Business Week Article Today - Please post comments

ECB · #1 09-13-2007, 01:20 PM

http://www.businessweek.com/debatero...et_gambli.html

Internet Gambling Deserves a New Chance
The U.S. should heed the wrath of the World Trade Organization by making betting games legal on the Web. Pro or con?

Please leave a comment on their site.

Grasshopp3r · #2 09-13-2007, 01:38 PM

Thank you for posting this. We need to weigh in with careful responses.

Robin Foolz · #3 09-13-2007, 02:58 PM

i think i'm going on tilt by having to convo with all the fascist and socialist agendas on there. i think i just made my last post for now.

ECB · #4 09-13-2007, 03:21 PM

I know it gets frustrating.

I just found out yesterday by watching the news that I cant do Yoga any longer because the church wont permit it. I can only pray to Jesus now. Couldn't belieive what I was watching. It seems that when a person does Yoga they are also praying and chanting to other false gods. I thought I was just staying healthy and increasing my flexibility.

Things are really getting out of hand folks.

oldbookguy · #5 09-13-2007, 03:25 PM

Comment Posted, thanks for linking in.

As follows:
The Con:
1. The U.S. government’s obligation to
protect its citizens from a toxic, addictive product
TRUTH - OK, I’ll buy that, now, lets start next with home shopping Network – MANY are addicted to shopping, we MUST make shoppers go to the mall, no more on TV and shopping on the Internet.

2. If it can’t be controlled, then how could it be responsibly regulated or taxed? States already have a difficult enough time………
Ok, so, tell me how is it States seem to have NO PROBLEM regulating and taxing INTERNET GAMBLING via AOL, MSN, YAHOO! Games where “Skill / Cash Competitions run 24/7, marketed NEXT TO Children's games where children ARE playing 24/7. OK, so, perhaps the target IS NOT online gaming after all, the target IS perhaps, simply a sector DEEMED un-Christian or immoral. AS TO the Muslim countries and pornography and the WTO, they OPTED OUT the same as the United States COULD have done, instead, the U. S. simply wrote in as an objection, NON-Sports, I.E. Ok, just no sports betting. Why, see above, AOL, MSN & YAHOO! Cash Wagering on, ok this is too funny…….
1. Solitaire
2. Hearts
3. Spades
4. Free Cell
5. Rummy poker
6. CHILDREN’S Video Games
7. etc, etc, etc

Look for yourself, Please Mr. Please, tell the truth, the WHOLE truth and NOTHING but, er, the truth?

Nah, too simple……

Enough on the CON for now......

Uglyowl · #6 09-13-2007, 03:40 PM

We are Americans, when making decisions we should err on the side of freedom. The argument that if you want to gamble we have plenty of it is absurd. I do not like scratch tickets or betting on horses, it is not my thing.

Through the past 5 years I had different reasons why internet poker was preferable to going to a casino. While I battled cancer a few years back I was unable to go to a casino due to fatigue and a weakened immune system. They do not offer couches to lay down and play cards everywhere! Online poker allowed me to continue to enjoy the game I love even while I was sick, it was a great distraction during a very difficult time in my life.

Today, if I want to play poker where the government says is ok, the closest place is 2 hour drive to, $35 worth of gas, 1 hour wait, and then a 2 hour drive home. With a 3 year old at home, it is better to play a $20 tournament after a long days work after he goes to bed than be out all night.

I agree that gambling can be a problem for some, but we should help those people, not ban it for everyone.

-Joe

Grasshopp3r · #7 09-13-2007, 04:10 PM

There are some really good responses in the debate for the pro, but the con relies only upon addiction as the justification for prohibition. Where are the statistics for addiction rates? That ought to end the debate.

Uglyowl · #8 09-13-2007, 05:46 PM

Reading our opponents responses is almost infuriating. "Freedom is great, but....."

blackize · #9 09-13-2007, 06:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]

There are some really good responses in the debate for the pro, but the con relies only upon addiction as the justification for prohibition. Where are the statistics for addiction rates? That ought to end the debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I recall correctly gambling addiction rates correspond almost exactly with alcohol and drug addiction rates. This leads me to believe the problem is a certain part of the population with addictive personalities.

BrianBigNFun · #10 09-13-2007, 06:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There are some really good responses in the debate for the pro, but the con relies only upon addiction as the justification for prohibition. Where are the statistics for addiction rates? That ought to end the debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I recall correctly gambling addiction rates correspond almost exactly with alcohol and drug addiction rates. This leads me to believe the problem is a certain part of the population with addictive personalities.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmmmm...seems to me that we shouldnt outlaw the addictive acts but the addicts themselves....