even be bad for your health, I suppose. It kinda sucks when the rules effect YOU, huh my friend? 793698[/snapback] I'm glad that I'm not the only one seeing some hypocrisy here. People have sat back while their rights & freedoms have been continuously restricted via the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps, no-knock warrants, suspension of habeas corpus, etc. Now that a law that restricts internet gambling has passed , some people are finally up in arms. Just wait until they try to outlaw internet porn. Maybe, we can stop the ACLU bashing long enough to ask if they can help us out on this one.
Bill from NYC Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Maybe, we can stop the ACLU bashing long enough to ask if they can help us out on this one. 793812[/snapback] The ACLU DOES suck. Call them up about the smoking ban in bars and see what they tell you.
Kevbeau Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Just wait until they try to outlaw internet porn. 793812[/snapback] Why, what have you heard???
smokinandjokin Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Just wait until they try to outlaw internet porn. 793812[/snapback] Hey now, go easy...Let's not say things we can't take back...
Alaska Darin Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Huge difference there though. Smoking in a building has a negative influence on my health. Me playing poker in my house has no impact on you at all. Horseschitt. Exactly the same thing. It's the government regulating people doing legal things on private property. The rest of the argument is crap. You have the right to walk right past the establishment that allows smoking and into the one that doesn't.
stuckincincy Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Here are a few niceties society enjoys - new or increased - since the onset of the Liberal movement in the '60, the "I'm OK you're OK", "I know MY rights!" stuff... Carjacking Road rage Cameras everywhere School shootings Huge numbers of divorces Confiscation of property for crimes Anti-theft packaging Violence in the workplace Ritalin Date rape durgs Large increase in prison population Pre-employment criminal screening Drug testing Identity theft Easy access to pornography State-sponsored gambling Large rates of school cheating Stealing of copyrighted material The necessity for a movie rating system Home security systems Foul language used everywhere - even by young children Violence at children's sport venues Adult violence during professional sports attendance TV shows focused on abuse and disbasement Ridicule of other's religions The spread of herpes and AIDS Hate crime legislation Teen suicide rate increase TV ads championing infidelity and extortion Sexuality pushed down to pre-teens. etc. In an older time, people knew full well that man without some societal restriction can be a monster. But I know, now, "It's All About Me" that rules... No need to listen to elders, though...as Oscar Wilde once said, "In America, the young are always ready to give to those who are older than themselves, the full benefit of their experience.".
bills_fan Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 In an older time, people knew full well that man without some societal restriction can be a monster. No offense cincy, but in an older time this country passed the prohibition laws as a Constitutional amendment, had to enact a second Constitutional amendment repealing prohibition, then, having failed to turn the country dry, proceeded to traget marijuana as the mother of all evils and outlaw that in the 1930s. They didn't exactly get it right either.
stuckincincy Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 No offense cincy, but in an older time this country passed the prohibition laws as a Constitutional amendment, had to enact a second Constitutional amendment repealing prohibition, then, having failed to turn the country dry, proceeded to traget marijuana as the mother of all evils and outlaw that in the 1930s. They didn't exactly get it right either. 793922[/snapback] No, of course not. I did read somewhere that during Prohibition, beyond the high rate of crime in the booze trade, the mob, etc, that general crime - the beatings, assaults, theiving that afflict the towns and the countryside, diminished. I can see the side of the argument that says leagilize drugs. On the other side...damage to fetuses- Lord knows what havoc the now-grown crack babies and fetal alcohol symptom babies are now doing. And altered states are just that. Drugs are euphoric. Peolpe like to use them. I would speculate that with legalization, a lot of folks would imbibe, so more folks in a state different than normalcy, on the road, at home with families and kids, at the workplace. I don't know if it's not the old saw of "better the devil you know than the one you don't.". Wish I knew the answer...
bills_fan Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 No, of course not. I did read somewhere that during Prohibition, beyond the high rate of crime in the booze trade, the mob, etc, that general crime - the beatings, assaults, theiving that afflict the towns and the countryside, diminished. I can see the side of the argument that says leagilize drugs. On the other side...damage to fetuses- Lord knows what havoc the now-grown crack babies and fetal alcohol symptom babies are now doing. And altered states are just that. Drugs are euphoric. Peolpe like to use them. I would speculate that with legalization, a lot of folks would imbibe, so more folks in a state different than normalcy, on the road, at home with families and kids, at the workplace. I don't know if it's not the old saw of "better the devil you know than the one you don't.". Wish I knew the answer... I'm not certain the answer either. If a person wanted to get high, and could go to the local bodega and buy some "Wacky Tabacky" to do the trick, they MAY be less inclined to go to harder drugs. Thats only a hypotheses of mine, with no facts to back it up. Folks would use them, but is that any different than alcohol? As long as there was a test for DWH, Driving while High, so what. Social Darwinism will weed it out.
buckeyemike Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 I don't play online poker, at least for money. And I do not gamble. That said, this law sucks. Because what's next? Banning chili fries in the interest of public health and attempting to decrease flatulence, "in the interest of children"? If that's next, I'm moving to Canada. Folks, that's where we're headed. You cannot legislate morality. And at least one person here said that the casino lobby may be behind this. Wouldn't surprise me one bit. Remember the ones in Congress who voted for this law. And come November 7, throw the bums out.
ajzepp Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Come to NYC and drown your sorrows in a few generous helpings of french fries. They won't have any trans fats, so it won't even be bad for your health, I suppose. It kinda sucks when the rules effect YOU, huh my friend? 793698[/snapback] well I think it's human nature to be a little more upset when things hit close to home as opposed to when they affect someone else. As for the smoking thing, I actually agree with AD. I don't think smoking should be allowed in public places, but I think an individual proprietor should be able to decide whether or not his establishment is smoking or non.
ajzepp Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Folks, that's where we're headed. You cannot legislate morality. And at least one person here said that the casino lobby may be behind this. Wouldn't surprise me one bit. wouldn't surprise me either....in fact, not a day after the bill passed in the senate, there was talk of all these takeovers of the internet sites by some of the US based casinos that have been wanting to get into the online thing
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Ask the state of South Carolina what happened when they outlawed gambling. Education funding got slashed and a large number of state troopers got pink slips. Meanwhile untaxed casino boats emerged all over the coast. Now the lawmakers are pissed and are trying to shut the boats down. 793995[/snapback] Of course, SC outlawed a taxable revenue stream, and drove people towards an untaxable one. In this case, the powers-that-be are trying to outlaw an untaxable revenue stream. Anyone care to guess why? Don't kid yourselves. It's not about the morality of gambling. It's about the money.
Recommended Posts