EZC-Boston Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news/article/3345 This could be the end... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Christ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 First they came for the smokers but I didn't stand up to them because I didn't smoke. Then they came for the kids playing tag but I didn't stand up to them because I didn't play tag. Then they came for the poker players and there was no one left to stand up to them... :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: government azzholes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 First they came for the smokers but I didn't stand up to them because I didn't smoke. Then they came for the kids playing tag but I didn't stand up to them because I didn't play tag. Then they came for the poker players and there was no one left to stand up to them... :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: government azzholes 810204[/snapback] The fans are standing up to them. The security guards are standing up to them. The peanut vendors are standing up to them. And by golly, if I could be down there, I'd be standing up to them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news/article/3356 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news/article/3356 811531[/snapback] That articles dead on. You can't ban this industry. Also, and not get to OT, but the Republicans made a big mistake with this one. I have no data to support this, but I would think online poker and sports betters are more democratic then republican. They just lit a fire under these people to actually show up and vote. Then you have other Republicans who are really pissed off about this, and could turn because of it. To make it worse they're selling this as an online ban, which the majority of the population believes. In reality this legislation is only meant to make transferring funds more difficult. Online gambling still remains legal at the federal level. Now if they amend the Wire act then you should get worried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 That articles dead on. You can't ban this industry. Also, and not get to OT, but the Republicans made a big mistake with this one. I have no data to support this, but I would think online poker and sports betters are more democratic then republican. They just lit a fire under these people to actually show up and vote. Then you have other Republicans who are really pissed off about this, and could turn because of it. To make it worse they're selling this as an online ban, which the majority of the population believes. In reality this legislation is only meant to make transferring funds more difficult. Online gambling still remains legal at the federal level. Now if they amend the Wire act then you should get worried. 811538[/snapback] I think you're putting too much into this. I would bet (might as well stick with the theme here) that the majority of Americans give two craps about this online poker thing. Then again, most Americans could give two craps about anything besides themselves anyway, so it's no different then any other legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 I think you're putting too much into this. I would bet (might as well stick with the theme here) that the majority of Americans give two craps about this online poker thing. Then again, most Americans could give two craps about anything besides themselves anyway, so it's no different then any other legislation. 811539[/snapback] You got that right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 I think you're putting too much into this. I would bet (might as well stick with the theme here) that the majority of Americans give two craps about this online poker thing. Then again, most Americans could give two craps about anything besides themselves anyway, so it's no different then any other legislation. 811539[/snapback] Americans spent 8.5 billion gambling online in 2004. Over 20 million people gamble online. The demographics of those people are mostly under the age of 40. Democrats tend to be younger then Republicans. I may be reading too much into it, but it's not exactly like the Republicans have a lot of room to lose more votes right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Americans spent 8.5 billion gambling online in 2004. Over 20 million people gamble online. The demographics of those people are mostly under the age of 40. Democrats tend to be younger then Republicans. I may be reading too much into it, but it's not exactly like the Republicans have a lot of room to lose more votes right now. 811545[/snapback] That's all well and good, but if I recall correclty, there weren't too many opponents, Dem or Rep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Americans spent 8.5 billion gambling online in 2004. Over 20 million people gamble online. The demographics of those people are mostly under the age of 40. Democrats tend to be younger then Republicans. I may be reading too much into it, but it's not exactly like the Republicans have a lot of room to lose more votes right now. 811545[/snapback] kegtapr is right...gamblers gamble a lot but they're not a significant enough portion of the population to matter in an election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 That's all well and good, but if I recall correclty, there weren't too many opponents, Dem or Rep 811548[/snapback] The Bill was brought up and rejected on two other occasions. Jon Kyl was the one who introduced it in the first place, and continued to push it for 3 years. Without him this is a dead issue. He was backed by Vegas, which the online gaming community can accept because online gaming is clearly not in their interests. The main backer of Kyl was the Christian fundamentalist groups. If you disagree with my opinion my question is who will come out and vote, or change sides toward Republican because of this bill? Now think of the opposite for Democrats. Before you do that ask yourself when is the last time the government introduced a bill that took away a hobby for more then 20 million people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 kegtapr is right...gamblers gamble a lot but they're not a significant enough portion of the population to matter in an election. 811549[/snapback] I think people changing sides, or turning out when they wouldn't before will make a difference. In a year with strong Republican support it wouldn’t, but they need every last bit of help right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Go to the Indian Casino ya cheap SOB! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 What exactly is the legislation doing?(We don't get all your news over here....but I play online so....) From reading between the lines of the conversation here it is simply hindering the ease in which one can transfer money.....is that correct? If so, what's the big deal? (pun intended:)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 What exactly is the legislation doing?(We don't get all your news over here....but I play online so....)From reading between the lines of the conversation here it is simply hindering the ease in which one can transfer money.....is that correct? If so, what's the big deal? (pun intended:)) 811700[/snapback] Well credit card companies aren't allowed to let people gamble online. Netteller just recently procialimed that they won't accept online gambling from the US, so it is making it much more difficult to play online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Now think of the opposite for Democrats. Before you do that ask yourself when is the last time the government introduced a bill that took away a hobby for more then 20 million people? 811550[/snapback] I guess you are joking, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 I guess you are joking, right? 811715[/snapback] Thanks for adding to the discussion. If you did I imagine it would go something like this. Since I can't relate to people who are pissed off at this I don't think it matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 Well credit card companies aren't allowed to let people gamble online. Netteller just recently procialimed that they won't accept online gambling from the US, so it is making it much more difficult to play online. 811702[/snapback] That is sounding draconian.....why wouldn't they just have an enforced delay of how long you have to wait to get your money online to gamble with? That would stop problem gamblers from losing their heads & blowing everything they have in one fit of mania but would still enable responsible gamblers to enjoy their chosen recreation. I hope it doesn't effect me. BTW....yay me....I just played my first live/in person at venue poker tornament(not for money) with 145 people &......I won!!!! Good on me, me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 That is sounding draconian.....why wouldn't they just have an enforced delay of how long you have to wait to get your money online to gamble with? That would stop problem gamblers from losing their heads & blowing everything they have in one fit of mania but would still enable responsible gamblers to enjoy their chosen recreation. I hope it doesn't effect me. BTW....yay me....I just played my first live/in person at venue poker tornament(not for money) with 145 people &......I won!!!! Good on me, me. 811745[/snapback] Dang, for real?? That's awesome! I would love to play a live game....the closest casino to me is one of the Indian reservation facilities, but they only have slots It's also a dry casino, which doesn't work for me..... I'd have to take a trip over to Mississippi to play, but my favorite strip over there is still recovering from the damn hurriacaine. Nice job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts