Politicians Hate Poker

[SlapPappy]

The game of skill arguement is flawed. Politicians who supported this bill specifically intended it to included poker, Democrats who voted included. Meaning, little chance of a poker exemption.

Congress would rather us blow our money on lotteries or horse racing because they see this as entertainment money. The danger they see with poker is that people are making money at it without being "productive" (and of course this arguement is flawed but I think that is how they see it). Hardly anyone makes a profit at other forms of gambling (horse racing, lotteries, etc.), and so, they just do it on weekends for fun.

The difference Congress sees is that in poker people expect to make money on it, so they spend more time on it. They see this as dangerous. I think they realize poker is a game of skill and that scares them. Out of all forms of gambling THEY HATE POKER THE MOST!

They see the UIGEA as preventing a surge in the population of online poker pros. They assume a large number of college students will all start playing poker and no one will work.
<font color="purple">
What should we argue then? </font> /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Poofler]

This has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads if you search around a little. I don't think I've ever heard your arguments before. The individual States run lotteries and horse racing, the Federal government does not have jurisdiction over those activities when they are within a State. When a wager crosses State lines, or country lines, it becomes subject to Federal jurisdicition. For example, often in horse racing, wagers are placed from one State on a race in a different State. The Feds chose to protect this transaction, which I find deeply hypocritical to the morality argument, but it is not related to your productivity argument. They are facilitating the ability of the individual States to collect on very lucrative sources of tax revenue. The Federal government has no interest in facilitating Gilbralter's tax collections on Party Poker's business. Hence, much of the talk about the possibility of regulated online gambling operated one day on US soil.

[cowboyzfan]

yes and since internet communication almost always crosses state lines, the Feds have jurisdiction. The biggest Federal overreach and misinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution is the Commerce Clause. The Feds can almost always find a way to claim jurisdiction under this clause if they want to.

Of course if one actually reads the Constitution they will see that a the federal government was suppossed to have very little power, but that has been usurped over time.

[Poofler]

Right, the Commerce Clause is one of the most notorious abuses of Federal power in history. It's been thrown back and forth depending on the leanings of the SCOTUS, and we've been left with that I consider to be a very [censored] up approach to State vs. Federal issues of business transactions.

[SlapPappy]

LOL. Im replying to my own post. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Every man's life, liberty, and property are in danger when the Legislature is in session. -Daniel Webster (1782- 1852)