How To Save Online Poker

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

You can't execute a cash transaction for over $9,000 with out filing FEDERAL paperwork. You can't just buy a vehicle and put it on any road. You can't drive without a license and insurance...Actually, I can do all of those things at will. I would be subject to penalties if discovered, but, I certainly could do them.

Fine... you can't LEGALLY do those things. They are regulated activities. And so is Gambling in this country. And Prostitution. And bank robbery. And drugs. And teaching High School. And selling soda pop. And any number of other activities.Did you actually have a point to make?

[DonkSlayer 1]

Fine... you can't LEGALLY do those things. They are regulated activities. And so is Gambling in this country. And Prostitution. And bank robbery. And drugs. And teaching High School. And selling soda pop. And any number of other activities.Did you actually have a point to make?

So I want to buy a LOT of stock in the first Canadian bank that will offer account set-ups online....

[Scanner313 0]

There is no Presidential Line Item Veto...According to Wikipedia: "On June 22, 2006, the United States House of Representatives passed a bill (H.R. 4890) that would call for a six-year line-item veto to cut down on the "pork barrel spending" associated with Congressional lawmaking. The bill stopped short of granting a full line-item veto like the one passed in the 1990s, and instead allows the President to send a bill back to Congress within 45 days for another vote to affirm rider bills. The bill passed 247-172 in the Republican-controlled House. The bill has yet to be considered in the Senate"

So if this is a very newly issued bill, and there was a full line-item veto bill approved in the 90's, why is there "no Presidential Line Item Veto"? I'm confused.

...and how EXACTLY has President Bush been "Stealing our civil liberties"?

No offense, but you're kidding, right? Everything and anything Bush has done since 9/11 has been guised as a thwart to terrorism. I'm not saying he's doing it sadistically in an attempt to control every American, but you can't deny he's eroding our freedoms in his attempt at securing his legacy as a President who stood up for America. Wire taps, government oversight of financial transactions, etc. all associated with the Patriot Act. Look, I'm all for defending this country, but taking away our liberties is not the way. Once you've crossed the line on 1 item the rest are a lot easier to enforce. And then Republican sponsored garbage like this internet gambling bill just enforce that our government doesn't think we're smart enough to handle a little gambling in the security of our own homes. Oh, but get on a plane and fly to Vegas and they're fine with it. What a bunch of crap! This bill isn't intended to "control" gambling, it's intended to stop it, and from the responses of most of the major gambling sites, they have succeeded.

Folks. Get a grip. Gambling is and has been strictly regulated and controlled in this country - this is nothing new. On-line gambling is an "end around" on the rights of the States and US Government to limit or control that activity. You act as if you have a God given right to gamble whenever and wherever you please. News flash: You Don't. Bush and the current Republican administraton didn't invent this. Certain activities are subject to government control. Get used to it. You can't execute a cash transaction for over $9,000 with out filing FEDERAL paperwork. You can't just buy a vehicle and put it on any road. You can't drive without a license and insurance......and now you can't execute electronic cash transactions for gambling on-line through a US Bank.

Are you not missing the entire point of this thread? The government has way too much control! It's not just on-line gambling. There are bunches of victimless crimes in this country that make no sense. You act like there's nothing that can be done about it. WE THE PEOPLE... Does that ring a bell? We are the government. We have the power to create and abolish laws. The point of the Libertarian movement is to get rid of all the ridiculous control the government now exercises over everything we do, and give true freedom back tot he people of this country. You're standing here making it out as though government oversight of financial transactions for activities that harm nobody is a good thing. Are you serious? Do you really want to live that way?

[Tigerlite 0]

The thing to do here is to vote for the opponent of each and every congressman who supports a ban on on-line gaming whether they happen to be Republicans, Democrats, independents, whatever. It is also very easy to find out your congressman's position on this. Call his/her district office and simply ask them. Thanks, and down with these bastards who want to legislate morality all of the time.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

So if this is a very newly issued bill, and there was a full line-item veto bill approved in the 90's, why is there "no Presidential Line Item Veto"? I'm confused.

Reread the section. "The bill has yet to be considered in the Senate"

No offense, but you're kidding, right? Everything and anything Bush has done since 9/11 has been guised as a thwart to terrorism. I'm not saying he's doing it sadistically in an attempt to control every American, but you can't deny he's eroding our freedoms in his attempt at securing his legacy as a President who stood up for America. Wire taps, government oversight of financial transactions, etc. all associated with the Patriot Act.

No offense taken. But I happen to support all of those actions. Even the ones you mention that have been stricken by the so called "Conservative Supreme Court"

You're standing here making it out as though government oversight of financial transactions for activities that harm nobody is a good thing. Are you serious? Do you really want to live that way?

Yes, I really do want to live that way. Do you really want to live in an Anarchy? Our system is the best and most admired/envied on the planet. I support reasonable controls and limits to even those things that I would rather were uncontrolled. I'd likely smoke Marijuana if it were legal - but accept my government's right to regulate it

[Tigerlite 0]

Pot Odds: "Our system is the best and most admired/envied on the planet."Correction: Our system used to be the best and most admired/envied on the planet until Bush fooked it up for everyone.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Pot Odds: "Our system is the best and most admired/envied on the planet."Correction: Our system used to be the best and most admired/envied on the planet until Bush fooked it up for everyone.

Then move to Iran.Good luck with the Civil Liberties.

[solderz 0]

I'm a republican without a party. I have been a republican since I could vote at 18 which is quite far in the past (a little older than many on here), and have never been more disgusted with them. The republican party use to stand for things I agreed with: small government, fiscal responsibility, and a strong defense. The current republican party does not stand for any of the above items, even though they say they still do. US Government spending, not counting the Iraq war, has increased since Bush took office and Republicans took both houses faster than at any time in US history. Its not hard to get a country out of a recession when you are incurring trillion dollar deficits. And the one thing this country can do to make ourselves safer, as spelled out in the 9/11 commission report is to secure our border, which the current administration doesn't give a **** about. Bush sent 6,000 national guard troops down there and didn't give them the power to arrest anyone. 6,000 troops supporting 400 agents for logistical support? What the ****? All they do is get in the way. **** Republicans.Land of the free my ***.Sorry. Had to vent. Sick of supporting these ****ers that insist on running government like its their own personal investment firm.

[WowThats 0]

Stop blaming the Republicans, stop blaming the Democrats and stop blaming anyone who doesn't think online gambling should legalized.If you want to place blame on someone or something "blame the online gambling companies".1. Never put safeguards for under aged people.2. Made too easy for anyone, any age to play.3. Greed.4. Never provided verifiable proof from a legitimate company stating the gaming software was fair for every player.5. No safeguards for the habitual gambler.6. To difficult to get your winnings.The list can go on and on, in the end the online gaming companies only have themselves to blame.I for one will miss online poker, I will not miss online poker in its current form, I look forward to the day online poker is legal and fair for every player.

[Scanner313 0]

Then move to Iran.Good luck with the Civil Liberties.

How about we (collectively) do something about this instead. I certainly am not interested in moving to Iran. Why should I have to? This is MY country, as it is all of YOUR country as well (non-Americans excluded, of course).Pot Odds RAC, I respect your right to disagree with me, but I have to say that you're holding a very dismal view of the people of this country. Yes, absolutely, we should have laws to protect people from the idiocy and irresponsibility of others, such as laws against drunk driving. But it's an individuals bad judgement that kills people, not the alchol itself, so why should alcohol be regulated beyond restricting children from having it? [Just an aside, I don't even think there should be an age limit on these things. Parents need to step up and start raising their children better, but that's another subject.]I truly believe that we could have a TON less government control over insignificant things like gambling, drugs, etc. and still maintain order in this country. Hell, the laws we have aren't stopping people from doing it anyway. The people who really want drugs are getting them. The people who want to gamble are gambling. Victimless crimes are only there because some self-righteous jackasses decided that WE shouldn't be allowed to do those things. And because they are in a position to control the laws, it becomes one. Times have changed, and with instant access to information that we now have on the internet (for how much longer, who knows) people are more informed. We can figure things out for ourselves and we're finding that a great deal of what was once held as truths spouted by our government just isn't the case anymore. Hell, our own government used to make propaganda films to be shown in high schools that basically told you that if you engaged in pre-marital sex that you could, and most likely would, end up dead. And this was long before AIDS came around.I believe we're just smart enough to be able to operate without the government at the wheel when it comes to a lot of things. I don't think our government believes this and obviously there are people out there (yourself included) who also don't believe this. That's your right, but I think it shows a great lack of trust in humanity. And that's sad.

[Tigerlite 0]

Then move to Iran.Good luck with the Civil Liberties.

Dude, the whole love it or leave it crap went out years ago. I love my country and hope that when the Bushies are no longer in office, we can get back to the ideals upon which this country was founded like a healthy respect for individual rights. What is the gov't's interest in banning on-line poker in the United States anyway? Explain that one to me and be specific. Don't give me those generalities you conservatives love to espouse. We'll see whether logic is on your side or whether the whole ban was merely a political ploy by an ethically challenged Republican (Frist) who wants to desperately help himself and his party politically.

[Scanner313 0]

If you want to place blame on someone or something "blame the online gambling companies".1. Never put safeguards for under aged people.2. Made too easy for anyone, any age to play.3. Greed.4. Never provided verifiable proof from a legitimate company stating the gaming software was fair for every player.5. No safeguards for the habitual gambler.6. To difficult to get your winnings.The list can go on and on, in the end the online gaming companies only have themselves to blame.

Terrible arguments.Replies to:1) Isn't it a parent's job to make sure their kids aren't involved in activities they don't want them involved in? The government sure doesn't think so.2) Same as #1.3) Just like every American corporation.4) For casino gaming, let the buyer beware, pal. I don't play on-line for just that reason. If you want to, you assume the risk. As for on-line poker, they'd be insane to rig the software. It's a self correcting system. Screw with the players and lose their business.5) Too bad. There's nothing to stop an addict from flying to Vegas and blowing every penny he has. That's life man. We can't sanitize everything because a select few can't control themselves.6) Again, you assume that risk. If you want to trust some off-shore company with your money that's fine. Again, it's a self-correcting system. They make money by facilitating the games. Screw with someone's payout and the word gets around immediately. They have no reason to fvck with your money.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

How about we (collectively) do something about this instead. I certainly am not interested in moving to Iran. Why should I have to? This is MY country, as it is all of YOUR country as well (non-Americans excluded, of course).Pot Odds RAC, I respect your right to disagree with me, but I have to say that you're holding a very dismal view of the people of this country. Yes, absolutely, we should have laws to protect people from the idiocy and irresponsibility of others, such as laws against drunk driving. But it's an individuals bad judgement that kills people, not the alchol itself, so why should alcohol be regulated beyond restricting children from having it? [Just an aside, I don't even think there should be an age limit on these things. Parents need to step up and start raising their children better, but that's another subject.]I truly believe that we could have a TON less government control over insignificant things like gambling, drugs, etc. and still maintain order in this country. Hell, the laws we have aren't stopping people from doing it anyway. The people who really want drugs are getting them. The people who want to gamble are gambling. Victimless crimes are only there because some self-righteous jackasses decided that WE shouldn't be allowed to do those things. And because they are in a position to control the laws, it becomes one. Times have changed, and with instant access to information that we now have on the internet (for how much longer, who knows) people are more informed. We can figure things out for ourselves and we're finding that a great deal of what was once held as truths spouted by our government just isn't the case anymore. Hell, our own government used to make propaganda films to be shown in high schools that basically told you that if you engaged in pre-marital sex that you could, and most likely would, end up dead. Andthis is long before AIDS came around.I believe we're just smart enough to be able to operate without the government at the wheel when it comes to a lot of things. I don't think our government believes this and obviously there are people out there (yourself include) who also don't believe this. That's your right, but I think it shows a great lack of trust in humanity. And that's sad.

I really don't disagree with you. I too feel that there are "good laws" and "bad laws" - I'd even agree that in some ways, this is a "bad law". But to use it as an indictment of the Republican party or the "American Way" is just a bit to hysterical and frankly self-serving. One may even say "self-righteous". In for a penny, in for a pound. I really don't think that unlimited meth labs would be wise. Nor a steel mill in my suburb. And some people (our duly elected representatives) don't think that some aspects of on-line gambling is good either.I trust humanity - but also trust society and our system of checks and balances. I do have a healthy distrust of our Government - but reserve my righteous indignation for other more important matters.

Dude, the whole love it or leave it crap went out years ago. I love my country and hope that when the Bushies are no longer in office, we can get back to the ideals upon which this country was founded like a healthy respect for individual rights. What is the gov't's interest in banning on-line poker in the United States anyway? Explain that one to me and be specific. Don't give me those generalities you conservatives love to espouse. We'll see whether logic is on your side or whether the whole ban was merely a political ploy by an ethically challenged Republican (Frist) who wants to desperately help himself and his party politically.

Again, exactly how has President Bush disrespected individual rights.You seem to want to imply that Frist and others have some sort of ulterior motive in banning on-line gambling what are you specificaly implying? I personally have serious issues with an unregulated on-line gambling industry. The gambling industry has controls that help ensure (to some extent) the brick & mortar industry. Again, if you accept the legal regulations and limitations of the physical gambling industry - then there should also be limitations on the virtual gambling industry.Face it folks, some regulations are GOOD. Vegas is a better safer place without mob control and with a strong gaming commission. Self regulation doesn't work for many (MOST) industries. I support FDA controls. Any idea how many people would be dropping dead of e-coli tainted veggies, bad medication, etc if not for government oversight instead of "buyer beware"?

[GoNolzOhio 0]

Sorry, Pot Odds RAC, this is my first post, so I dont know how to properly encompass your quote in that neat little blue field, but no matter, my point is still the same. Here is your quote, in quotes:"Folks. Get a grip. Gambling is and has been strictly regulated and controlled in this country - this is nothing new. On-line gambling is an "end around" on the rights of the States and US Government to limit or control that activity. You act as if you have a God given right to gamble whenever and wherever you please. News flash: You Don't. Bush and the current Republican administraton didn't invent this. Certain activities are subject to government control. Get used to it. You can't execute a cash transaction for over $9,000 with out filing FEDERAL paperwork. You can't just buy a vehicle and put it on any road. You can't drive without a license and insurance......and now you can't execute electronic cash transactions for gambling on-line through a US Bank."Your post is exactly INCORRECT.On-line gambling is NOT an "end around" on the rights of the States and US Government to limit or control that activity. Actually, the reverse is true: The States and the US Government are making an end-around around the US Constitution when they decide to ban it. Article II, Section 8 of the US Constitution indicates what powers the Legislature has. I can tell you, it is a VERY short list. I dont want to post the whole thing here, but I will post a link, and you can peruse it at your conveinience to see if you see anything in it about internet gaming. Here's the link:http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...i.html#section8By the way, the fact that internet gaming did not exist at the time the Constitution was ratified does NOT mean that Congress has the power to ban it. What it means is that if you want to have internet gambling banned, YOU have to amend the Constitution empowering the government to do so. This was the case with alcohol. The federal government had to pass an amendment to ban it, they couldnt just up and ban it.Now, we come to a very important amendment. It provides the basis for what I just said. It is the Ninth Amendment, and it says just because the Constitution lists a few rights the people have, it doesnt mean they dont have OTHER rights. In fact, what it says is that if a right is not listed in the Constitution, you must ASSUME that people have that right, not that they dont have it, or that Congress has the right to ban it. Here is your Ninth Amendment:Amendment IXThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. So, what this means is that the Congress was wrong to ban internet gambling, AND it was wrong to force you or me or anyone else to fill out any paperwork whatsoever for any transaction of any amount. If it aint in the Constitution, they cant do it, plain and simple. And if they want to do it, or someone like you wants them to do it, then amend the Constitution, or shut the hell up and let us do what we want with our money. And for god's sake, vote Libertarian.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

The Constitution must be interpreted to serve as a set of guidelines for any number of things that didn't exist when it was written. To say that you must amend the Constitution to allow the Government to regulate something that didn't exist is not an accepted interpretation of the intent nor application of the Constitution. Automobiles didn't exist, meth labs didn't exist - the Constitution must be adaptable to situations unforseen in the 1700sEven most Libertarians do not accept such an interpretation and application of the Constitution.Any of the following could be interpreted to give Congress the power to enact on-line gaming regulation:"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;""To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, ""To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof"

[Tigerlite 0]

I really don't disagree with you. I too feel that there are "good laws" and "bad laws" - I'd even agree that in some ways, this is a "bad law". But to use it as an indictment of the Republican party or the "American Way" is just a bit to hysterical and frankly self-serving. One may even say "self-righteous". In for a penny, in for a pound. I really don't think that unlimited meth labs would be wise. Nor a steel mill in my suburb. And some people (our duly elected representatives) don't think that some aspects of on-line gambling is good either.I trust humanity - but also trust society and our system of checks and balances. I do have a healthy distrust of our Government - but reserve my righteous indignation for other more important matters.Again, exactly how has President Bush disrespected individual rights.You seem to want to imply that Frist and others have some sort of ulterior motive in banning on-line gambling what are you specificaly implying? I personally have serious issues with an unregulated on-line gambling industry. The gambling industry has controls that help ensure (to some extent) the brick & mortar industry. Again, if you accept the legal regulations and limitations of the physical gambling industry - then there should also be limitations on the virtual gambling industry.Face it folks, some regulations are GOOD. Vegas is a better safer place without mob control and with a strong gaming commission. Self regulation doesn't work for many (MOST) industries. I support FDA controls. Any idea how many people would be dropping dead of e-coli tainted veggies, bad medication, etc if not for government oversight instead of "buyer beware"?

I am not implying that Frist has an ulterior motive. I am flat out accusing him of having an ulterior motive. Lets examine the evidence for that accusation. First, Frist is running for President in 2008 and has been losing ground with his conserative base after damning ethical accusations were leveled against him regarding some shady stock sales. What better way to curry favor with conservatives than by staking the moral ground against on-line gaming which disproportionately hurts the poor and vulnerable. Second, he stuck the law into a port security bill (who isn't for port security) at the last possible minute. He did so because he knew that otherwise there wouldn't be enough support for it and he wanted to avoid a potentially damaging debate which would refocus things on his own ethics problem. If he really believed in the measure, why not sponsor a bill and have a debate. Reason: he really doesn't support it, but politically, for him, it makes sense. Third, if he really cared about on-line gaming, he would have advocated some regulation short of a ban and taxed it. However, that would mean that he would not have the moral high ground he so coveted by this stupid law.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I am not implying that Frist has an ulterior motive. I am flat out accusing him of having an ulterior motive. Lets examine the evidence for that accusation. First, Frist is running for President in 2008 and has been losing ground with his conserative base after damning ethical accusations were leveled against him regarding some shady stock sales. What better way to curry favor with conservatives than by staking the moral ground against on-line gaming which disproportionately hurts the poor and vulnerable. Second, he stuck the law into a port security bill (who isn't for port security) at the last possible minute. He did so because he knew that otherwise there wouldn't be enough support for it and he wanted to avoid a potentially damaging debate which would refocus things on his own ethics problem. If he really believed in the measure, why not sponsor a bill and have a debate. Reason: he really doesn't support it, but politically, for him, it makes sense. Third, if he really cared about on-line gaming, he would have advocated some regulation short of a ban and taxed it. However, that would mean that he would not have the moral high ground he so coveted by this stupid law.

Gee, or perhaps he actually believes that it is a good law.

[GoNolzOhio 0]

Nonsense.The Constitution must be interpreted to serve as a set of guidelines for any number of things that didn't exist when it was written. To say that you must amend the Constitution to allow the Government to regulate something that didn't exist is not an accepted interpretation of the intent nor application of the Constitution. Even most Libertarians do not accept such an interpretation and application of the Constitution.Any of the following could be interpreted to give Congress the power to enact on-line gaming regulation:"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;""To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, ""To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof"

well, you are of course wrong about everything. First of all, I dont know how many Libertarians you know, but I can guarantee you that all of them agree with my interpretation of the Constitution. To think that there are Libertarians out there who think Congress can pretty much regulate or ban anything it wants is to turn libertarianism on its head. Now, more importantly, it is not I who is saying the Constitution must be amended to regulate or ban something not in the Constitution, it is the Constitution that is saying that. It is most definitely the original intent of the founders, because that is EXACTLY what it says. I would fully agree with you that it is not a currently ACCEPTED interpretation, but that is exactly what I am arguing. That the currently accepted interpretation is incorrect. How you can possibly say that the clause about coining money gives the Congress the right to ban a certain financial transaction is beyond me. All that clause was for was to create and stablize the value of money, NOT decide what people get to use it for.In any case, why should you bother looking for permission in the Constitution for what you want to regulate? Just say "Congress didnt anticipate this, or this, or this, or this, or this, etc, etc, etc" and go merrily on your way regulating EVERYTHING that didnt exist in 1776. Finally, I ask you again, if an amendment wasnt necessary, why did Congress make one to ban alcohol? Why didnt they just ban it?

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

well, you are of course wrong about everything. First of all, To think that there are Libertarians out there who think Congress can pretty much regulate or ban anything it wants is to turn libertarianism on its head. Now, more importantly, it is not I who is saying the Constitution must be amended to regulate or ban something not in the Constitution, it is the Constitution that is saying that. It is most definitely the original intent of the founders, because that is EXACTLY what it says. I would fully agree with you that it is not a currently ACCEPTED interpretation, but that is exactly what I am arguing. That the currently accepted interpretation is incorrect. How you can possibly say that the clause about coining money gives the Congress the right to ban a certain financial transaction is beyond me. All that clause was for was to create and stablize the value of money, NOT decide what people get to use it for.In any case, why should you bother looking for permission in the Constitution for what you want to regulate? Just say "Congress didnt anticipate this, or this, or this, or this, or this, etc, etc, etc" and go merrily on your way regulating EVERYTHING that didnt exist in 1776. Finally, I ask you again, if an amendment wasnt necessary, why did Congress make one to ban alcohol? Why didnt they just ban it?

So now you speak for ALL Libertarians? Isn't that sort of an oxymoron? News flash: Pot Odds RAC is actually a Libertarian - and you do not speak for me.Stabilizing our monetary systems could very well include limiting certain specific transactions and activities.And, yes, in order to allow this country to progress, the Constitution MUST be applied to certain activities and situations that did not exist or were unforeseen by the founders. Hawaii didn't exist as a state then, but it is controlled by the Constitution.Are you implying that Alcohol didn't exist when the constitution was written? "Separation of Church and State" is never mentioned in the Constitution, but many people (even some Libertarians) believe in the concept. (edited for horrible spelling)

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

From a Liberterian for whom you also do not apparently speak:"...we love the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, and yes, we believe in adhering to the original scope and intent of that wonderful document. No, we do not believe in the liberal reinterpretation of the Constitution as something that the left likes to call a living document, open to reinterpretation. The beauty of the Constitution, and the wisdom of our founder's writings, is that the Constitution never changes in intent or interpretation, and in the fact that it is just as applicable in its original meaning today as it was when it was first penned two-hundred twenty-six years ago.""What am I leading up to you may be wondering? Ok, I'll lay it out on the line. While remaining true to our ideals and our uncompromising defense of limited government and the values outlined in the Bill of Rights, it is necessary that we also recognize that we do not live in the late 18th or early 19th century. Whether we want to admit it or not, we live in a world of instant information, rapid spreading news, events that move at a great rate of speed, and the ability of nations to wage war on a moments notice. There are some libertarians that do not want to face this. They'd rather bury their noggins in the dust of bygone times, hoping that we can remain in an isolationist state, apart from the big old dangerous world. That is not reality anymore. That is an anachronism, and it is inherently self-defeating. I know many libertarians who remain firmly anchored in the values of limited government, personal responsibility, individualism, and constitutional adherence yet also realize that 21st century problems also require 21st century solutions...."

[FourFlusher 0]

How about this:The sites make phone card companies. Rekop Ytrap Phone Pre-paid Phone Cards, Inc., or, Rekop Srats, Inc. They sell you $100 cards, the cc company has to let it go through, and they take the cards same as cash?CC companies can't be expected to track every charge to see if it goes to a gaming site.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

How about this:The sites make phone card companies. Rekop Ytrap Phone Pre-paid Phone Cards, Inc., or, Rekop Srats, Inc. They sell you $100 cards, the cc company has to let it go through, and they take the cards same as cash?CC companies can't be expected to track every charge to see if it goes to a gaming site.

Why not? They are responsible for ensuring $ do not go to terrorists nor drug money laundering.

[Got The Nutz 0]

so basically when this is passed if i get caught driving drunk i will do less time than getting caught playing poker online??

[timwakefield 68]

Somebody should set up some kind of outdoor WiFi connection and stage a protest where thousands of people sit outside with laptops and play poker in public and all get arrested.

[PA32R 0]

I second that.And for any of you who think it's a waste of a vote, just think of how much of a waste your vote is if you vote in "the lesser of 2 evils". There comes a time in history where people need to stand up and vote for the party that they actually want in office. If enough people did this then the alternatives would gain more notoriety, and grow over time. We've become mired in this "2 party system" for so long now that constantly voting for the 2nd guy just to spite the 1st isn't going to change anything.As poker players, I can only imagine that you all value your freedoms, and think that our government telling us that we're not responsibile enough to handle playing is a bunch of crap! So if you're one of these people who are fed up with OUR government telling us what we can and can't do then look into a 3rd party option and vote for them. I have to suggest the Libertarian party as they are the one who would stand behind us against this BS law, but there are others out there to consider as well.And don't think that a vote for a 3rd party is a waste. Remember that a vote for a 3rd party is 1 less vote for the big guys. Not voting for a 3rd party because you believe "they have no chance to win" guarantees it.

Yes. I detest this "you'll be wasting your vote" argument. I live in California, Cali's electoral votes going to a Democratic candidate is an absolute rock-solid guarantee. So by the "wasting my vote" argument, I should vote for the Dem since a Republican has about as much chance of winning this state as a Libertarian.Vote for the canditates that reflect your views.