|
|
#462
07-11-2006, 04:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Here we go....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] i would donate if i knew it would help. maybe we should organize a massive picket line. [/ QUOTE ] I think we ought to [/ QUOTE ] maybe we ought to find a well respected 2+2 member that most people on this board respect to start accepting donations. [/ QUOTE ] Your best bet is to join groups like The Poker Players Alliance, who are already fighting Congress. They are a united voice for all poker players. 
|
|
#463
07-11-2006, 04:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Here we go....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Please tell me what they're basing the legality on? Because they say so? That's not good enough in a democratic society. The only I see difference between live gambling and online gambling is in the regulation, but I am not arguing that. In fact, I am for regulation to a point. Kids shouldn't be online, etc. I am not saying they will or won't pass this bill. I am only saying that I haven't heard a solid legal arguement to completely ban online gambling for the long term. Someone please give me one. [/ QUOTE ]That's what you're missing. They don't need a legal argument. They've decided that internet gambling is harmful, and they want to ban it. The Constitution doesn't prevent Congress from doing that, so they are going to do it. They don't need a reason. (Note, the internet can be regulated by the federal government, because every transaction over the internet generally is an interstate transaction. The federal government cannot ban gambling that all takes place in one state.) (Note there are exceptions to both those rules, but that's close enough.) You may favor some regulation. Congress favors a ban. Congress is Congress and you are not, so they get to make the rules. The people do control who gets into Congress, however, so all you can do is work to put more people there who agree with you. Yes, it's a long, slow challenge, but people have overcome a lot, lot worse and dumber laws in this country (many that actually were unconstitutional). [/ QUOTE ] I wish you would quit telling me I am missing something and give me a solid fact. Give me one "dumb law" they have passed that has the general acceptance of online gamling. The only one I know of is prohibition, which was reversed. Congress may have done it because "they wanted to" or whatever logic you are spewing, but did it last? Again, give me one solid legal example that a complete online ban can be upheld long term. I am not a legal pundit saying there isn't one, I am simply asking for one. But if there isn't one, then this won't fly for the long term.
|
|
#464
07-11-2006, 04:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Here we go....
[ QUOTE ]
Your best bet is to join groups like The Poker Players Alliance, who are already fighting Congress. They are a united voice for all poker players. [/ QUOTE ] Right, they did a hell of a lot fighting HR 4411 :sarcasm:.
|
|
#465
07-11-2006, 04:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Here we go....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] maybe a ridiculous question but is there anybody I can give money to that will reliably use it to make sure this thing doesn't get passed? [/ QUOTE ] im sure thats already being done. [/ QUOTE ] I would hope the major poker companies are spending tons in any way they can. However that doesn't mean I can't help too. [/ QUOTE ] true. i would donate if i knew it would help. maybe we should organize a massive picket line. [/ QUOTE ] I think we ought to [/ QUOTE ] maybe we ought to find a well respected 2+2 member that most people on this board respect to start accepting donations. [/ QUOTE ] I thought about starting a Political Action Committee (PAC) to collect funds and reward lawmakers who support keeping internet poker legal. However, given my current position and my graduate school at night, it just wasn't possible for me to do effectively. Plus, I honestly am not sure if one could actually raise enough to have an impact beyond what a grassroots network of calls, letters, emails could have.
|
|
#466
07-11-2006, 04:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Here we go....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Please tell me what they're basing the legality on? Because they say so? That's not good enough in a democratic society. The only I see difference between live gambling and online gambling is in the regulation, but I am not arguing that. In fact, I am for regulation to a point. Kids shouldn't be online, etc. I am not saying they will or won't pass this bill. I am only saying that I haven't heard a solid legal arguement to completely ban online gambling for the long term. Someone please give me one. [/ QUOTE ]That's what you're missing. They don't need a legal argument. They've decided that internet gambling is harmful, and they want to ban it. The Constitution doesn't prevent Congress from doing that, so they are going to do it. They don't need a reason. (Note, the internet can be regulated by the federal government, because every transaction over the internet generally is an interstate transaction. The federal government cannot ban gambling that all takes place in one state.) (Note there are exceptions to both those rules, but that's close enough.) You may favor some regulation. Congress favors a ban. Congress is Congress and you are not, so they get to make the rules. The people do control who gets into Congress, however, so all you can do is work to put more people there who agree with you. Yes, it's a long, slow challenge, but people have overcome a lot, lot worse and dumber laws in this country (many that actually were unconstitutional). [/ QUOTE ] I wish you would quit telling me I am missing something and give me a solid fact. Give me one "dumb law" they have passed that has the general acceptance of online gamling. The only one I know of is prohibition, which was reversed. Congress may have done it because "they wanted to" or whatever logic you are spewing, but did it last? Again, give me one solid legal example that a complete online ban can be upheld long term. I am not a legal pundit saying there isn't one, I am simply asking for one. But if there isn't one, then this won't fly for the long term. [/ QUOTE ] Are you serious? Stupid laws pass on a daily basis. Do you really need one listed for you?
|
|
#467
07-11-2006, 04:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Here we go....
[ QUOTE ]
Give me one "dumb law" they have passed that has the general acceptance of online gamling. The only one I know of is prohibition, which was reversed. [/ QUOTE ] Prohibition of marijuana, especially noteably medical marijuana which has the support of something like 80% of the general population but remains illegal. State laws abound, for instance home poker games or gambling of any kind are illegal in many states, despite widespread popularity. B.
|
|
#468
07-11-2006, 04:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Here we go....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You guys who think this will get held up in the courts or declared unconstitutional are seriously mistaken. I think of a single plausible argument that would get this shot down in the courts. [/ QUOTE ] Please tell us the difference between online gaming and casino gaming. Regulation? Fine, implement regulation, but it's going to be one hard azz pill to swallow a complete ban. [/ QUOTE ]You are profoundly misinformed if you think this bill is going to be struck down as unconstitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the government "cannot tell people what to do," nor is there a prohibition on "bills that are too broad in scope." Gambling is not speech or assembly or religion or anything that the Constitution forbids the government from regulating (and even those things, btw, can be regulated to a degree). Sorry. Remember, there is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from passing stupid bills. The Founding Fathers decided to rely on the wisdom of the electorate to prevent that. (Note to smarter people, yes, you could make an argument about enumerated powers, but that argument hasn't worked in about 100 years.) [/ QUOTE ] If the courts were to always rule logically and follow the constitution, I'd agree with you. I recall that there was a case where Connecticut prohibited the sale of condums and the Supreme Court found a right to privacy in the Consitution and overturned the ban. That case was also the basis of Roe v. Wade. So there is some precedent for the courts overturning stupid laws. Whether or not they will here is very, very debatable. I certainly wouldn't hold out much hope.
|
|
#469
07-11-2006, 04:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Here we go....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] detailed results are up: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll363.xml Not surprising (but still disappointing since I sent him several letters/emails) my rep voted for the bill. I look forward to voting for his opponent in the election. J [/ QUOTE ] My congressman voted no. Go Dingell. [/ QUOTE ] OMG. My douchebag congressman voted aye. I emailed him and everything. FU
|
|
#470
07-11-2006, 04:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Here we go....
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] detailed results are up: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll363.xml Not surprising (but still disappointing since I sent him several letters/emails) my rep voted for the bill. I look forward to voting for his opponent in the election. J [/ QUOTE ] My congressman voted no. Go Dingell. [/ QUOTE ] OMG. My douchebag congressman voted aye. I emailed him and everything. FU [/ QUOTE ] Went against your wishes, eh?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
