Users who Dugg This
Rajni Chauhan
766 Followers
Rajni Chauhan
766 Followers
Paul Sanchez
2659 Followers
Paul Sanchez
2659 Followers
Russ Bastable
6 Followers
Russ Bastable
6 Followers
fuhgetabotitAug 13, 2010
Its the only platform the GNOP has, worrying about who's poker/pokin/poken whom...
beratebirthersAug 16, 2010
That and destroying race relations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
statisttwoAug 13, 2010
Gambling + Drugs + Guns = Digg
Kids!
ymegAug 13, 2010
nolibertarians?
grasshopp3rAug 13, 2010
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Where does it say that the morality police get to prevent me from playing poker? I don't see that in the constitution. In fact, I don't even see the word poker in the reams of federal laws.
I am in support of the internet poker regulations as the federal gov't is in the best position to actually enforce a consistent set of rules, including player protections for fair games, preventing underage players and ensuring fair sites.
somerandomguyAug 14, 2010
I would like to see an Article of the Constitution that relates to "H4X!"
beratebirthersAug 16, 2010
It's not about morality. Obama doesn't support it either. It's about protecting you from crooked corporations who will cheat you out of every dime you have.
theengineer2008Aug 13, 2010Submitter
Fortunately, many conservatives and libertarians either support our right to play or oppose prohibition efforts. These include Grover Norquist, Dick Armey, George Will, Rep. Ron Paul, Rep. Peter King, Andrew Breitbart, John Stossel, Bob Barr, Wayne Allyn Root, and others. Conservative or libertarian groups supporting online poker rights include Reason.com, Campaign for Liberty, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Americans for Tax Reform.
I'm glad a bunch of us are telling the GOP that we don't want them to be the party of big government nanny statism.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
make you a bet
if the Obama administration put forward a bill legalizing online poker, all of them would vote against it
theengineer2008Aug 14, 2010Submitter
Barney Frank is the chief sponsor. If these people will support a Frank-sponsored bill, they'll be there if Obama supports it.
dzhuo04Aug 13, 2010
Read the Article, Ron Paul voted present over voting his conscious. What a defender of the liberty of the people of the United States and his constituency.
weirddaveAug 13, 2010
You're misrepresenting Ron Paul's position, dorkwad. He voted present because he is against regulation of internet poker, but the bill is about regulating it.
theengineer2008Aug 13, 2010Submitter
Dave,
Ron Paul was willing to vote for the regulation contained in the intial bill but found some amendments to cross the line for him..
weirddaveAug 14, 2010
TheEngineer, are you saying that RP was going to vote for this bill because he actually wants regulation, which contradicts my understanding of the man in general, or are you saying that RP was going to vote for this bill in spite of the regulation contained inside, in which case there's no reason for you to have made your comment?
torisutanAug 14, 2010
Ron Paul wants regulation only to the extent that the government ensures the gambling sites actually play fair. It would be stupid to let them be completely unregulated, they could get people's money and not give them anything in return even if they win, and nobody could do anything about it. No, RP is not an idiot (not completely anyways), he just voted present because he didn't want to vote against the bill, but he also didn't want to vote for it under the banner of protecting people from over-regulation.
Then again, over-regulation has a rather opinionated definition...
weirddaveAug 14, 2010
@torisutan That doesn't jive with what I know about him either. But, you guys seem so sure of yourselves that you got me going to go look up the answers myself.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-07-20/ron-paul-legalize-online-gambling-and-dont-tax-it/
Ron Paul makes it clear that he does not support any kind of regulation on online gambling, except as a temporary means to making an activity that should be legal, legal. He also has no interest in creating a new regulation for fair play or anything like that. In his own words: "Risk is inherent in any economic activity, and it is not for the government to determine which risky behaviors Americans may or may not engage in."
I'm not putting words in his mouth to say that Ron Paul has no interest in any special government regulation of online gambling at all. His answer to this kind of thing has always been that if the business needs regulation then a business need for regulation exists and the businesses will regulate themselves due to market forces.
lordskywalkerAug 13, 2010
Why? It's simple: If the GOP truly supports individual rights that don't intrude on others, then they have no reason to oppose it. Same goes for legal prostitution, a regulated cannabis industry, allowing farmers to grow industrial hemp, and the list goes on.
armedrebelAug 13, 2010
Of course they don't care about individual rights, it's just a card they play whenever something happens the disagree with.
therednewtAug 14, 2010
I think a good portion of them fail to see the conflict between cheering for liberty and trying to legislate religious morality. I know that must be frustrating for those who truly hold to more traditionally conservative values.
lightspeed10Aug 13, 2010
who gives a s**t about online poker
every article should be on the google-verizon proposal, f**k google, they want to end net neutrality.
gentlemen google fanboys support google for no reason.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
therealricoAug 13, 2010
funny thing about the world , just because one thing is happening that you don't like, doesn't mean there aren't other things of interest for people either good or bad that they talk about. For instance f**k the net neutrality there is are two f**king wars going on!
irvman21Aug 13, 2010
There are many reasons not to oppose it. The most important is very simple. You can't stop it and trying just pushes the tax revenues overseas.
unbannedaccountAug 13, 2010
Sort of like drugs.
stevemtylerAug 13, 2010
They have to oppose it to drum up the bible belt support.
hollowexAug 13, 2010
I doubt the bible belt is for banning gambling since they have all the indian casinos that are packed every night. They may be for banning it so that they won't lose jobs however... dunno...
therednewtAug 14, 2010
Wrong. Check out what's going on in Alabama with the governor's rampage against electronic bingo. He's doing his best to close down as many of the places as he can in the few short months he has left in office. He's doing a pretty good job of ensuring the unemployment rate will be even higher soon: shutting down the machines at one race track cost 600 jobs.
The states have no control over the Indian casinos since they're essentially independent.
hollowexAug 14, 2010
I'm aware that reservations are considered sovereign. I was hinting that someone is filling those casinos up and it's not the indians. Sorry for Alabama though. I would prefer all casinos close down outside of Nevada and Atlantic City so Las Vegas stops suffering :). Also, I am a Native American and hate seeing what gambling is doing to the small towns in Oklahoma. There may be jobs but that money goes back into the machines, liquor stores, and Native American smokeshops... Addiction is terrible when it's so convenient.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003869,00.html
hollowexAug 14, 2010
http://www.ok.gov/OGC/Gaming_Exclusivity_Fees/index.html
Closed AccountAug 14, 2010
There's something you need to understand about the Bible Belt. They're a bunch of f**king hypocrites. When it comes to the law, they go off of what their religion teaches, like drinking and gambling are sins. It doesn't mean that they don't drink and gamble, they just seem to think that if they object to it loudly enough, that'll make up for it.
willthewayAug 13, 2010
If only the GOP opposes it, then why don't the Democrats (who have a majority and the presidency) allow it?
maddoktor2Aug 13, 2010
Only someone who refuses to acknowledge the reality of Congress and how it works would say that.
Look up "Blue Dogs", and get back to us.
torisutanAug 14, 2010
Those goddamned traitorous blue dogs... -_- we could've had a public option for healthcare, but noooooooo, as soon as they're in power THAT'S when they decide to be f**king picky.... I hope they all get cancerous genital wart AIDS as soon as they're out of office and have to pay for their own health insurance again...
In the meantime, f**k them and everything they stand for, since all they stand for is being Republicans in Democrats clothing in order to get elected in their regions.
willthewayAug 15, 2010
@torisustan - So you are saying that people who vote Democrat are stupid?
willthewayAug 14, 2010
Right, and the Democrats who were against the Iraq War also prevented that from happening when the Republicans had the majority.
But seriously, can't democrats try compromise instead of shoving things down our throats?
taxmoreAug 13, 2010
Only reason democrats want this is so they can tax the s**t out of it.
maddoktor2Aug 13, 2010
And that's a problem, how?
enantiodromiaAug 13, 2010
trollmore
particleman420Aug 13, 2010
and the only reason you're against it is because democrats are for it
torisutanAug 14, 2010
Yep, I want to tax the s**t out of it. Know why? Because that's less debt for our country you f**king tool.
mhines00Aug 13, 2010
Poker has been proven and ruled in several state level courts to be a game of skill. Study, practice, and work hard and you have a chance to be successful. This is simply not so with games like blackjack (excluding counting cards) or slots. Why is poker illegal?
tsuruchibrianAug 13, 2010
Why are games of chance illegal? What a stupid standard to make game illegal.
Monopoly is a game of chance.
therealricoAug 13, 2010
Do you play with real money in monopoly?
batfishyAug 13, 2010
Tsuruchi - With online poker the players are not betting against the house. They are playing only each other. A site where the house has a clear advantage (games of chance) might be a different matter to regulate.
I think anyone who wants to gamble online in their own home in their pajamas should be able to do just that. I play quite often with real money.
tsuruchibrianAug 13, 2010
@therealrico
No, because I don't play monopoly. It's a stupid game.
@Batfishy
As far as I am concerned, people who play games that are rigged against them should lose their money. And most people do this in a perfectly legal form called the state lottery. The government doesn't want any competition when it comes to taking money from suckers.
I think the best way to convince people that gambling is bad is to let them do it.
batfishyAug 14, 2010
Tsuruchi - If you ask me the lottery is just another way to fleece the poor.
However, poker is not rigged against anyone. Typically, the house makes money on their poker tables by taking a rake. In other words, they are not involved in the odds at all.
tsuruchibrianAug 14, 2010
@Batfishy
I don't see how gambling against other people is qualitatively any different than gambling against a group of people (i.e. a corporation) called a casino.
I don't see how gambling in person is any different than gambling online.
I don't see why any form of gambling should be illegal at all. It is a mutual agreement between 2 parties to exchange money based on the unknown outcome of a game. Why does that need to be illegal under any circumstance?
batfishyAug 14, 2010
Tsuruchi - With casino games the house always has the odds in their favor (blackjack and craps played correctly have the lowest house odds) the rest of the games have a considerably higher house advantage.
Compare this to poker, which has equal odds for everyone at the table depending on skill. There is luck involved with poker, but skill can often even the playing field.
This is not a hard concept to wrap your mind around. Have you never gambled or had a weekend in Vegas?
tsuruchibrianAug 14, 2010
@Batfishy
But the difference is arbitrary. If the casinos ever made the odds for blackjack and craps better, and decided to take a higher fee for allowing players to play at the poker table, it could easily be that poker on average causes people to have worse effective odds than blackjack or craps.
By effective odds I mean that if the house takes 50% of each winning hand in poker, it has dramatically reduced your odds of coming out ahead.
The odds of each individual game are arbitrary. The casinos can change them anytime they want.
Beep111Aug 13, 2010
The GOP doesn't believe in lower taxes and smaller government, they believe in cutting social programs they disagree with under the guise of "small government". Notice how they refuse to touch defense spending?
mbtriaAug 13, 2010
Shocking, simply shocking.
Both parties agree that personal behavior they hold as evil, unethical, sinful, naughty or just plain nasty needs to be controlled. Its just a matter of what personal behavior is happens to be. Of course, sometimes its also a matter of business. Lobbyists and business interests have been known to attack personal behavior that might interfere with their profits.
Sometimes the best deal is to take money from one group, promising to restrict the rights of another group, while taking money from the second group to bash the first. That sweet young conservative Christian boy -- the one who as over 40, but still looked like he was twelve. I think he was involved with something like this with Indian Tribe casinos, gamblers and some antigambling groups. If you want to read about something like this, try http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/ref/reed.phpComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
"Private convictions are no reason to abandon ideals of limited government, individual rights and personal responsibility."
What, people haven't realized yet that the right wing is nothing but private convictions and all the rest is populism?
Land of the free...
tsuruchibrianAug 13, 2010
The only party who wants bigger government than the Democrats is the Republicans.
The Republicans want smaller government except when it comes to making sure gay people don't get married, making sure a brown person is being killed int he middle east with expensive technology, or that people with drug addictions are in jail rather than being helped.
At least democrats (and I am not one) admit they are for bigger government.
kibblesnbittsAug 14, 2010
That's what I always say. As a registered democrat, though first and foremost I am a liberal, I admit that I am for government intervention in many aspects. However, I would like to see the opposing side of the spectrum be full of rational people who are for a smaller government and be full of people with common sense. So even if my views aren't represented, the views of rational people with valid points are being represented.
cerebronAug 13, 2010
There are a lot of good reasons to oppose this particular bill, namely:
"(4) Internet gambling in the United States should be controlled by a strict Federal licensing and regulatory framework to protect underage and otherwise vulnerable individuals, to ensure the games are fair, to address the concerns of law enforcement, and to enforce any limitations on the activity established by the States and Indian tribes."
"(5) An effective Federal licensing system would ensure that licenses are issued only to Internet gambling operators which meet strict criteria to protect consumers..."
"(6) There is a need to extend the regulatory provisions of this Act to all persons, locations, equipment, practices, and associations related to Internet gambling, with each State and Indian tribe having the ability to limit Internet gambling operators from offering Internet gambling to persons located within its territory by opting out of the provisions of this Act."
You can read it here http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2267
I don't mind internet gambling, especially poker, but I'd hate to see the federal government control it this much.
particleman420Aug 13, 2010
i didnt see anything in any of those 3 examples that shows a good reason to oppose this.
government regulation doesnt automatically mean evil.
therealricoAug 13, 2010
I am curious if you know how this might impact fantasy sports. I know they were sorta excluded from the original bill. The other problem was the interstate wire act of 1961 which some believe made online gambling illegal, although in court they have said that wasn't the case. Anyway I am curious if that would allow people to set up fantasy leagues on a site like ESPN for their friends where they would determine the amount of money for the buy in and the winner would take it all.
Previously the law as I read it stated you could have a contest with a predetermined monetary reward, but you couldn't make the prize contingent say on how many people would join a league.
theengineer2008Aug 14, 2010Submitter
It beats a ban, which IMO is on the horizon if we don't find a way to get U.S. based companies participating in the market.
korvan504521Aug 13, 2010
They should simply require that all online poker operations in the USA be based out of a physical location within the US, and not be foreign owned. Last thing we need is people gambling what little money we have out to some Swiss casino.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
What is it about Digg that attracks losers who want pot and on-line gambling legalized??
enantiodromiaAug 13, 2010
Yeah, it's dumb to want freedom.
particleman420Aug 13, 2010
what is it about digg that attracts holier-than-thou assh**es that want to judge and insult everyone else while forcing their own moral standards?
Closed AccountAug 14, 2010
Why is it you pretend you're a conservative and yet constantly demand bigger government and more spending?
frostyfreeballnAug 15, 2010
I will bet you $10 you are full of s**t
maddoktor2Aug 13, 2010
Gambling is a sin, according to fundamentalists.
Republicans will always pander to their extremist base.
If A, then B.
beratebirthersAug 16, 2010
A2) Except for church bingo, then that's not gambling and it's a sin for you to criticize us.
andyswanAug 13, 2010
The GOP has sold out "liberty" for the dollars from "religion".
I'm either a hard-core conservative or a libertarian, depending on your preference of artificial labels....and this stuff REALLY gets under my skin.
I have only one question for Republican supporters of the ban: "Where in the Constitution do you read that the federal government has the right to break-up a poker game between consenting adults?"
Either you believe The Constitution lends itself to "nuanced" interpretation or you don't, hypocrites.
ripleyisdeadAug 14, 2010
I can't even believe this kind of stuff is still going on. No gambling, no pot brownies, no recreational drugs, no abortions, no atheists, no mosques, Creationism in schools -- 80% of what's going on in government today is complete bs. We have serious issues to deal with, and all these jerks can do is find new ways to put Americans in jail, or force them to accept religion. Personally, I think we need three things from government: healthcare for when we're too sick to care for ourselves, Social Security for when we're too old to care for ourselves, and a functional military. No more religion, morality, or babysitting.
enantiodromiaAug 13, 2010
The real reason the GOP hates poker is because they suck at it.
heliumflashAug 13, 2010
Since when was opposition to online gambling a platform of the GOP? If I recall correctly, the only reason it was banned in the first place was because some assh**e politician attached it to a much more important bill. If it comes up for a vote, I'm sure that online gambling will be re-legalized.
joot2112Aug 14, 2010
"family values" and all that...
theengineer2008Aug 14, 2010Submitter
It's been in the past three platforms (2000, 2004, and 2008). We fought the 2008 inclusion hard, keeping it out of the draft platform. Unfortunately, the full committee restored it.
appleofdischordAug 13, 2010
The government should only regulate, and never ban vices. Gambling, alcohol, and drugs can be harmful for some people... the ones who don't know how to control themselves. The government should either be taxing vices more heavily to offset the societal costs of abuse, or they should be instituting a license that can be revoked when individuals show that their behavior is becoming harmful.
theengineer2008Aug 14, 2010Submitter
These people think these so-called vices hurt everyone's moral character. Too bad they don't see defending liberty as a virture.
theengineer2008Aug 14, 2010Submitter
or as a virtue. :-)
sdipaolaAug 14, 2010
Gambling is a vice that statically hurts 10000s of people ( they lose everything) and creates crime. It is exactly why we have government, to make laws or regulate an ethically concern most of the community believes especially is there is good statical data to back up the hurt to society or in this case country - in this case guaranteed ( mathematically) hurt to society. I know many of you will tell me I am wrong, but it is mathematical certainty that over the long run ( the longer you play the more you approach the certainty) that the gambler will lose exactly by the odds the (online or not) casino set up for the specific game. It is called probability and it is as mathematically rigorous as it gets. That is why some games can be set as low as 51% casino, 49% gambler - because the casino over the long run (that year) and number of gamblers (for that year) will get back exact 1% ( the 51%) on that game - guaranteed. So gamblers are winning/losing more than the odds within the ebbs and flows ( up and downs) of an eventual flattened out of the guaranteed probability set for the game. So the longer a gambler plays the more like they will lose,period. Skill can only help you not do dumb things but can NEVER get you over the probability set by the game in the long run (the key is LONG RUN). It is a mathematical certainty. So casinos basically tell untruths and create a mythology of winning that is not supported by the mathematical facts. So individually some might be able to stay in the ebb and flow ( there whole lives), but as a group, they will lose based on the odds; and the society will have exactly that number of losers to deal with - this is where it makes sense for government to come in - where something is guaranteed in the aggregate but hard to see individually that needs to be addressed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
somerandomguyAug 14, 2010
That's why we're talking about Poker, which is player vs. player, and not player vs. casino.
There's no inherent house advantage when you're playing another person.
theengineer2008Aug 14, 2010Submitter
Sorry, but those are the standard lies trotted out by those seeking to justify their big government control over the people. The reality is that gaming, especially poker, is responsibly enjoyed by many. The proof is in the UK. Online gaming has been lawful there for a number of years, yet the UK Gambling Precedence Study showed no increase in problem gaming. It remained constant at less than 1% of the population -- roughly the same percentage as here in the US.
Also, poker is not a game of chance, nor is it against the house, so your numbers don't add up for the game of poker. Many of us are long term winners. I am. Some are not, but they enjoy the recreation of playing. So what? Every recreational golfer, boater, and bowler loses money by enjoying their hobby.
The bottom line is that we're not going away. Poker players will keep fighting for their rights and won't quit until we've secured the game in all its forms in all fifty states.
technoesAug 14, 2010
Shut the hell up
hyraxAug 16, 2010
/thread
joe8packAug 14, 2010
If a gambler owns their own money, then they have a perfect right to squander it on online gambling. Just as much as they could squander all their money on vanilla pudding or Bear Stearns stock. I thought the Republicans weren't in favor of the nanny state?
glimp7Aug 14, 2010
Let's keep in mind Republicans AND some Democrats are slowly (debatable) unleashing the internet to corporate authority. Have you ever gotten on the net in France, Sweden, the UK? So many sites are missing, it's incredible.
joe8packAug 14, 2010
Your proof doesn't support your thesis.
rudegarAug 14, 2010
I'm in Denmark got any examples if sites I'm missing?
of cause pedo porn is blocked
and sites such as comedy central will not let me stream
but never had an issue but of cause I can't know where I can't go
if I can't go there
realcoolguy9022Aug 14, 2010
I too would expect the GOP not to try and regulate online gambling at a federal level. If an individual state wants to go a different direction and try to ban it, well it's their loss I guess.
nizzo45Aug 14, 2010
Of all the things the GOP opposes, you pick online poker?
theengineer2008Aug 14, 2010Submitter
If we let them censor the Internet, that will embolden them to do more.
azwethinkweizmAug 14, 2010
Why does the GOP like to tell me what to do as if I'm some sort of child?
vegetablelambAug 14, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism
solitaireroseAug 14, 2010
But...but...Jesus! JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEsus!
o76923Aug 14, 2010
The only gamble the GOP wants you to make is that their version of Jesus is correct and all the tithing will get you into heaven.
torisutanAug 14, 2010
Guys, I think I get it!
Conservatives are against gambling because it's against their core value of "working your ass off to earn as little money as your employer can legally pay you while they keep 80% of the profits"!
Gambling lets you make money off of luck, which, despite the fact that some people get born lucky and into wealthy families, is apparently unfair in their eyes. Odd, because whenever I say anything about life being unfair, I get called a socialist...
hyraxAug 16, 2010
It's the solutions that get you called a socialist. How is taxes, the theft of money, fair? Ethical? moral? How can the basis of a supposed good deed grow off the backbone of thievery?
It's not easy for most people to make money off gambling. For some people it ruins lives. But it's their free will to participate and access the risk/rewards.
drmobutuAug 14, 2010
Don't worry, it's all for the sake of show...the Republicans are just biding their time, until they can work out a nice deal, with some of the major corporate gaming companies...there's so much money in it, they won't be able to keep their fingers out of that pie.
glimp7Aug 14, 2010
TPB :)
hyraxAug 16, 2010
I'm all for online poker, don't fancy the taxes and regulation.