Congresswoman says bill does NOT ban online poker

[BufordD]

http://www.gambling911.com/Internet-...er-100906.html

[DrewOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.gambling911.com/Internet-...er-100906.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it's an article with a positive spin, but consider the source. gambling911.com is far from neutral in this matter.

[Indiana]

You see, the problem with all of this is that most americans are not going to think through the problem like this lady will. She's from a proactive state and is known to be a thinker. I am happy that she has such views but I worry that we will need another voice like that of Mike Sexton to appeal to the common folk.

Indy

[ZviJustin]

Also consider the congresswoman quoted. Her only agenda is to officially legalize and regulate online gambling. This does not work if a bill is passed under the preeumption online gambling is patently immoral and dangerous.

SHELLEY BERKLEY (D-NV)
Top Contributors
1 MGM Mirage $78,850
2 Harrah's Entertainment $16,000

SHELLEY BERKLEY (D-NV)
Top Industries

The top industries supporting Shelley Berkley are:
1 Casinos/Gambling $148,800
2 Lawyers/Law Firms $134,926

[athought]

Pardon my ignorance, but can corporations / and or groups of people bring lawsuits with Federal government to question our freedom to play poker with the vendor of our choice whether it be online or in B&M.

Furthermore, why are there not any US corporations that are in the online gaming world and leading this charge. That is how does Harrah's or Station not have an online card room? There's just too much money in it, and the service is nearly a commodity, and they'd immediately soak up a huge player base from US players.

Deep down my emotions are torn. I feel any logical or money-driven result to this problem will lead to a victory for online gaming. It's our right, and there's tons of corporate income and taxable revenue to be tapped. On the other side, so often is logic thrown out the window when it comes to protecting civil liberties because of the opinions of a few extremists who remain unaffected by my choice to play or not.

I should run for congress and slip a bill into some legislation making it illegal to go to church. People get addicted, and spend up to 10% or more of their income there. We must protect them from themselves.

[ZviJustin]

While you are at it, sue the government to let you buy crack on the street corner from whoever you see fit.

[athought]

On what grounds is poker patently moral and dangerous? Let's ignore the supposed separation of church and state for your convenience and simply focus on a non-religious argument for why poker is moral and dangerous and should not be entirely within my rights. I respect your freedom to choose to believe that under your god gambling (in some forms, poker, but not investments in stocks, or even property) is immoral, but on what basis can you make a blanket claim that it is patently immoral without referring to some religious text by which the religious freedom of this country allows me to seek guidance elsewhere so long as it doesn't impose on another's rights.

[athought]

[ QUOTE ]
While you are at it, sue the government to let you buy crack on the street corner from whoever you see fit.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just the problem. I don't want to buy crack on the corner. I can already do that. I want to safely play poker much liike I would in Vegas in the luxury of my own home, and do so at a safe, audited, regulated, publicly traded corporation, where the taxable revenue goes towards doing good in the community (possibly helping those supposed addicts who will find a way anyway) as well as other good causes, like education, or just reducing the overall amount of taxes needed from other sources.

[ncboiler]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.gambling911.com/Internet-...er-100906.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Any congessman's opinion on this bill are about as important as mine right now. They really don't matter. What is important is their attitude and desire to do something about IG in the future.

[athought]

You can't rightly draw a line to crack anyway ,since crack would need to be legal already, as poker is, and then we'd be arguing about buying crack online from the UK being illegal. This is the argument as I understand it from the WTO.