|
|
#21
07-12-2006, 05:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The WSOP will be much, much smaller next year.
Once they do this porn is next. There is a bill already to regulate internet porn actually the sponsor escapes me at the moment. Welcome to the United States of Morality.
~Justin 
|
|
#22
07-12-2006, 05:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The WSOP will be much, much smaller next year.
If it goes to a vote, it could go either way.
But it has to get past the commitee, Reid, and any senators with ties to banking will attack it.
|
|
#23
07-12-2006, 05:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The WSOP will be much, much smaller next year.
[ QUOTE ]
Once they do this porn is next. There is a bill already to regulate internet porn actually the sponsor escapes me at the moment. Welcome to the United States of Morality. ~Justin [/ QUOTE ] There will be rioting in the streets!
|
|
#24
07-12-2006, 05:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The WSOP will be much, much smaller next year.
My first reaction is - why stifle such a large revenue industry if you can tax it and put the money to (good) use? Hasn't this been US policy on basically every other "marginally illicit" industry. Everything from Big Tobacco to Pick 5.
|
|
#25
07-12-2006, 06:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The WSOP will be much, much smaller next year.
[ QUOTE ]
My first reaction is - why stifle such a large revenue industry if you can tax it and put the money to (good) use? Hasn't this been US policy on basically every other "marginally illicit" industry. Everything from Big Tobacco to Pick 5. [/ QUOTE ] Exactly. What they ought to do is tax it and regulate it, like Britain decided to do last year. This could be a huge revenue source for the United States government. Here's a Cardplayer article on this very topic which says that taxing online gaming sites would result in 3 billion dollars in tax revenue each year: http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news...lass=PokerNews
|
|
#26
07-12-2006, 06:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The WSOP will be much, much smaller next year.
[ QUOTE ]
Are the Democrats actually more likely to vote against the bill, or are you just trying to get people to vote for your party? [/ QUOTE ] Look at Washington State, the democrats really came through there eh?
|
|
#27
07-12-2006, 06:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The WSOP will be much, much smaller next year.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Are the Democrats actually more likely to vote against the bill, or are you just trying to get people to vote for your party? [/ QUOTE ] Look at Washington State, the democrats really came through there eh? [/ QUOTE ] The Democrats were certainly to blame in in Wash. State, but if you want a horse to back at the federal level, I'd place my bets on the Democrats, and as I've said, I'm not sure it's close.
|
|
#29
07-12-2006, 06:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The WSOP will be much, much smaller next year.
[ QUOTE ]
Look, guys, this isn't a Democrat vs. Republican issue. 60% of the Democrats voted for this bill, as well as 92% of the Republicans. [/ QUOTE ] The problem is that if Democrats controlled either the House or the Senate, this bill would likely have never seen the light of day -- particularly if Sen. Reid were the Majority Leader and not the Minority Leader, we would almost certainly have nothing to fear. I think it was summed up pretty effectively on the Politics Forum: "Probably the most appropriate way to think about the bill is this: It was aggressively pushed to the floor by a small group of "moral values" Republicans. Once the bill was in play, the Republican leadership arranged for party discipline to assure its passage. Most Democrats, being essentially spineless, then decided to vote for it because (a) it was passing anyway and (b) there's much more political risk in opposing this bill than supporting it. I wouldn't say the Democrats really wanted the bill. If there was a democratic majority, I kind of doubt this bill would be passing or even reach the floor. But faced with the bill, they certainly didn't want to vote against it. So this was essentially a Republican initiative. But through the logic of democratic politics, it ended up with bipartisan support." http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=6503107 So, in many ways, this is a partisan issue. I can only speculate -- but I don't think it's wrong to claim this bill never sees the floor, let alone passes, if the Democrats are in the majority; are there plenty of reasons to hate the Democratic Party? Sure -- not the least of which is, they seem to back down during every one of these battles. But put one party next to the other, and choose one to back, considering only the future of the game of poker -- and I think it's clear which would better serve the internet poker community.
|
|
#30
07-12-2006, 07:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The WSOP will be much, much smaller next year.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Look, guys, this isn't a Democrat vs. Republican issue. 60% of the Democrats voted for this bill, as well as 92% of the Republicans. [/ QUOTE ] The problem is that if Democrats controlled either the House or the Senate, this bill would likely have never seen the light of day -- particularly if Sen. Reid were the Majority Leader and not the Minority Leader, we would almost certainly have nothing to fear. I think it was summed up pretty effectively on the Politics Forum: "Probably the most appropriate way to think about the bill is this: It was aggressively pushed to the floor by a small group of "moral values" Republicans. Once the bill was in play, the Republican leadership arranged for party discipline to assure its passage. Most Democrats, being essentially spineless, then decided to vote for it because (a) it was passing anyway and (b) there's much more political risk in opposing this bill than supporting it. I wouldn't say the Democrats really wanted the bill. If there was a democratic majority, I kind of doubt this bill would be passing or even reach the floor. But faced with the bill, they certainly didn't want to vote against it. So this was essentially a Republican initiative. But through the logic of democratic politics, it ended up with bipartisan support." http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...Number=6503107 So, in many ways, this is a partisan issue. I can only speculate -- but I don't think it's wrong to claim this bill never sees the floor, let alone passes, if the Democrats are in the majority; are there plenty of reasons to hate the Democratic Party? Sure -- not the least of which is, they seem to back down during every one of these battles. But put one party next to the other, and choose one to back, considering only the future of the game of poker -- and I think it's clear which would better serve the internet poker community. [/ QUOTE ] Quoted for truth. This post said exactly what I was going to say.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
