NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060710/ap_on_go_co/internet_gambling;_ylt=AliMp9T9Gss1y9soi3inoAes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3cjE0b2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg-

On Tuesday, the House plans to vote on a bill that would ban credit cards for paying online bets and could padlock gambling Web sites.

The legislation would clarify existing law to spell out that it is illegal to gamble online.

To enforce that ban, the bill would prohibit credit cards and other payment forms, such as electronic transfers, from being used to settle online wagers. It also would give law enforcement officials the authority to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling Web sites.


Say gopodbye to even more of your freedoms. I have officially become a libertarian. The decision between democrat and republican is now about which set of rights do you prefer to lose next. I hope the republicans lose bad - maybe then they'll realize that their radical religious base is killing them as much as the extreme lefties have done to the democrats.

Meanwhile - the libertarians are the only ones who seem interested in actually restoring and protecting our shrinking rights.

This does have the gambling industry's hands all over it, but to be fair this is illegal gambling. I dunno, if more of the companies were based in the US, the House would be less interested in banning them.

on line gambling isn't a right.

This does have the gambling industry's hands all over it, but to be fair this is illegal gambling. I dunno, if more of the companies were based in the US, the House would be less interested in banning them.


It is not illegal gambling- yet. That's why they have to propose legislation to ban it.

The offshore gabling companies certainly have problems with fairness and paying out, but most people who gamble online are aware of the risks. If their dumbasses want to lose their house via an electronic card game, that's their business. Lowers housing costs for me.

I have officially become a libertarian. The decision between democrat and republican is now about which set of rights do you prefer to lose next. I hope the republicans lose bad - maybe then they'll realize that their radical religious base is killing them as much as the extreme lefties have done to the democrats.

Meanwhile - the libertarians are the only ones who seem interested in actually restoring and protecting our shrinking rights.

not biased at all are you :rolleyes:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060710/ap_on_go_co/internet_gambling;_ylt=AliMp9T9Gss1y9soi3inoAes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3cjE0b2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg-

On Tuesday, the House plans to vote on a bill that would ban credit cards for paying online bets and could padlock gambling Web sites.

The legislation would clarify existing law to spell out that it is illegal to gamble online.

To enforce that ban, the bill would prohibit credit cards and other payment forms, such as electronic transfers, from being used to settle online wagers. It also would give law enforcement officials the authority to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling Web sites.


Say gopodbye to even more of your freedoms. I have officially become a libertarian. The decision between democrat and republican is now about which set of rights do you prefer to lose next. I hope the republicans lose bad - maybe then they'll realize that their radical religious base is killing them as much as the extreme lefties have done to the democrats.

Meanwhile - the libertarians are the only ones who seem interested in actually restoring and protecting our shrinking rights.
oh gee... guess I can cross of the Right To Gamble off of the bill of rights and the constitution...


oh wait, it's not there. :rolleyes:

Gambling isnt a right.

I dont see it as a loss of freedom.

So maybe the right to gamble isn't considered a Human Right. But I'm darn sure the right not to have the government arbitrarily restrict one's activities(ie the Right to Liberty) is a fundamental right.

So maybe the right to gamble isn't considered a Human Right. But I'm darn sure the right not to have the government arbitrarily restrict one's activities(ie the Right to Liberty) is a fundamental right.

Bolded for Truth.

So maybe the right to gamble isn't considered a Human Right. But I'm darn sure the right not to have the government arbitrarily restrict one's activities(ie the Right to Liberty) is a fundamental right.

Exactly. Your rights are your civil liberties, not just those 10 items explicitly laid out in the constitution. those are your "constitutionally guaranteed rights" as are other ammendments added later.

I dunno about elsewhere, but in California the slogan of the state senate is "Senatoris est Civitatis Libertatum Tueri" Meaning: it is the duty of the senate to protect civil liberties. More often than not they restrict what we can do though, rather than maintain our freedoms

Those arrogant suits should be busy with more important matters. I think if you are stupid enough to blow your money gambling you should be left alone to do it. Leave the responsible gamblers their freedoms and stop treating everyone according to what the lowest common denominator does. Energy costs out of control, immigration, terrorism, rogue nations, this isn't enough to keep those useless tits busy? They won't be happy till they get their dicks into everybodies soup. God forbid they do something useful while we have the threat of online gambling looming over us!

on line gambling isn't a right.


Neaither are red sneakers. So fucking what.

It is that stupid attitude which will lead us all to ruin. "Hey - it don't affect me so - fuck 'em".

I don't gamble. I also don't believe the government has any juristiction over these issues beyond weights and measures. The government does not belong in the morality business. What next - Burkas?

It's all well and good to go talking about rights, but a person only has a right to swing their fist until it touches my nose, as it were. Gambling has been shown to be a potentially addictive activity, one that ruins families and lives. You can say that they should allow gambling, as long as I don't have to pay for the impoverished children left over from gambling. Take away my responsibility for the poor and broken, and you can let people do whatever they want. As long as I have to pay taxes to support these people, however, I (and thus, my government) has a right to restrict activities that tend to put people on the dole.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060710/ap_on_go_co/internet_gambling;_ylt=AliMp9T9Gss1y9soi3inoAes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3cjE0b2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg-

On Tuesday, the House plans to vote on a bill that would ban credit cards for paying online bets and could padlock gambling Web sites.

The legislation would clarify existing law to spell out that it is illegal to gamble online.

To enforce that ban, the bill would prohibit credit cards and other payment forms, such as electronic transfers, from being used to settle online wagers. It also would give law enforcement officials the authority to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling Web sites.


Say gopodbye to even more of your freedoms. I have officially become a libertarian. The decision between democrat and republican is now about which set of rights do you prefer to lose next. I hope the republicans lose bad - maybe then they'll realize that their radical religious base is killing them as much as the extreme lefties have done to the democrats.

Meanwhile - the libertarians are the only ones who seem interested in actually restoring and protecting our shrinking rights.

The libertarian party wants to disarm the national guard

Since when was online gaming a US constitutional right?

Since when was online gaming a US constitutional right?
it's the fact that the Govenment is doing something to remove something from everyone. it doesn't matter if it's smoking, drinking, or on-line gambling. people here will call it a removal of rights and freedoms.

Neaither are red sneakers. So fucking what.

It is that stupid attitude which will lead us all to ruin. "Hey - it don't affect me so - fuck 'em".

I don't gamble. I also don't believe the government has any juristiction over these issues beyond weights and measures. The government does not belong in the morality business. What next - Burkas?I doubt that the Federal Government can tell a citizen what to wear.

Their Employee's yes. but not civilians.

No one is claiming that online gaming is a US constitutional right- but it is, currently, a right nonetheless.

As for the Government telling people what to wear, sure they could. They probably never will and if they tried, the ACLU woud be on their ass but all they'd really have to do is claim that it's for National security and you'd have all kinds of support behind it from the slew of Bush automotons out there who are willing to give up everything for a false sense of security.

No one is claiming that online gaming is a US constitutional right- but it is, currently, a right nonetheless.

As for the Government telling people what to wear, sure they could. They probably never will and if they tried, the ACLU woud be on their ass but all they'd really have to do is claim that it's for National security and you'd have all kinds of support behind it from the slew of Bush automotons out there who are willing to give up everything for a false sense of security.
actually, It wouldn't matter who was behind this bill, I would be for it. I've seen what uncontrolled gambling can do. If it was up to me, I would require a licence to gamble... one that can be taken away when it becomes too overpowering.

while it will be hard to restrict it, it would be harder to tax and to regulate it. and who's to say that the person logging in is infact not a minor with their momma's credit card?

should we also have a license to drink? How about a license for porn? A License for video games or the internet. A license for fast food. I license to bear children (Actually I kinda like that idea)

There are always going to be things that people to to excess resulting in personal injury or affecting those around them. One of the benefits of living in a free society is that we get to make those choices. Weather or not it was a good choice is not the governments business.

Give me my booze, my porn and my McDonalds along with my internet gambling and get the hell out of my face.

should we also have a license to drink? How about a license for porn? A License for video games or the internet. A license for fast food. I license to bear children (Actually I kinda like that idea)

There are always going to be things that people to to excess resulting in personal injury or affecting those around them. One of the benefits of living in a free society is that we get to make those choices. Weather or not it was a good choice is not the governments business.

Give me my booze, my porn and my McDonalds along with my internet gambling and get the hell out of my face.drinking is already monitored because minors cannot buy drinks and any adult providing minors with alcohol will be arrested.

porn is also age regulated and while it should be removed from the Internet, it would be harder to do so starting with On-Line gambling is a start.

Video games have a rating system to inform parents, and fast food, while unhealthy, isn't as dangerous as drugs and alcohol.

the one problem that is not being mentioned is that while people refuse personal responsibility for themselves and those who are dependant on them, the government has to take these steps. don't want the government to remove more activities, then start controlling yourself as well as your kids, family members and show some responsibility for your actions.

*You and yours is referring to people who point to others as the source of their problems.*

drinking is already monitored because minors cannot buy drinks and any adult providing minors with alcohol will be arrested.

porn is also age regulated and while it should be removed from the Internet, it would be harder to do so starting with On-Line gambling is a start.

Video games have a rating system to inform parents, and fast food, while unhealthy, isn't as dangerous as drugs and alcohol.

the one problem that is not being mentioned is that while people refuse personal responsibility for themselves and those who are dependant on them, the government has to take these steps. don't want the government to remove more activities, then start controlling yourself as well as your kids, family members and show some responsibility for your actions.

*You and yours is referring to people who point to others as the source of their problems.*


wait, wait wait... You're talking about personal responsibility but earlier you were proposing a license that could be taken away if your gambling got out of hand. That is not personal responsibility, that's government regulation.

Online gaming does already have an 18 and over stipulation on it, but like anything else, people are going to break the rules. That's life. The only reason the govt doesn't like it is because they can't collect taxes on it and it drives them crazy.

I control myself quite well, thanks. And I have no children to control (I don't believe in breeding) It seems that the only activity you want taken away is one that has affected you directly. If we took away all the activities that had some affect on people's lives we would all just end up stitting around our houses staring at a blank wall.

It's up to individuals to monitor themselves and if they don't have control over it, sucks to be them and said loved ones.

wait, wait wait... You're talking about personal responsibility but earlier you were proposing a license that could be taken away if your gambling got out of hand. That is not personal responsibility, that's government regulation.

Online gaming does already have an 18 and over stipulation on it, but like anything else, people are going to break the rules. That's life. The only reason the govt doesn't like it is because they can't collect taxes on it and it drives them crazy.

I control myself quite well, thanks. And I have no children to control (I don't believe in breeding) It seems that the only activity you want taken away is one that has affected you directly. If we took away all the activities that had some affect on people's lives we would all just end up stitting around our houses staring at a blank wall.

It's up to individuals to monitor themselves and if they don't have control over it, sucks to be them and said loved ones.
you mistake me. I said I would be for some sort of licencing, not that I want it. big difference.

and I also said the root of all these "Government regulations" is the lack of personal responsibility. you cannot force people to take responsibility, so the government is forced to inact all these regulations.

gambling itself is on a state by state and even a county by county measure. However, in a casino, the gamblers are closely monitored and watched for any rule breaking. the same sort of security cannot be maintained on the web. so thus the government steps in.

I can control my on-line activities, but apparently, not everyone can. blame them, not the government. Remember, as is fond of saying on this board, Majority doesn't rule, sometimes it's those in the minority that sets policies. so perhaps it will be down to the majority of us watching paint dry before people in total start taking personal responsibility for their actions and not foistering it off onto others.

It's all well and good to go talking about rights, but a person only has a right to swing their fist until it touches my nose, as it were. Gambling has been shown to be a potentially addictive activity, one that ruins families and lives. You can say that they should allow gambling, as long as I don't have to pay for the impoverished children left over from gambling. Take away my responsibility for the poor and broken, and you can let people do whatever they want. As long as I have to pay taxes to support these people, however, I (and thus, my government) has a right to restrict activities that tend to put people on the dole.

That's "think of the children." Using it in a debate should be made an offence comparable to comparing another's position to Hitler.

"The government should take over the responsibility of parenting, because some parents can't be trusted to do it properly." AKA "think of the children." But it should have a catchier name, if we're going to raise it the status of Godwin's Law as a forfeit.

Someone help me here. I'm thinking in loco parentis but I don't actually know latin, so I can't make it funny.

Neaither are red sneakers. So fucking what.

It is that stupid attitude which will lead us all to ruin. "Hey - it don't affect me so - fuck 'em".

I don't gamble. I also don't believe the government has any juristiction over these issues beyond weights and measures. The government does not belong in the morality business. What next - Burkas?
you title and commentary was about the US government removing a right. Gambling is not, will not, nor has ever been a right of any peoples. Your title and commentary are misleading and untrue. THAT is my point.

Oh, and the slippery slope idea is a logical fallacy. Not to mention clothing is in no way related to gambling.

If online gambling is a right, then tickle attacks are too!

I demand my rights to tickle-attack people at bus stops and in malls be protected!

I doubt that the Federal Government can tell a citizen what to wear.

Their Employee's yes. but not civilians.

Actually, governments tell people what to wear all the time.... or more specifically, they tell people to wear...something. And specific things. One can't just wear a t-shirt and flip-flops if one wanted to.

Actually, governments tell people what to wear all the time.... or more specifically, they tell people to wear...something. And specific things. One can't just wear a t-shirt and flip-flops of one wanted to.

I bet you could in a few selected communities. :)

I bet you could in a few selected communities. :)

Yes, there are a few paces that protect one's right to minimalist fashion.

Worst of all, no only do laws demand that I have to wear underwear, but I can even get in trouble for wearing it in the wrong place! :mad:

Gambling is a right.
Is it your money to spend how you see fit? Or not?

If you do it with someone else's money, that's theft.
If you stack the deck or dope a horse, that's fraud.
If you blow you paycheck at the casino and your kids go hungry, that's abuse.
If you bet fairly and moderately, you lose money but get a thrill. Pretty much like any luxury spending. And being a luxury, the government can tax it.

Chronic gambling is like drug abuse, or clinical obesity. The victim and the perpetrator are the same person. As such it is a 'problem,' not a 'crime,' and the government's only role should be to educate people of the risks they are taking.

Government protecting people from the consequences of their own actions is making those people even weaker, even less responsible for their actions. That way lies tyranny.

Gambling is a right.
Is it your money to spend how you see fit? Or not?

If you do it with someone else's money, that's theft.
If you stack the deck or dope a horse, that's fraud.
If you blow you paycheck at the casino and your kids go hungry, that's abuse.
If you bet fairly and moderately, you lose money but get a thrill. Pretty much like any luxury spending. And being a luxury, the government can tax it.

Chronic gambling is like drug abuse, or clinical obesity. The victim and the perpetrator are the same person. As such it is a 'problem,' not a 'crime,' and the government's only role should be to educate people of the risks they are taking.

Government protecting people from the consequences of their own actions is making those people even weaker, even less responsible for their actions. That way lies tyranny.You bring up something I forgot to mention.

You also have no "right" to money.

Gambling is a right.
Is it your money to spend how you see fit? Or not?

If you do it with someone else's money, that's theft.
If you stack the deck or dope a horse, that's fraud.
If you blow you paycheck at the casino and your kids go hungry, that's abuse.
If you bet fairly and moderately, you lose money but get a thrill. Pretty much like any luxury spending. And being a luxury, the government can tax it.

Chronic gambling is like drug abuse, or clinical obesity. The victim and the perpetrator are the same person. As such it is a 'problem,' not a 'crime,' and the government's only role should be to educate people of the risks they are taking.

Government protecting people from the consequences of their own actions is making those people even weaker, even less responsible for their actions. That way lies tyranny.

It isn't a question of what you spend your money on, it's a question of what entrepreneurs have a right to sell.

The government decided that people don't have a right to buy and sell chance. At least, not in an unsupervised unresticted manner.

It's a lot like prostitution. In my opinion, prostitution has a better argument for legalization than gambling. At least with prostitution, you're guaranteed a little something for your money. ;)

It isn't a question of what you spend your money on, it's a question of what entrepreneurs have a right to sell.

The government decided that people don't have a right to buy and sell chance. At least, not in an unsupervised unresticted manner.

It's a lot like prostitution. In my opinion, prostitution has a better argument for legalization than gambling. At least with prostitution, you're guaranteed a little something for your money. ;)
HERPES!

HERPES!

That's more like the 'secret toy surprise'. *nod*

...

It's a lot like prostitution. In my opinion, prostitution has a better argument for legalization than gambling. At least with prostitution, you're guaranteed a little something for your money. ;)

Prostitution is legal a lot of places. So is gambling, and taking drugs (ciggy anyone?), and the cost of regulating these things is born, even surpassed, by taxing them.

And in at least one tiny idealistic country, it's legal to walk around naked:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/4517235.stm

If anyone feels that threir ' Rights" are being threatend by any US insitution ...PUT up your comlaint ..on thiis forum..and we will deal with it..at least those that aggree with you at any rate.


Its called DEMOCRACY .;)

That's more like the 'secret toy surprise'. *nod*
the proverbial "surprise at the bottom of the serial box"?

okay, that was bad.

the proverbial "surprise at the bottom of the serial box"?
okay, that was bad.
:D That's not bad! Foul perhaps, but the spelling 'mistake' is all class! :D

Everyone knows how well prohibition works...now, instead of legal and regulated online gambling we're going to see a proliferation of fraud sites and scams that do nothing but make the Internet an unattractive venue for people to spend their money in!

I'm sure people will love that and it will do wonders for our Internet sector especially considering the huge profit potential in online gaming.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060710/ap_on_go_co/internet_gambling;_ylt=AliMp9T9Gss1y9soi3inoAes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3cjE0b2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg-

I hope the republicans lose bad - maybe then they'll realize that their radical religious base is killing them as much as the extreme lefties have done to the democrats.

I hadn't realized that there were militant communists in the democratic party. :confused:

Actually, governments tell people what to wear all the time.... or more specifically, they tell people to wear...something. And specific things. One can't just wear a t-shirt and flip-flops if one wanted to.
well, as I said, they can't tell you what to wear, but they can tell you to what needs to be covered. ;)

you can wear a T-shirt and flip-flops, provided the t-shirt covers what needs to be covered. :p

Yes, there are a few paces that protect one's right to minimalist fashion.

Worst of all, no only do laws demand that I have to wear underwear, but I can even get in trouble for wearing it in the wrong place! :mad:
highly doubtful.

you would be stopped and tested for drugs or drunkeness, but I can't imagine any sane, sober person being arrested for wearing their Underwear on their head...


and how would they test to see if you are wearing underwear?


"Freeze, alright, drop em.... it's ok, he's wearing Tighty Whities... you can go now.."

This is BS. Why is it the government feels it needs to protect the people from themselves?

Further, I propose it be legal for online gambling, tickle attacks, and wearing undies on the head, on the back as a cape or where ever!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060710/ap_on_go_co/internet_gambling;_ylt=AliMp9T9Gss1y9soi3inoAes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3cjE0b2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg-

On Tuesday, the House plans to vote on a bill that would ban credit cards for paying online bets and could padlock gambling Web sites.

The legislation would clarify existing law to spell out that it is illegal to gamble online.

To enforce that ban, the bill would prohibit credit cards and other payment forms, such as electronic transfers, from being used to settle online wagers. It also would give law enforcement officials the authority to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling Web sites.


Say gopodbye to even more of your freedoms. I have officially become a libertarian. The decision between democrat and republican is now about which set of rights do you prefer to lose next. I hope the republicans lose bad - maybe then they'll realize that their radical religious base is killing them as much as the extreme lefties have done to the democrats.

Meanwhile - the libertarians are the only ones who seem interested in actually restoring and protecting our shrinking rights.


They are all pissed because they cant make it legal..thus "TAXABLE " and cant make a cent off it otherwise...fucking pigs need to be made into bacon strips. not to mention all the money they are taking from legal gambling lobbiest who feel the online dudes are cutting into their turf :rolleyes:

They are all pissed because they cant make it legal..thus "TAXABLE " and cant make a cent off it otherwise...fucking pigs need to be made into bacon strips. not to mention all the money they are taking from legal gambling lobbiest who feel the online dudes are cutting into their turf :rolleyes:
and how are you going to track people who do on-line gambling?

that will be a logisitic nightmare. or will you not complain when the Government starts tracking Credit/debit/check card numbers to monitor any substantial depostits so it can tax you properly.

remember, most of these on-line gambling sites are outside the USA.

correct me if I'm wrong but isn't gambling outlawed in most states? If so, what is so wrong in enacting mesures to make sure people of those states can't gamble online?

But you know whats funny? Horse racing is still going to be legal, because the republican congress is all buddy-buddy with their lobby. So banning gambling is all good until someone pays you not to.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/INTERNET_GAMBLING?SITE=OKTUL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Those arrogant suits should be busy with more important matters. I think if you are stupid enough to blow your money gambling you should be left alone to do it. Leave the responsible gamblers their freedoms and stop treating everyone according to what the lowest common denominator does. Energy costs out of control, immigration, terrorism, rogue nations, this isn't enough to keep those useless tits busy? They won't be happy till they get their dicks into everybodies soup. God forbid they do something useful while we have the threat of online gambling looming over us!
I agree with this guy.

Here's an idea, instead of banning it, they should consider State-run lottery corperations, like we've got in Canada.

Then, for the online gambling sites, they should have a credit system, where you have to use paypal or some equivalent service to by credits, or money instead of using your credit cards. Make credit cards an unusable option and force people to buy credit. Buy now, use later.

Set caps on the amounts that can be used.

Sites that comply can display a special logo that shows their cooperation so that people know what they're in for and those who don't, won't get that special luxury.

On Tuesday, the House plans to vote on a bill that would ban credit cards



I quite liked that part.

Since when was breathing a US constitutional right?
Fixed.

I don't know... I don't see it in there, do you? Does that mean it's alright for the government to restrict it?

The government should be able to restrict only those action which harm others. Online gambling does not do this.

To whoever said it "ruins families" and whatnot, the spouse can get a divorce when their partner becomes addicted to gambling and wastes all their money. That's their right.

Here's an idea, instead of banning it, they should consider State-run lottery corperations, like we've got in Canada.

They should - the extra income improves the quality of education by allowing better funding of schools and attracting better teachers, plus alot more state provided amenities.
Alabama, however, is doing it's damndest to prevent a state lottery. The people voting against it do so on absentee ballots while they are on the bus to Mississippi casinos.

It's all well and good to go talking about rights, but a person only has a right to swing their fist until it touches my nose, as it were. Gambling has been shown to be a potentially addictive activity, one that ruins families and lives. (snip)

So too has weed, booze sex and overeating. So fucking what? Nice attempt to cover up your fascist leanings however. You may as well insist on licensing it.

the one problem that is not being mentioned is that while people refuse personal responsibility for themselves and those who are dependant on them, the government has to take these steps. *


AAACK! The government knows best what is good for you. Succumb to the fascist state now!

you title and commentary was about the US government removing a right. Gambling is not, will not, nor has ever been a right of any peoples. Your title and commentary are misleading and untrue. THAT is my point.

Oh, and the slippery slope idea is a logical fallacy. Not to mention clothing is in no way related to gambling.


Only the government can issue rights? Maybe in a fascist state. In a free state the government does not declare things NOT illegal.

It isn't a question of what you spend your money on, it's a question of what entrepreneurs have a right to sell.

The government decided that people don't have a right to buy and sell chance. At least, not in an unsupervised unresticted manner.

It's a lot like prostitution. In my opinion, prostitution has a better argument for legalization than gambling. At least with prostitution, you're guaranteed a little something for your money. ;)


ahem... LOTTO... ahem cough-cough.

The government just does not like the competition.

correct me if I'm wrong but isn't gambling outlawed in most states? If so, what is so wrong in enacting mesures to make sure people of those states can't gamble online?

Would you also arrest those people for going to Vegas?

I'll avoid the discussion of wether gambling ought to be legal in all states (it should). Most have one form or another of legal gambling anyway - be it Lotto or uncovered calls.

Here's an idea, instead of banning it, they should consider State-run lottery corperations, like we've got in Canada.

Then, for the online gambling sites, they should have a credit system, where you have to use paypal or some equivalent service to by credits, or money instead of using your credit cards. Make credit cards an unusable option and force people to buy credit. Buy now, use later.

Set caps on the amounts that can be used.

Sites that comply can display a special logo that shows their cooperation so that people know what they're in for and those who don't, won't get that special luxury.

Socialize gambling?? Bwahahahahaha!

The nanny state strikes again.

It's like having my grandmother, my minister and the old lady downstairs all running the country. I'm voting against my congressman already, but this just seals the deal.

Destructive habits. Pah. So is drinking, but that's still legal.

It comes down to this: should people have the right to destroy themselves? The government should not be there to protect you from yourself. Unlike some people (mostly extremist libertarians), I believe it SHOULD be there to protect you from others, but from yourself? Don't be silly. It's a waste of money and manpower.

as much as the extreme lefties have done to the democrats.

Probably mentioned, but screw you, I'm not reading this thread. Since when did extreme lefties (or lefties at all, really) have anything to do with Democrats?

Fixed.

I don't know... I don't see it in there, do you? Does that mean it's alright for the government to restrict it?

It's probably covered in right to life somewhere.

Only the government can issue rights? Maybe in a fascist state. In a free state the government does not declare things NOT illegal.
gambling is already illegal in most states. This really is not much of a change at all.

While I agree the goverment should stay out of adults' business something should be done to try and keep children from gambling.

Since when was online gaming a US constitutional right?

Since 1791, or since the invention of online gaming, whichever you prefer. Nowhere does the Consitution give the federal government any authority to ban online gaming or any equivalent. Of course, there is a truckload of arguments against such a ban even if the government did have the authority to enact one. (For example, the ban covers sports betting, which an individual bettor can profit from, but not horse racing, in which an individual bettor is highly likely to lose, and not offline casino gambling, which is throwing your money away. A ban discriminates against those who can't afford to go to Vegas as often -- and therefore probably aren't gambling big stakes anyway. Banning gambling just drives it underground or offshore, making it more difficult for the government to help problem gamblers. If someone drives recklessly and crashes a car, does the government ban driving and take our cars away? And is a federal government that just ran a $300 billion deficit in the past year really in any position to lecture any of us on fiscal responsibility? Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.)

No one really need worry, though. This bill probably won't pass the Senate, and if it does, it will just mean that the government will be sued in federal court until the law is overturned and will end up having to pay millions in damages. And the legislators involved will be voted out of office by the millions of Americans who are angered by a multibillion-dollar-deficit-running Congress passing bans on $5 poker games. If the revolution will not be televised, it might perhaps be seen on the Web.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." [emphasis mine, of course]

Not that I even think the House of reps has a prayer of the bill they passed being upheld as to its constitutionality...but it cant become law until it also passes the Senate.....so all it was so far is a house circle jerk . It has little or no support in the senate and most likely will not even be considered as written .

While I agree the goverment should stay out of adults' business something should be done to try and keep children from gambling.

Since when is it a problem? Particularly online. Last I checked you had to be over 18 to have a credit card.

Meanwhile - how many kiddies get lottery tickets in their christmas stockings?

Lock the bastards up!

The main problem I see here is opening up the internet censorship can of worms. If you start requiring ISPs to block gambling sites, then it would be just as easy to require them to block porn sites, hate sites, child molester sites, health information sites, anti-government sites, etc.

I'm sorry, but I don't want to live in Chinusa.

The libertarian party wants to disarm the national guard

Say what? No. Not in the platform: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml nor can I find anything else that says this.

Most online gambling sites aren't even based in the U.S., lol.

Since when is it a problem? Particularly online. Last I checked you had to be over 18 to have a credit card.

Meanwhile - how many kiddies get lottery tickets in their christmas stockings?

Lock the bastards up!
hmm... how can you tell the age of a minor?

and children under 18 have been given access to their own credit cards or their parents ones, both with their knowledge and without.

Most online gambling sites aren't even based in the U.S., lol.which is why the US Gov. has no power over them, but can block their isp's... which is what they are trying to do.

Censorship =o

Most gambling sites could get around it, since most offer free, or "play money". All theyd need to do is put a disclaimer telling people not to do it if it's illegal in their country.

No offense, but it sounds like the point of this legislation is to prevent people running up debts online that then come crashing down in the real world. Also, stolen cards, etc. might have factored in. It seems to be a financial decision, and I see good effects coming from it, unless of course I missed something entirely.

Censorship =o

Most gambling sites could get around it, since most offer free, or "play money". All theyd need to do is put a disclaimer telling people not to do it if it's illegal in their country.
yep, that would work because like all minors stop at the big flashing screen that says "Click here if you're over 18 else go away!"

by the way, you did hear about the Hawaii Resident who won big on an on-line gambling site... it was cheaper for him to pay the fine and keep the rest of the money than to try to fight it in court.

on line gambling isn't a right.

I suppose freedom to do what you want with your money is though.

It's a tough one, I can see there logic, you'd be cancelling one debt but getting into another with your credit card, but at the same time you should be able to what you want with your money.

In saying that, if it's illegal to gamble online anyway, then it makes sense.

it's the fact that the Govenment is doing something to remove something from everyone. it doesn't matter if it's smoking, drinking, or on-line gambling. people here will call it a removal of rights and freedoms.

Erm, the government can remove things like that. Thats why there are drugs that are illegal.

The main problem I see here is opening up the internet censorship can of worms. If you start requiring ISPs to block gambling sites, then it would be just as easy to require them to block porn sites, hate sites, child molester sites, health information sites, anti-government sites, etc.

I'm sorry, but I don't want to live in Chinusa.

Porn sites, hate sites and online pedophile community sites I would encourage to block. I however dont see why someone would block health infomation sites and when it became anti-government sites it is obvious.

Porn sites, hate sites and online pedophile community sites I would encourage to block. I however dont see why someone would block health infomation sites and when it became anti-government sites it is obvious.

Howabout sites that promote anything but abstinence for sexual education. What is defined as an "anti-government" site? Anything that opposes the current party structure? Why should porn be illegal? Should the government be responsible for dictating other peoples morals? What is defined as a "hate site"? Anything the current power structure opposes?

Howabout sites that promote anything but abstinence for sexual education. What is defined as an "anti-government" site? Anything that opposes the current party structure? Why should porn be illegal? Should the government be responsible for dictating other peoples morals? What is defined as a "hate site"? Anything the current power structure opposes?

Porn sites should be blocked because there is no way to accurately regulate who uses them. Children or othewise. I agree that hate sites would be harder to accurately catagorise but I'm fairly certian it isnt impossible. Certainly a good start would be websites that encourage criminal activity. A site that takes any kind of political persuasion could not be taken off the web. Anti-Government, pro-government, whatever.

Porn sites, hate sites and online pedophile community sites I would encourage to block. I however dont see why someone would block health infomation sites and when it became anti-government sites it is obvious.

So you support censoring anti-government sites? Nice. As far as health information sites - think AIDS or abortion - plenty of folks would block that given the chance. The others can all be stretched to the extreme on order to block a variety of things which may not necessarily be nefarious. Censorship is a dangerous alley for free people to tolerate. Imagine how empty the NS forum would be. Freedom of speech and expression come with a price - letting everyone else have the same freedom - even (and especially) if you disagree with them.

Shouldnt the Stock Market be considered gambling?

So you support censoring anti-government sites? Nice.

Could you please quote me accurately on that? I didnt say that. I said I supported blocking hate, porn and pedophile sites.


As far as health information sites - think AIDS or abortion - plenty of folks would block that given the chance.

And there is no government reason to allow them to be blocked.

I would very much apreciate an apology for misquoting me.

Someone's got the "Thou shalt ban lots of stuff" attitude in the USA.
It seems to be only solution to anything.

Shouldnt the Stock Market be considered gambling?

It is gambling but then it'd be allowe due to it's "business investment" function. Government stopping businessman making money - nope.

It is gambling but then it'd be allowe due to it's "business investment" function. Government stopping businessman making money - nope.

Um...casinos and online gambling are making businessmens' wallets fatter too...

Um...casinos and online gambling are making businessmens' wallets fatter too...

Yeah, but they are only tackling the online gambling. There's still the problem of people giving away money to the casinos.

Yeah, but they are only tackling the online gambling.

Which I am sure many political figures do.

Which I am sure many political figures do.

I'm sure pollies have made some money from these sites but in the public they would declare they'd never use them.

I think the legislation is to stop people using CREDIT cards - i.e gambling money that they don't already have, and where you can rack up huge debts very quickly. I have read stories in the UK where kids/minors have found Daddies credit card and abused it. Gambling from DEBIT cards should still be permitted with stronger controls - once my bank account is empty thats as far as it can go (and that is not very far most months :( )

Shouldnt the Stock Market be considered gambling?
Not any more so than owning a home should. However there is a good case to be made for the options market.

Could you please quote me accurately on that? I didnt say that. I said I supported blocking hate, porn and pedophile sites.


And there is no government reason to allow them to be blocked.

I would very much apreciate an apology for misquoting me.


I don't owe you dick nimrod. You even edited your post after I quoted it because it was so poorly written.

And, to use your own faulty logic, there is no government reason to block any sites - particularly gambling (unless you consider their need to protect their lottery monopoly or the monopoly of their supporters)

Oh my. For those of you who believe illegal online gambling is an inalienable right I think you have bigger problems on your hands...like UFO's landing. Try to return to reality.

Oh my. For those of you who believe illegal online gambling is an inalienable right I think you have bigger problems on your hands...like UFO's landing. Try to return to reality.

Boy have you missed the point. Beyond nobody ever saying 'inalienable' until you, and the fact that online gambling is currently NOT illegal in many places, and the fact that you seem to support fascism so long as it does not affect YOU, you're right up to speed.

Oh my. For those of you who believe illegal online gambling is an inalienable right I think you have bigger problems on your hands...like UFO's landing. Try to return to reality.
The bizarre inclusion of the word "illegal" in here makes no sense. Because there's a law against it, it ceases to be even worth debating as a right?
Fix that, and we'll talk. I'll delete this objection, and take you seriously in my next post.
Thankyo.