What is Digg?Sponsored by Bing
When Should I Book My Flight Home for Christmas? view!
bing.com - Bing predicts if your fare is likely to fall by $50 or more within 7 days. Shockingly accurate.
188 Comments
- TheEngineer2008, on 11/10/2008, -2/+82People who don't play poker on the Internet should call as well, as this is all about Internet freedom. People who don't like online poker have the freedom to not play, and I don't have a problem with them having this freedom. I don't know why they have a problem giving me a similar choice.
- chutotoro, on 11/10/2008, -3/+62LOL @ "anti-poker extremists"
- RealmDown, on 11/10/2008, -2/+48Ante extremists.
- ap0calypse0, on 11/10/2008, -2/+45My call will be in tomorrow as soon as I wake up, I suggest everyone else do the same and do NOT put this off any longer.
- heynow21, on 11/10/2008, -0/+37They can take our payment processors, but they'll never take our FREEEEEDOM!!!!
- angusm, on 11/10/2008, -1/+35A friend commented that in business, when you fire an executive, he gets five minutes to clean his desk, with a security guard standing over him to make sure he doesn't touch his computer. After that, you walk him to the door. You don't let him hang around for two months, shredding his files and generally screwing things up.
There are lessons from business that could usefully be applied to government.
What do I want to see Obama do in his first 100 days? Undoing everything Bush did in his last 100 might be a good start. - AlaskaLoneWolf, on 11/10/2008, -5/+39Does this guy know how to get a clue, or what? Dammit. Note to Bush: Just pack your sh!t already and GTFO for chrissake. Go back to Texas or Florida with your drinking buddies.... haven't you done enough damage?
- jts10, on 11/10/2008, -3/+33$100 bucks says it wont be around for long... any takers?
- jahurt, on 11/10/2008, -2/+29This from the party of freedom and personal responsibility.
- rocketman73, on 11/10/2008, -1/+21The Republican party should not be in the business of legislating morality. I am a registered republican and made a vow to never vote for a republican again after they added the UIGEA to the safe port act. I just cannot believe they think it's ok to tell me how I can and cannot spend my hard earned money.
- inactive, on 11/11/2008, -0/+17I don't know why some people think that the people behind this are "anti-poker extremists". I think they are casino owners that want you to gamble offline.
- inactive, on 11/10/2008, -3/+20I feel so "safe" now...
- Beautyon, on 11/10/2008, -7/+23What a ***** ***** Bush is.
A snivelling COWARD, passing legislation at night like a thief.
Reminds me of that other foul legislation passed when everyone was on Christmas vacation in 1913.
What a bastard, usurper and total SCUMBAG.
Not to worry, all his laws will be recinded, in BULK.
MARK MY WORDS. - CautionCU, on 11/10/2008, -0/+16This is not liberty. Those of us who choose to gamble on the internet are more responsible than the investment bankers who lotto-ed other people’s money off on highly leveraged oil futures trading while accepting fact commission checks. Look up S&L crisis on wikipedia and tell me that these people did not know what was going to happen.
There are much more responsible things that our government could be doing right now than bowing to the HORSE GAMBLING LOBBY. And yes, that is exactly who is behind this legislation. - rounderswon1, on 11/10/2008, -4/+18Does the government need to tell you when to go to bed too Awspire? How about make sure you eat your veggies? How can you have your pudding when you don't eat your meat? This is unreal, flat out unreal how the gov't can encroach on our rights as Americans to spend our hard earned money as we see fit. But, alas, I'm not one bit surprised that the government would tighten its stranglehold on its people during hard economic time. The gov't needs to be stopped, or at least controlled. We, as a nation are one step away from being the next china. I voted Ron Paul, did you?
- masamunecyrus, on 11/11/2008, -0/+13Let people do what they want with their own god damn money.
- ReeferChiefer42, on 11/11/2008, -0/+13So the federal reserve can take our money without asking but we can't willingly give our money to online poker companies?
My head hurts more and more every time I read something new about this administration in their last ditch efforts to ***** us in the pooper one last time. - uglyowl, on 11/10/2008, -0/+13It makes me angry beyond belief that I send 40% of my paycheck to the government for them to make laws telling me I can't play cards on the computer for money. Disgusting. We went to war with England to be free 230+ years ago, yet now the English are able to play, and we can't? Who is now the "land of the free"?
- diatonic1, on 11/10/2008, -3/+15Sorry, I can't take you seriously when you can't even put in the effort to type out "why"... or use any punctuation for that matter.
- Sujw44, on 11/10/2008, -3/+15We cant let the government start controlling and regulating the internet. Let these people know how you feel
- inactive, on 11/11/2008, -1/+12"Anti-poker extremists"? They must hang out with the bran muffin zealots and the pro daylight savings time fascists.
- Leadman584, on 11/11/2008, -0/+10Yet another excuse for the government to regulate the internet. Once they get your gambling, your porn, your shopping without paying sales tax, and your freedom of speech, What's Left?
- jthodges, on 11/11/2008, -1/+11Um, exactly?
- TheEngineer2008, on 11/10/2008, -2/+12So, to protect the 0.2% of people who have a problem, you think the best solution is to censor the Internet? You think we need to restrict the freedoms of everyone else? That is extreme, IMO. How much more government would you like? You want them to ban credit cards as well? Cigarettes? Shopping?
Legislation backed by the PPA provides protections for those with excessive gaming habits. It also provides funding for counseling. UIGEA offers nothing to help these individuals. - hauptizzle, on 11/10/2008, -3/+13No one likes you Bush and this is why. Taking freedoms away from Americans based on his individual religious views and "morals"- and I use this term loosely.
- odigity, on 11/11/2008, -1/+11This is ***** ridiculous. They do whatever the ***** they want. There are like 10,000 pages of federal regulations added every year, and it's all to serve some special interest group like Vegas or Rand or Carlyle or Goldman Sachs, just to get campaign contributions and kickbacks. The whole thing would be a sick joke if it wasn't so god damn deadly to the health and economies of America and the world.
Let's face it, government is a stupid ***** idea. We have to start exploring alternatives so that we don't make the same damn mistakes in a few years when this whole thing comes crashing down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60veZm9ZbyU - AlanFang, on 11/11/2008, -2/+11I raise you what you did there with this comment.
- JenniferInMO, on 11/10/2008, -1/+10He's already on that: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
FTA (the link above):
"Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.
A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition." - killtr0city, on 11/11/2008, -1/+10I didn't know anti-poker extremists existed.
- captZEEbo, on 11/11/2008, -0/+8what you probably don't understand (and I didn't understand at first) is that poker is different than slots roulette or lotteries. In those types of games you play against the house which fixes the odds so it is impossible to win in the long term (but possible to win in the short term). In poker, you don't play against the house, you play against the players and pay a fixed % to the house. Which means, it is possible to be a winning poker player in the long term. All you have to do is beat the players by a higher percent than the rake you pay in, simply because you are out to win the other people's money that bring it to the table. Now I'm not saying it is easy to do this, in fact, it takes a fair amount of practice to be able become a winning poker player, but it is definitely possible. I have made my living playing online poker for the past 4-5 years and you can definitely win. There are TONS of people who make money playing online poker, and while there are tons of people who lose money playing online poker.
Second off yes, stupid people can lose money at online gambling, but let me tell you something, stupid people can lose money at casinos, lotteries, and those are SANCTIONED by the government. They can also lose money from loan sharks, poor investment decisions, buying bi gscreen tvs on credit cards and innumerable other ways too. The government is NOT doing this to help stupid people from losing their money, they are doing this b/c they the casinos are located overseas, so they do not get taxes from them. If the government was actually against gambling and shut down all sources of gambling, I wouldn't be up in arms against it. But they are using a lie (to protect the people from losing money gambling), all the while running STATE lotteries, etc. If they had a consistent stance I might be behind them, but they are being hypocritical lying sobs.
Furthermore, this is a horrible horrible quote "but you can't ban stupid so the only way to stop gambling issues is to stop the gambling, not the people." By that logic, you can extrapolate the following laws: "you can't ban alcoholics so might as well ban alcohol". "You stupid people overdosing on medicine, so might as well ban aspirin". "you can't ban pirates, so might as well ban the internet" etc etc. The proper way to stop (perceived) bad behavior is to EDUCATE people about why it is wrong and let them decide for themselves. It is not proper to ban behavior that only poorly affects a small % of the people who partake it and punish the large % of people who partake in that behavior responsibly. - CVL4317, on 11/11/2008, -0/+8I thought... online gambling chips might clog up the internet tubes and only horse racing can clean it up? -credit goes to Jon Stewart
- hippo50876, on 11/11/2008, -0/+7These wacky politicians want to tell us what we can and can't do with our money? Our rights get more infringed upon everyday This is BS
- theo79, on 11/10/2008, -2/+9This makes me so sad. One last attack on 'normal' Americans on the way out the door. Your religious fanatics gave you 8 years in office, please just leave us alone.
- muckemuck, on 11/10/2008, -4/+11Bush... spent 8 years destroying our country and now the smart Republicans tell people they're Libertarians.
- captZEEbo, on 11/10/2008, -2/+9You have horrible opinions on life. Yes gambling can mess up lives. So can credit cards, alcohol, pornography, facebook, video games, tv, movies, and numerous other things many people enjoy. The thing is, it is not proper to just ban things that harm a small percentage of people and provide entertainment and jobs for many others. The best solution is education to help people decide on their own if that particular thing is becoming a problem for them or the potential to become a problem for them.
- rooglelol, on 11/10/2008, -2/+9To go by that logic, we might as well be banning things like MMORPGs. They have the ability to ruin lives. Man, while we're at it, let's just ban the internet and television. They can both cause prolonged periods of procrastination, that ruins lives as well if not done in moderation!
Get a grip. A lot of things have the potential to screw up a person's life, and you'll often find that it's the minority that get affected. Don't ruin it for the majority of people who are perfectly capable of controlling themselves, that's why there are facilities like Alcoholics Anonymous. There is such a facility for gambling as well. The option is there, it's up to them to actually swallow their pride and take it up. - inactive, on 11/11/2008, -0/+7Blame Bush's education plan.
- DangerDave2, on 11/11/2008, -0/+7The PPA sent its members an “Action Alert” concerning this, and is asking members to call the Federal Reserve and tell them not to approve the UIGEA regulations. For consumer complaints, 202-974-7008.
The PPA is asking its members to outline several points:
* The federal agencies responsible for our nation’s economy should not be focused on Internet poker regulations.
* Finalization of the UIGEA rules will add additional burdens on our already crippled financial systems.
* Internet poker is a game of skill and form of recreation for millions of Americans; it should be exempted from the UIGEA.
* Please do not finalize the UIGEA regulations until their impact on our banking systems and average Americans has been fully studied. - okyourturn, on 11/11/2008, -1/+8this doesn't surprise me one bit. i expect much worse before that evil redneck leaves office.
- blitz718, on 11/11/2008, -2/+9Ignorant dumbass.
- JaredXM, on 11/11/2008, -1/+8Help people with a problem. Don't try and prevent the problem from happening by outlawing something and ruining it for the rest of us. That's just like banning alcohol because some people get addicted to it.
- Boogalou007, on 11/11/2008, -0/+7So betting on horses via the internet is ok? Picking random numbers online via a state lottery is honorable stuff?
But playing a skill game of cards against other willing participants is corrupt and evil?
Does that make any sense AT ALL?
What a corrupt government we have... - Dustin00, on 11/11/2008, -0/+7anti-poker extremists... CASINO OWNERS
- TheEngineer2008, on 11/10/2008, -2/+8We can also leave comments at:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/feedback.cfm - pairtheboard, on 11/10/2008, -3/+9why does bush think he can just ban people from playing a game? this is so ridiculous.
i think he should ban football too. football is such a violent game and people get seriously hurt playing it ALL the time. football should be banned
/sarcasm - kinseyincanada, on 11/11/2008, -1/+7what the hell is an anti-poker extremist?
- DFF777, on 11/11/2008, -0/+6This is *****. :
- bigbangbuddha, on 11/11/2008, -0/+6To be clear this is NOT legislation or law. Bush is not a legislator, he is an executive. As I understand it, what he has done is set policy that the "federal" bank will follow, though they are not legally bound to I don't think. This does not make internet gambling illegal though. That would require congress to create a federal law against it and even then it could only be enforced if the gambling was interstate (thus federal). This only makes it so the US banking system will not comply with internet gambling sites and payment systems so you cannot use it when bidding. This said, you may open a foreign account and gamble with that, in fact with some currencies more stable than the US, this may even be wiser.
But either way, I agree, he is a snake and a thief and changing policy in the 11th hour is doing nothing but being a pain in the ass, tons of crap for President Obama to clean up unfortunately. - drex8, on 11/11/2008, -0/+6Whoa!! DIdn't know that so many Diggers were also so passionate Poker players.
Well, ya'll have my vote. Freedom shouldn't be curtailed. And I wholeheartedly agree with the statement, that poker is a game of skill. Though I won't be able to come up with one single poker move if somebody punched me in my stomach. - cardiffgiant1, on 11/10/2008, -2/+8so you think its OK to have state run lotteries, legal bets on horse racing, casinos in most states, but u draw the line at online poker...a game of skill? you didnt think this one thru did u?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 204 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is