Please stop the ridiculous arguments

[DespotInExile]

1. Poker players are a diffuse, disorganized group of individuals for whom playing poker doesn't make the top-10 list of most important criteria when evaluating politicians. For this reason, poker players will never be able to organize in an effective political force. This is the same reason gun control fails; the NRA, which similarly positioned to the "social moralists" represented by Frist, is well-organized--but the Million Mom March types are a group for whom "gun control" is not a key voting issue.

2. Anti-gambling legislation is a one-way ratchet. The law has been signed by President Bush (without, I presume, a sunset provision.) This means that no political interest will ever take the initiative to undo the law--for reason #1 above, there is no political/voter-driven reason for doing so, and loosening the ratchet only makes a politician vulnerable to political attack by the social moralists during election season. It should be self-evident to you how politically desperate you are when you cite Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank as your political ally. Putting the genie back in the box has no political legs nationwide.

3. There are only two possible ways in which the clock can be turned back: (a) American gaming interests like Harrahs, Boyd, Station, etc. can lobby to reverse the course, so that they can enter a lucrative market which they perceive as being won by foreign companies; or (b) there can be a judicial challenge through the WTO. Both of these will take years (if they happen at all), and in the case of the WTO challenge, it isn't clear that a victory by Antiguan gaming interests would be respected by the US government.

Net net: unless work-arounds are easy for Joe Fish to implement, online poker in the US will be dead within 270 days.

That is all.

[briton]

I have to vote Rebublican becuase of National Security. I would hate for poker to be gone forever. But there are more important issues at stake than poker these days.

If either party wants to start winning all the elections, they should start taking care of imigration. That issue would get them alot of votes from the average american.

[aces_full]

Online poker in the US will never be dead. However, the online poker landscape of 2007 and beyond will look more like it did in 1998.

[MiltonFriedman]

1. You are correct as to players, but sites and software networks have a different, more focussed agenda. I agree that arguing about "poker players' rights" is at best a rallying cry, but not a political force in and of itself. PPA will make a nice amount of money, but will never be a political force.

2. "Anti-gambling legislation is a one-way ratchet." I disagree as to this point. "Show them the money" effectively sums up the way to build a political bond with States in this area. It is how lotteries go built. It is NOT likely the way that Brick and mortars would go however. A coalition can be built on cashflow. Prohibition was not a one way ratchet, why assume online gambling legislation would be.

3. Again I disagree. The third, likely way is #2 above. A State or States going into the online poker business. Two years, tops, starting last week.

Net, net:

Hibernating, as soon as the SuperBowl is over, but not dead.

[thekohser]

Political rant deleted by 4_2_it

[aces_full]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to vote Rebublican becuase of National Security. I would hate for poker to be gone forever. But there are more important issues at stake than poker these days.

If either party wants to start winning all the elections, they should start taking care of imigration. That issue would get them alot of votes from the average american.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "national security" you mean giving up all of your constitutional rights and personal freedoms, in the name of stopping terrorism then by all means, make sure to vote Republican this November.

I guess some people actually DO believe everything they read or see on TV.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have to vote Rebublican becuase of National Security. I would hate for poker to be gone forever. But there are more important issues at stake than poker these days.

If either party wants to start winning all the elections, they should start taking care of imigration. That issue would get them alot of votes from the average american.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "national security" you mean giving up all of your constitutional rights and personal freedoms, in the name of stopping terrorism then by all means, make sure to vote Republican this November.

I guess some people actually DO believe everything they read or see on TV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Move it to politics. It's not fair to the OP for you guys to clutter this thread with political babbling.

[DespotInExile]

[ QUOTE ]
Prohibition was not a one way ratchet, why assume online gambling legislation would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please show one other piece of criminal legislation other than prohibition that didn't function as a one-way ratchet: War on Drugs, tougher sentencing/three-strikes, etc. all have gotten tougher over time.

The Cato institute has a nice piece discussing how criminal laws generally function as one-way ratchets. Link. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v25n6/luna.pdf)

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
Net net: unless work-arounds are easy for Joe Fish to implement, online poker in the US will be dead within 270 days.

[/ QUOTE ]

All your arguments revolve around the law not being overturned. Most people, including myself, believe the above is wrong because the law will be ineffective.

[Tortuga]

Yeah, I think Al Gore or John Kerry would have used their laser-beam eyes to repair the levees in New Orleans and then turned some loaves and fishes into a buffet that would have fed the entire city until they could eat no more.

Then they would have flown to Iraq and Afghanistan to use their freeze-breath to stop the terrorists in their tracks. Then they would have used their unbelievable powers of horticulture to turn the middle east into a modern-day Garden of Eden.

The aforementioned Representative Diane Degette of Colorado is a flaming liberal of the highest temperature, yet, according to the article she supports this IP recording legislation.

Dems are as much to blame for the removal of your civil liberties as the Repubs.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to vote Rebublican becuase of National Security.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, thank God Bush saved us all from that evil Saddam Hussein and all his weapons of mass destruction and the terrorists that he was harboring.

Oh, wait.........................he had no weapons of mass destruction.....................and there were no terrorists in Iraq until we overthrew him................and now Iraq is a hotbed of terrorism..............and Bush has basically ignored the two countries that DO have nuclear capability or are very close to getting it, North Korea and Iran.

How anybody in their right mind could vote Republican for "national security" reasons is beyond me. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[4_2_it]

This thing has denegrating into a political mish mash so I'm locking it.