Dinner With A Congressman

[jbrent33]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"nanny state". Regardless of your dinner mates personal view of poker, we enjoy playing and are harming no one.

Further where the government says is "ok" to play where and when, does not work for all of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the "harming no one" argument will not hold water. Here is a quote from some hearings he chaired on the matter.

[ QUOTE ]

I appreciate your testimony. Mr. Goodlatte mentioned, and I think others have mentioned, that Mrs. Kelly held some extensive hearings on this earlier this month. If you read that testimony, I think, if for no other reason, you see the social and the financial hazards that young people have when they are exposed to internet gambling. They are computer-sophisticated. They normally have access to a credit card. They become addicted at a young age to this form of gambling. And if for no other reason, I think we need to address it. And it is a tremendously growing problem with our young people who become addicted to gambling at such an early age.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course online poker harms some people. Just like alcohol, lottery tickets, casino gambling, shopping, credit cards, etc. However, all of those things are perfectly legal. It's about personal choice. Adults should be able to choose whether to gamble online. Some will not be able to handle it, but that doesn't mean they should take it away from the many people who can handle it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't hold water, in fact it doesn't even really address what the Congressman's main problem in the above quote. Do you see why?

[mpslg]

I still think it is comparable to alcohol. Many, if not most, college students start drinking alcohol before it is legal to do so. Many of them develop alcohol problems, but the majority learn how to control themselves.

[slothinator]

Could it be that the senator is one of these "back in my day we didn't have fancy computers" types of people? Because that would certainly cause him to dislike on-line gaming. Or anything else on-line for that matter. But what if he's right? What if progress and technology are bad for us? WFE

[jbrent33]

[ QUOTE ]
I still think it is comparable to alcohol. Many, if not most, college students start drinking alcohol before it is legal to do so. Many of them develop alcohol problems, but the majority learn how to control themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that you have a valid point. However there are safeguards in place that attempt to restict underage drinking.
I think that might be a point that I could make, if the reasoning here is actually concern for the children, then why not take steps to regulate it and protect them.

[rokstedy]

[ QUOTE ]
I am having dinner with a 6 term Republican Congressman next week. A good friend married a his daughter, blah blah blah.
This is not a fundraiser type thing, rather dinner at my friend's house with about 6-8 people.

I have known the Congressman for about 5 years and have a fairly casual relationship, as he and I typically get involved is some type of political discussion after a few beers.

He is supports the UIGA and has in the past, compared gambling sites with drug dealers (yes I live in the south).
However, he is a reasonable man and I'm almost certain he has probably never discussed the situation with someone who derives a large portion of his income from online poker.

I would love to hear some well thought out points I should make.

Thanks,
Jb

[/ QUOTE ]


Poker is no different, no more dangerous to ones own standard of living, than say a part time day trader doing it over the net. Day trading on the net provides the exact same level of exhiliration for an action junkie and one can just as easily lose money as earn it. But trading stocks is a national past time. Your average day trader knows no more about the stocks he's trading (probably less in fact) than your average online poker player knows about how to play a gutshot on the turn.

[DuDot]

Where is the evidence that this is a serious problem among young kids? I haven't seen any facts regarding poker's affect on US citizens.

The only way to make any progress is to address his perception of the online poker world.

[JooWish622]

[ QUOTE ]
I am having dinner with a 6 term Republican Congressman next week. A good friend married a his daughter, blah blah blah.
This is not a fundraiser type thing, rather dinner at my friend's house with about 6-8 people.

I have known the Congressman for about 5 years and have a fairly casual relationship, as he and I typically get involved is some type of political discussion after a few beers.

He is supports the UIGA and has in the past, compared gambling sites with drug dealers (yes I live in the south).
However, he is a reasonable man and I'm almost certain he has probably never discussed the situation with someone who derives a large portion of his income from online poker.

I would love to hear some well thought out points I should make.

Thanks,
Jb

[/ QUOTE ]

here's the thing:

you need to defend poker from the claim that is corrupting america's youth and that it funds terrorism.

there is a clear distinction you can make between poker and prostitution/drug dealing. poker implicit in the game, has no corrupting attributes. unfortunately, people can find themselves, due to fault of their own, dependent or addicted to gambling, although it has no real internal addicting features. he may retort by saying that moneyloss/win is addicting, but then how is gambling different from say day trading, or investing one's money personally. drug dealing and prostitution are implicitly harmful because they they have real physical and mental effects, such as decreased life expectancy, a very subordinate subsistence for unfortunate young women, death via drugs or disease.

allow the congressman to point out vices of gambling that do not relate to the bible or american ethics, which are, obv, not real reasons.

[JooWish622]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"nanny state". Regardless of your dinner mates personal view of poker, we enjoy playing and are harming no one.

Further where the government says is "ok" to play where and when, does not work for all of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the "harming no one" argument will not hold water. Here is a quote from some hearings he chaired on the matter.

[ QUOTE ]

I appreciate your testimony. Mr. Goodlatte mentioned, and I think others have mentioned, that Mrs. Kelly held some extensive hearings on this earlier this month. If you read that testimony, I think, if for no other reason, you see the social and the financial hazards that young people have when they are exposed to internet gambling. They are computer-sophisticated. They normally have access to a credit card. They become addicted at a young age to this form of gambling. And if for no other reason, I think we need to address it. And it is a tremendously growing problem with our young people who become addicted to gambling at such an early age.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course online poker harms some people. Just like alcohol, lottery tickets, casino gambling, shopping, credit cards, etc. However, all of those things are perfectly legal. It's about personal choice. Adults should be able to choose whether to gamble online. Some will not be able to handle it, but that doesn't mean they should take it away from the many people who can handle it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't hold water, in fact it doesn't even really address what the Congressman's main problem in the above quote. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

but why attack gambling and not other things, like video games, or sports? they first need to show why gambling is a greater vice than these

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am having dinner with a 6 term Republican Congressman next week. A good friend married a his daughter, blah blah blah.
This is not a fundraiser type thing, rather dinner at my friend's house with about 6-8 people.

I have known the Congressman for about 5 years and have a fairly casual relationship, as he and I typically get involved is some type of political discussion after a few beers.

He is supports the UIGA and has in the past, compared gambling sites with drug dealers (yes I live in the south).
However, he is a reasonable man and I'm almost certain he has probably never discussed the situation with someone who derives a large portion of his income from online poker.

I would love to hear some well thought out points I should make.

Thanks,
Jb

[/ QUOTE ]


Poker is no different, no more dangerous to ones own standard of living, than say a part time day trader doing it over the net. Day trading on the net provides the exact same level of exhiliration for an action junkie and one can just as easily lose money as earn it. But trading stocks is a national past time. Your average day trader knows no more about the stocks he's trading (probably less in fact) than your average online poker player knows about how to play a gutshot on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a poor comparison. The fact of the matter is there is a growing percentage of young people that have a gambling problem, especially when it comes to online gambling. There is not a significant number of people with a daytime-trading problem.

I'm against the poker legislation, but I do believe there is a fair point that many people are developing gambling problems and that it needs to be addressed. How it needs to be addressed is where I differ from the past Congress.

[rokstedy]

[ QUOTE ]
There is not a significant number of people with a daytime-trading problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

One of the more misguided statements I've heard.