PDA

View Full Version : Never again will I vote for a Democrat or Republican



DigitalDave
10-10-2006, 07:19 PM
Alright, I'm 100% sure I'm not voting for Democrats or Republicans ever again! Do they really think they are keeping us 'safer' by legislating bans on gambling?!?! I can't even deposit funds into my partypoker account anymore!?! Free Poker is BORING AS HELL! I'm just looking to have some fun with 50 bucks and get better at a game I enjoy. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, but I never play if I can't afford to lose it. This is just pure bullshit! I'm telling you, they are all the same, and don't give a shit about freedoms anymore.

http://www.lp.org/media/article_410.shtml

Congress Chooses to Legislate Morality with Internet Gambling Ban


(Washington, D.C.) Over the past weekend, a bill was passed by Congress that essentially bans Internet gambling within the United States.

Tennessee Senator and supposed presidential hopeful, Bill Frist, snuck the legislation into a port security bill which passed with only two dissenting votes. The new regulations, which will go into effect when George W. Bush signs the bill, will ban wire transfers to online gaming companies.


Supporters of the legislation accuse online gaming companies of being involved in money laundering operations and, according to the Washington Post, even fronts for terrorist groups.

"This goes beyond the absurd," exclaimed Shane Cory, executive director of the Libertarian National Committee. "Using the supposed War on Terror in defense of this legislation designed to legislate morality is sickening. Using this same reasoning, Congress should close Vegas as 9/11 Hijacker Mohamed Atta made a least two trips to the 'Sin City' before setting out to murder thousands of Americans."

In addition to citing money laundering and terrorism as excuses for the new Internet restrictions championed by Republican politicians, proponents also state that online gambling targets children and gambling addicts.

"Once again, we see politicians in Washington attempting to protect us from what they see as wrong in this world. I have news for them: Americans are smart people who can take care of themselves AND their children," continued Cory. "In restricting Internet activities, I think it would make much more sense to ban instant messaging within Congressional offices rather than ban the online hobbies of millions of tax-paying citizens."

The Libertarian Party is working to stop poor legislation such as the ban on Internet gambling by electing principled and reasoned Libertarian leaders to public office at the local, state and federal levels of government. :shock:

BRUTALITOPS
10-10-2006, 07:30 PM
GOD DAMNIT!

Can I put money in before bush signs, and then get it out?

This REALLY pisses me off, more so than I think anything else.

Fucking idiot government.

Damocles
10-10-2006, 07:37 PM
You wouldn't be able to get it out if you won and you waited until after he signed the bill. You'd have to use proxies that confuse it to believe that you were from somewhere else.

Damocles
10-10-2006, 07:37 PM
And yes, I do believe I understand how pissed you are. I don't like to gamble, but this is directly against what I believe.

BRUTALITOPS
10-10-2006, 07:38 PM
aren't some of these sites off shore though? Will it still be affected?

Damocles
10-10-2006, 07:39 PM
Yeah, they'd still be effected. It limits banks from transferring money for US Adresses

BRUTALITOPS
10-10-2006, 07:43 PM
I hate government so much I just want everyone to die :/

uscitizen
10-10-2006, 07:51 PM
The really important issues do heat up some folks ;)

Damocles
10-10-2006, 07:56 PM
If we do not stand vigilant when others lose little freedoms, soon we will find nobody will stand for us when we lose ours.

uscitizen
10-10-2006, 08:14 PM
Oh well I will be dead before it gets too screwed up anyway ;)
It just makes me chuckle a bit that this seems to have heated a couple up more than all the deaths in Iraq on both sides ;)
I guess most of us are selfish voters.

IHateGovernment
10-10-2006, 08:25 PM
I hate government so much I just want everyone to die :/

You rang?

IHateGovernment
10-10-2006, 08:25 PM
These dumbasses don't even read the legislation it looks like.

uscitizen
10-10-2006, 08:27 PM
Gambling is already illegal most places, this was just a loophole in the law.

Damocles
10-10-2006, 08:31 PM
Can you imagine the fallout if they voted "no" on a Port Security Bill?

uscitizen
10-10-2006, 08:41 PM
Was the gambling thing put in with a wine security bill ?
Does not matter , this was just closing a loophole on the govt controlling gambling anyway. It is illegal in all places not govt approved.

BRUTALITOPS
10-10-2006, 08:47 PM
Oh well I will be dead before it gets too screwed up anyway ;)
It just makes me chuckle a bit that this seems to have heated a couple up more than all the deaths in Iraq on both sides ;)
I guess most of us are selfish voters.

Honestly this does actually get me more mad than the entire iraq issue.

Cancel7
10-10-2006, 08:51 PM
Oh well I will be dead before it gets too screwed up anyway ;)
It just makes me chuckle a bit that this seems to have heated a couple up more than all the deaths in Iraq on both sides ;)
I guess most of us are selfish voters.

Yeah, I had that same thought and was considering making a blistering post on it. But the last time I was here (the night before last I think?) I went off on Dano, and I like to mix it up, you know usc? Sometimes nasty, sometimes sweet. This way, you never know what you're going to get, and plus, I don't become the most hated poster on the board. :)

Cancel7
10-10-2006, 08:52 PM
Honestly this does actually get me more mad than the entire iraq issue.


It's almost as if you're trying to push me into it though Grind.

Damocles
10-10-2006, 08:54 PM
I've been mad at Iraq for a long, long time... I went off long ago about Undeclared wars and long ago people ignored me. *sigh*

Do you remember when Bush promised no "Nation Building." The whole "War Powers Act" and undeclared wars have put our asses in more trouble than any other messed up piece of unconstitutional pap that has ever been passed.

BRUTALITOPS
10-10-2006, 08:54 PM
I have wanted us to be done with iraq for a very long time now, and I was one of the first people on the boards to agree with murtha.... But honestly, my life hasn't changed with regards to the iraq issue, I haven't been effected by it, it doesn't change my day to day life.. it's just something going on in a far away place.

This gambling thing though, directly effects me and my money and that makes me mad.

Cancel7
10-10-2006, 08:59 PM
Well, I'm happy to hear that neither of you have been for this war. But it bothers me that people don't agitate against it, when they are against it, and get all upset about this.

I have really no interest in this I guess. I can kind of see both sides of it in a way. I know that people become addicted to gambling, and some of them bet away rent, mortgage and even food money. I feel very sorry for their children.

On the other hand, Congress has better things to be doing, this shouldn't be their one of their top concerns, and it is debatable that they should be regulating it at all. I'm kind of up in the air about it. It doesn't effect me!

BRUTALITOPS
10-10-2006, 09:03 PM
I have to clearify, I was originally FOR the war because I believed saddam had WMD's. Never bought into the 9/11 connection thing as a reason for invading, never bought into nation building, or freeing the iraqis... never bought into we should get rid of saddam because he is a bad guy.... my only reason was wmd's, and once I realized they weren't there I no longer supported us being there.

But I can't help not being mad about something that doesn't directly effect me... I am not going to fake it just because people think I should or because it seems like the right thing to do. Iraq is a far away place and it just doesn't directly effect me, and thus I am not going to be as concerned about it versus, gambling.

DigitalDave
10-10-2006, 10:20 PM
I was and never will be for the war. I debated co-workers many times about the uselessness of attacking Iraq again. I never felt they were a threat. We had other countries to worry about and we were still in Afghanistan.

If people choose to throw their money away on poker sites, then that is not my problem. I choose to throw $50.00 at it, make it up to $110.00, and have fun doing so. I'm down right now, but I don't care. I had fun, and I know my limits. The sites even offer a program that you can set your deposit limits before you even start throwing money in so if you do happen to get carried away, you check yourself.

Gambling is not illegal. You can gamble in Las Vegas, Indian Reservations, and on the water. You can gamble at horse racing tracks, and you even have government sponsored gambling when it comes to the lottery. You have church sponsored gambling to play Bingo. For them to say 'sorry, you can't play poker with real money online' is a slap in the face. What in sam hell gives them the idea that the citizens of this nation would want something restricted like that.

Beefy
10-10-2006, 11:25 PM
Isn't it the government's job to reduce freedoms by protecting us from ourselves?

What the fuck right does this fed have to take this right away from us? Why is it their responsibility? Limited government??? I'll let Dixie's dumb Republican worshipping ass defend this shit.

Republicans. What the fuck do they have to do with personal responsibility anymore? Or Democrats? Both parties are power hungry robots. The Republicans are in power, and they've displayed a radical disregard for princilpe, and all you idiotic democrats sat on the sidelines slinging feces. You couldn't be proactive, you had to be reactive. You're ALL idiots.

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 05:08 AM
I've been mad at Iraq for a long, long time... I went off long ago about Undeclared wars and long ago people ignored me. *sigh*

Do you remember when Bush promised no "Nation Building." The whole "War Powers Act" and undeclared wars have put our asses in more trouble than any other messed up piece of unconstitutional pap that has ever been passed.

Yeah I remember, about the same time he said something about us not being the police force of the world either.

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 05:12 AM
I was and never will be for the war. I debated co-workers many times about the uselessness of attacking Iraq again. I never felt they were a threat. We had other countries to worry about and we were still in Afghanistan.

If people choose to throw their money away on poker sites, then that is not my problem. I choose to throw $50.00 at it, make it up to $110.00, and have fun doing so. I'm down right now, but I don't care. I had fun, and I know my limits. The sites even offer a program that you can set your deposit limits before you even start throwing money in so if you do happen to get carried away, you check yourself.

Gambling is not illegal. You can gamble in Las Vegas, Indian Reservations, and on the water. You can gamble at horse racing tracks, and you even have government sponsored gambling when it comes to the lottery. You have church sponsored gambling to play Bingo. For them to say 'sorry, you can't play poker with real money online' is a slap in the face. What in sam hell gives them the idea that the citizens of this nation would want something restricted like that.

Yopu missed my whole point Dave, these sites were not sanctioned by our gummit now were they ? That is the only places you can gamble in the good ol US of A ;) This internet gambling was a loophole in the gambling laws, thea loophole is now pretty much closed. we lost no freedom, because we did not really have it nayway, the gambling freedom was lost ages ago.

Cancel7
10-11-2006, 05:20 AM
I was and never will be for the war. I debated co-workers many times about the uselessness of attacking Iraq again. I never felt they were a threat. We had other countries to worry about and we were still in Afghanistan.

If people choose to throw their money away on poker sites, then that is not my problem. I choose to throw $50.00 at it, make it up to $110.00, and have fun doing so. I'm down right now, but I don't care. I had fun, and I know my limits. The sites even offer a program that you can set your deposit limits before you even start throwing money in so if you do happen to get carried away, you check yourself.

Gambling is not illegal. You can gamble in Las Vegas, Indian Reservations, and on the water. You can gamble at horse racing tracks, and you even have government sponsored gambling when it comes to the lottery. You have church sponsored gambling to play Bingo. For them to say 'sorry, you can't play poker with real money online' is a slap in the face. What in sam hell gives them the idea that the citizens of this nation would want something restricted like that.

Well, there's a lot of truth in that. I know a gambling addict who is constantly at the OTB. His family has been pretty much destroyed. It's very sad, I feel most sorry for the children. So I guess that I recoil a bit at all of you guys who love gambling and are presenting it as harmless. Because it's not and you're in denial, it's like alcholics saying they just like a beer in the morning.

So that's what puts my back up. Get off your high horses. It harms a lot of people, may very well be harming any one of you who are only pretending you have any control. Or one day will harm you. And those who love you. I guess I have a natural sympathy that makes my heart go out to a 1st grader who doesn't get shoes or lunch money because daddy came home broke again.

But I know it can't be outlawed by the government. I do also recoil from that.

BRUTALITOPS
10-11-2006, 05:29 AM
besides poker isn't gambling... yeah, you're an idiot if you play blackjack online, but come on..

Care4all
10-11-2006, 06:53 AM
Yeah, I had that same thought and was considering making a blistering post on it. But the last time I was here (the night before last I think?) I went off on Dano, and I like to mix it up, you know usc? Sometimes nasty, sometimes sweet. This way, you never know what you're going to get, and plus, I don't become the most hated poster on the board. :)


:D

Care4all
10-11-2006, 06:57 AM
This law was slipped in to the Port Security bill less than 12 hours before the debate and vote on the floor of the house by REPUBLICANS....WHO want to PROTECT their gambling buddies in the usa...

the new law prevents gambling with overseas companies via not allowing the credit card banks use them...

This was protectionism at its worst for the Usa Casino LObby...

Damocles
10-11-2006, 07:00 AM
LOL. And only two voted against it, even knowing this was "slipped" in there...

Once again, they thought of the fallout for voting against "port security" rather than about what is right.

Care4all
10-11-2006, 07:15 AM
LOL. And only two voted against it, even knowing this was "slipped" in there...

Once again, they thought of the fallout for voting against "port security" rather than about what is right.

This is a MASTERED TACTIC of the Republicans of late Damo...this slipping in at the last minute, legislation that is controversial, in a MUST PASS BILL like POrt Security.

Would voting AGAINST port security have been the "right" thing to do Damo?

Or would the RIGHT thing to do ...should have been NOT slipping this casino legislation in to a MUST PASS for our safety, Port Security Bill...

What I am trying to say is that I believe YOUR attitude on this is WRONG, because it is the Republicans in power that NEEDS to STOP this kind of bullshit favoritism towards their big campaign donors with measures like this, slipped in to these must pass bills....

Republicans in power need to stop this CRAP....I am sick of it...this measure is NOTHING compared to the thousand other bullshit measures the republicans have slipped in to MUST PASS legislation over the past 6 years....

The Republican controlled congress is doing a HUGE DISSERVICE to the American people via the way they mishandle their responsibilities to ALL OF US....imho.

Vote Democratic or don't vote is my reccomendation, at this point... :D:D:D

care

Jarod
10-11-2006, 07:17 AM
LOL. And only two voted against it, even knowing this was "slipped" in there...

Once again, they thought of the fallout for voting against "port security" rather than about what is right.

They learned there lesson after what Bush did to Kerry! When Republicans let there leaders get away with attacking Kerry for voting against the 87 billion deal they scared anyone from ever voting no on any deal with the word security in it!

Damocles
10-11-2006, 07:18 AM
This is a MASTERED TACTIC of the Republicans of late Damo...this slipping in at the last minute, legislation that is controversial, in a MUST PASS BILL like POrt Security.

Would voting AGAINST port security have been the "right" thing to do Damo?

Or would the RIGHT thing to do ...should have been NOT slipping this casino legislation in to a MUST PASS for our safety, Port Security Bill...

What I am trying to say is that I believe YOUR attitude on this is WRONG, because it is the Republicans in power that NEEDS to STOP this kind of bullshit favoritism towards their big campaign donors with measures like this, slipped in to these must pass bills....

Republicans in power need to stop this CRAP....I am sick of it...this measure is NOTHING compared to the thousand other bullshit measures the republicans have slipped in to MUST PASS legislation over the past 6 years....

The Republican controlled congress is doing a HUGE DISSERVICE to the American people via the way they mishandle their responsibilities to ALL OF US....imho.

Vote Democratic or don't vote is my reccomendation, at this point... :D:D:D

care
It's a mastered tactic of both sides, Care. I think it is disingenuous pretending it is all Rs fault when they voted for it too. Almost unanimously. And that is why I laughed at this. Your whole, "It's all the Rs!" when they voted for it as well on such a HUGE level? Come on! You know they could vote against it wholesale and push for new rules if they wanted it to stop.

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 07:40 AM
LOL. And only two voted against it, even knowing this was "slipped" in there...

Once again, they thought of the fallout for voting against "port security" rather than about what is right.
What is right ? hmm the internet gambling bypassed the intent of existing US gambling laws. They just closed the loophole.
Why are some of you making out like the govt controlling gambling is a new issue ?

Damocles
10-11-2006, 07:42 AM
What is right ? hmm the internet gambling bypassed the intent of existing US gambling laws. They just closed the loophole.
Why are some of you making out like the govt controlling gambling is a new issue ?
I'm not, I still think it is right to take most of those laws and shove them right where the sun don't shine. What is right means I think this is a new thing?

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 07:49 AM
I'm not, I still think it is right to take most of those laws and shove them right where the sun don't shine. What is right means I think this is a new thing?

That is a totally different issue. Our govt has stringently controlled gambling for many years. To act like this internet aspect of gambling control is a different issue is not correct.

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 07:50 AM
Well, there's a lot of truth in that. I know a gambling addict who is constantly at the OTB. His family has been pretty much destroyed. It's very sad, I feel most sorry for the children. So I guess that I recoil a bit at all of you guys who love gambling and are presenting it as harmless. Because it's not and you're in denial, it's like alcholics saying they just like a beer in the morning.

So that's what puts my back up. Get off your high horses. It harms a lot of people, may very well be harming any one of you who are only pretending you have any control. Or one day will harm you. And those who love you. I guess I have a natural sympathy that makes my heart go out to a 1st grader who doesn't get shoes or lunch money because daddy came home broke again.

But I know it can't be outlawed by the government. I do also recoil from that.

You know, I would normally sympathize and come up with a solution to this problem of idiots who can't control themselves that doesn't infringe on other responsible peoples freedoms, but I'm not in the mood. I'm not in denial that there is a problem, it just isn't mine to be concerned about. My freedom should not be taken away because other people are retards. Like i said, I put in $50.00 to play with and didn't plan on putting any more in anytime soon, but now I don't have a choice. When people use real dollars, they tend to be more conservative and don't just throw fake chips at a crappy hand hoping to come out better with their hand. Hold'em poker is a skill game that requires betting to take place in order for the better player to win. You really can't do that in fake games.

I understand your sympathy, and really, there are a lot of things that can destroy a childs life when the parents are irresponsible, but our government should not be moral police. It's unfortunate but in a free country, we can only do so much to limit people from being irresponsible without taking the 'free country' title away.

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 07:54 AM
What is right ? hmm the internet gambling bypassed the intent of existing US gambling laws. They just closed the loophole.
Why are some of you making out like the govt controlling gambling is a new issue ?


Im not making it a new issue, it just pisses me off with the hypocrisy. How do they feel it is right to limit gambling to only certain places because it's 'bad for people' but yet they allow Churchs to do it AND they run their own gambling business. Online gaming was completely legal, loophole or not. It's just freakin pathetic that they have to go and take more shit away from us. I've been complaining about government sponsored gambling for a few years now.

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 07:55 AM
Dave your freedom to gamble except in US govt approved places was taken away a loooong time ago. You were just sliding thru a loophole, which is being closed. To whine about losing your freedom to gamble now is not totally honest.

Damocles
10-11-2006, 07:57 AM
Dave your freedom to gamble except in US govt approved places was taken away a loooong time ago. You were just sliding thru a loophole, which is being closed. To whine about losing your freedom to gamble now is not totally honest.
No, it would be dishonest for me to sit there and not complain when I thought it has been wrong from the beginning.

Where in all my posts do I even imply that I think it is a "new" thing to limit gambling?

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 07:57 AM
Dave your freedom to gamble except in US govt approved places was taken away a loooong time ago. You were just sliding thru a loophole, which is being closed. To whine about losing your freedom to gamble now is not totally honest.

It was legal regardless, and I was having a good time doing it. Its bullshit that they limit it in the first place.

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 08:00 AM
No, it would be dishonest for me to sit there and not complain when I thought it has been wrong from the beginning.

Where in all my posts do I even imply that I think it is a "new" thing to limit gambling?

Exactly! Like I said, I've been pissed about how the government controls the whole business for a few years now. Its hypocrisy!

Damocles
10-11-2006, 08:01 AM
That is a totally different issue. Our govt has stringently controlled gambling for many years. To act like this internet aspect of gambling control is a different issue is not correct.
To pretend that it is right because it isn't a new thing would be dishonest and hypocritical of me.

I don't even gamble and I think it is wrong to do this. Personal responsibility is the burden of freedom, to assume that nobody should do something because some are irresponsible is the opposite.

I will not idly stand by when other's freedoms are taken.

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 08:12 AM
I'm not, I still think it is right to take most of those laws and shove them right where the sun don't shine. What is right means I think this is a new thing?


No, it would be dishonest for me to sit there and not complain when I thought it has been wrong from the beginning.

Where in all my posts do I even imply that I think it is a "new" thing to limit gambling?

You said.
"If we do not stand vigilant when others lose little freedoms, soon we will find nobody will stand for us when we lose ours."

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 08:14 AM
You said.
"If we do not stand vigilant when others lose little freedoms, soon we will find nobody will stand for us when we lose ours."

So because they make it more restrictive and take away something MILLIONS of people play, we arn't really 'losing' freedoms? What the hell kind of logic is that!

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 08:14 AM
To pretend that it is right because it isn't a new thing would be dishonest and hypocritical of me.

I don't even gamble and I think it is wrong to do this. Personal responsibility is the burden of freedom, to assume that nobody should do something because some are irresponsible is the opposite.

I will not idly stand by when other's freedoms are taken.

good backout job Damo ;)

Damocles
10-11-2006, 08:19 AM
You said.
"If we do not stand vigilant when others lose little freedoms, soon we will find nobody will stand for us when we lose ours."
And this means that I think it is new? It means that I believe that this is a little freedom that I should stand with others over...

I believe that the more I stand complacent because it isn't "new" the closer it gets to the freedoms that I enjoy.

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 08:21 AM
good backout job Damo ;)

Good misinterpretation job usc!

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 08:27 AM
Good misinterpretation job usc!

I dont think so Dave. (said in an Al Borland tone of voice) :)
the freedom to gamble when and where we want was long ago lost.
You guys had found a loophole for a brief time created by new technologies not covered under the gambling laws in wording, but covered by intent.

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 08:30 AM
Whatever usc, Im not gonna sit here and debate you on what Damo meant. I know what he meant, and I doubt you care, but you lose a few 'common sense' points with me.

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 08:32 AM
Gamblers lose common sense points with me anyway dave, so we are even :)

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 08:38 AM
I wonder if the IRS will audit those with credit card transfers to offshore gambling firms ....

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 08:40 AM
That's great usc...

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 08:41 AM
I wonder if the IRS will audit those with credit card transfers to offshore gambling firms ....

I bet you are hoping that it happens. Millions of Americans getting audited... sure you arn't a republican? Or are you just a pinko?

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 10:07 AM
Tax evasion is tax evasion Dave,

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 11:03 AM
So every person that submits money to a partypoker account is evading taxes? Wish I knew this after I submitted my already taxed money that I earned into that account. Commie...

TRGLDTE
10-11-2006, 11:06 AM
This is a MASTERED TACTIC of the Republicans of late Damo...this slipping in at the last minute, legislation that is controversial, in a MUST PASS BILL like POrt Security.

Would voting AGAINST port security have been the "right" thing to do Damo?

Or would the RIGHT thing to do ...should have been NOT slipping this casino legislation in to a MUST PASS for our safety, Port Security Bill...

What I am trying to say is that I believe YOUR attitude on this is WRONG, because it is the Republicans in power that NEEDS to STOP this kind of bullshit favoritism towards their big campaign donors with measures like this, slipped in to these must pass bills....

Republicans in power need to stop this CRAP....I am sick of it...this measure is NOTHING compared to the thousand other bullshit measures the republicans have slipped in to MUST PASS legislation over the past 6 years....

The Republican controlled congress is doing a HUGE DISSERVICE to the American people via the way they mishandle their responsibilities to ALL OF US....imho.

Vote Democratic or don't vote is my reccomendation, at this point... :D:D:D

care
Ted Kennedy is a master of this technique. It's not just an R thing.

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 11:28 AM
So every person that submits money to a partypoker account is evading taxes? Wish I knew this after I submitted my already taxed money that I earned into that account. Commie...
Nope but if you won more than you lost, that is called profit and is taxable income to be reported.

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 11:37 AM
Nope but if you won more than you lost, that is called profit and is taxable income to be reported.

I understand now usc, you are just defending your precious Democrats votes any way you can....

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 11:39 AM
Nope I just have no use for anyone exploiting a loophole in the law and then whining when the looophole is closed. You should be glad you had it when you did. And if I have to pay my taxes like I should so should we all.

Officially Dave I am a Republican, that is what my voter registration says anyway ;)

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 11:47 AM
Nope I just have no use for anyone exploiting a loophole in the law and then whining when the looophole is closed. You should be glad you had it when you did. And if I have to pay my taxes like I should so should we all.

Officially Dave I am a Republican, that is what my voter registration says anyway ;)

So you advocate government sponsored gambling, well, any gambling as long as the government says its ok. I know, you like the government to control everything. You also like the government to tax already taxed money so they can have more to fund wars and shit like that. Nevermind that all the money played on those sites is leftover from taxes. Even the people that lose the money were taxed and they played with whats left. That money ends up going to someone else who played with their already taxed money. Let's tax it again!

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 11:53 AM
No dave I advocate following the laws our government makes.
All money is taxed multiple times, that is the way it is, you spend it someone else pays taxes on income derived from what you spent.
I don't personally like gambling because it can be a destructive addiction like alcohol and drugs and wreck lives. Done properly it is fine with me, but illegal in the USA unless done at a govt approved location/manner.

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 11:55 AM
Done properly it is fine with me, but illegal in the USA unless done at a govt approved location/manner.

Thank you for confirming...

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 11:57 AM
Confirning I support the laws our govt makes ? Not exactly, but I have a allergy to prison.

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 11:59 AM
So you advocate government sponsored gambling, well, any gambling as long as the government says its ok.

Confirming this....


Done properly it is fine with me, but illegal in the USA unless done at a govt approved location/manner.

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 12:11 PM
The entire qoute would be less deceptive Dave.
"No dave I advocate following the laws our government makes.
All money is taxed multiple times, that is the way it is, you spend it someone else pays taxes on income derived from what you spent.
I don't personally like gambling because it can be a destructive addiction like alcohol and drugs and wreck lives. Done properly it is fine with me, but illegal in the USA unless done at a govt approved location/manner."

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 12:20 PM
How does that change the quote? You still believe government should control everything. What you said in your entire post does not change the meaning of your quote.

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 01:04 PM
If you think that statement means I believe that the govt should control everything, well you local community college should have adult reading comprehension classes.

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 01:07 PM
No dave I advocate following the laws our government makes


Done properly it is fine with me, but illegal in the USA unless done at a govt approved location/manner."

First you say you advocate following the laws of our government. Therefore, you advocate that the government control it all, since that is the law.

IHateGovernment
10-11-2006, 01:08 PM
US you have said you support government controlling gambling however.

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 01:11 PM
Yep, IHG I have, and do, but that is a far cry from saying I believe the government should support EVERYTHING ;)

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 01:14 PM
usc, you knew the context of this thread and know what I meant when i said everything. It is refering to gambling.

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 01:19 PM
We were doing fine till you threw in the everything.
And as I told IHG, yes I do support govt control of gambling because people are too stupid as a rule to properly regulate themselves.
and innocent people get hurt as a result.
And no I did not realize everything just meant gambling. sigh...

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 01:22 PM
I do support govt control of gambling because people are too stupid as a rule to properly regulate themselves.
and innocent people get hurt as a result.

You are 'a people' too usc. So are all the people that make the laws and decide what is 'good' and 'bad', nice to know you are right up there with Hastert on this issue.

Damocles
10-11-2006, 01:22 PM
"innocent"? What is innocent? That poor sucker who just happens to be gambling their money away? Are they really innocent?

The truly addicted gambler will gamble their money away regardless of this silly law.

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 01:23 PM
Of course, Hastert thinks that because he can't regulate himself, let alone his employees. Its unfortunate he trys to regulate the rest of America.

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 01:29 PM
The poor fools family Damo.
I don't give a real big rats ass in either direction. But do understand why some things are regulated. Although if no regulations anarchy would result and after a time the weak ones would be weeded out and the gene pool would be stronger. Regulations allow the weak to survive and reproduce. dod eat dog weeds out the weak.
But as I stated before do have an allergy to prison so I tend to follow the law pretty well. I don't care for gambling personally because I hate to flush my hard earned money down the drain.

Damocles
10-11-2006, 01:31 PM
The poor fools family Damo.
I don't give a real big rats ass in either direction. But do understand why some things are regulated. Although if no regulations anarchy would result and after a time the weak ones would be weeded out and the gene pool would be stronger. Regulations allow the weak to survive and reproduce. dod eat dog weeds out the weak.
But as I stated before do have an allergy to prison so I tend to follow the law pretty well. I don't care for gambling personally because I hate to flush my hard earned money down the drain.
The poor fools family will suffer regardless of this law. That was my point. You cannot save them by making them find more black market ways to gamble. It simply doesn't work. Any more than the "War on Drugs" works.

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 01:34 PM
Would we not have more drug problems if illegal drugs were more available ?

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 01:36 PM
Would we not have more drug problems if illegal drugs were more available ?

We have bigger problems now that drugs are illegal. Same happened with Alcohol.

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 01:39 PM
but alcohol is legal and still costs this country more in dollars and trouble than all illegal drug use combined ?

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 01:40 PM
Alcohol was illegal once usc ;) Wonder what happened during that time period.... hmm....

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 01:40 PM
I think we just need to let the mentally deficient people weed themselves from the gene pool, I just dont loike the idea of them taking innocent ones with them is my only concern.

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 01:43 PM
Ohh similar stuff to what is happening now with illegal drugs Dave. But we have gotten too high and moral :) to react the way we did with prohibition.

Damocles
10-11-2006, 01:43 PM
Would we not have more drug problems if illegal drugs were more available ?
No, if we truly paid attention we would have less and people would be treated rather than pumped through the system that teaches them to become better criminals.

IHateGovernment
10-11-2006, 01:44 PM
We were doing fine till you threw in the everything.
And as I told IHG, yes I do support govt control of gambling because people are too stupid as a rule to properly regulate themselves.
and innocent people get hurt as a result.
And no I did not realize everything just meant gambling. sigh...

Ugh. Government to the rescue to save us from ourselves. Maybe having to relocate to living in a cardboard box will convince someone gambling excessively is a bad idea.

IHateGovernment
10-11-2006, 01:46 PM
Would we not have more drug problems if illegal drugs were more available ?

We wouldn't have three year old girls shot up in drive bys over drug turf wars I know that.

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 01:47 PM
No, if we truly paid attention we would have less and people would be treated rather than pumped through the system that teaches them to become better criminals.

why do you think they would be treated properly Damo ?
Should we regulate their treatment ?

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 01:48 PM
Ohh similar stuff to what is happening now with illegal drugs Dave. But we have gotten too high and moral :) to react the way we did with prohibition.

I highly doubt that. If they were to make alcohol illegal, there would be outrage again, just like before. Drugs have been illegal for quite some time and people are still pissed about it. Gangs are still being funded by drugs.

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 01:49 PM
Would we not have more drug problems if illegal drugs were more available ?

We wouldn't have three year old girls shot up in drive bys over drug turf wars I know that.
there will always be some people that are trashy punks no matter what is legal or illegal.

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 01:51 PM
there will always be some people that are trashy punks no matter what is legal or illegal.

Yeah, except the trashy punks make money selling illegal drugs instead of working a job and learning to live within society.

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 01:51 PM
We were doing fine till you threw in the everything.
And as I told IHG, yes I do support govt control of gambling because people are too stupid as a rule to properly regulate themselves.
and innocent people get hurt as a result.
And no I did not realize everything just meant gambling. sigh...

Ugh. Government to the rescue to save us from ourselves. Maybe having to relocate to living in a cardboard box will convince someone gambling excessively is a bad idea.

for me that would be acceptable, unlike Grind I do have some compassion for the innocent though. But none for the heroin junkie or the gambling addict or alkie.

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 01:53 PM
Yeah, except the trashy punks make money selling illegal drugs instead of working a job and learning to live within society.
so you really think those types of humans would work at the insurance company with rob if drugs were legal ? come on get real, some people are just garbage and only deserve to be shot.

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 01:54 PM
So what SHOULDN'T we regulate usc? Business? Moral Values? What do you think is something the government should just keep its nose out of?

Damocles
10-11-2006, 01:57 PM
why do you think they would be treated properly Damo ?
Should we regulate their treatment ?
No. But there would be far less issues with coming forward and admitting your problem. Nobody would be there with handcuffs. Those who supply them wouldn't be the local illegal standing on a corner not caring if they sell them to children or at a school...

DigitalDave
10-11-2006, 01:59 PM
so you really think those types of humans would work at the insurance company with rob if drugs were legal ? come on get real, some people are just garbage and only deserve to be shot.

I would not only bet that, I would GUARANTEE that at least 50% of the 'garbage' you speak of was not selling drugs illegally, they would be forced into working a real job. Whether it be McDonalds or as the CEO of Enron, they would need to make money somehow. Maybe they could be pharmacists!

IHateGovernment
10-11-2006, 02:02 PM
there will always be some people that are trashy punks no matter what is legal or illegal.

Of course but one can't deny that less, much less is better

IHateGovernment
10-11-2006, 02:06 PM
for me that would be acceptable, unlike Grind I do have some compassion for the innocent though. But none for the heroin junkie or the gambling addict or alkie.

Thats taking it to an extreme end. Are you suggesting that any behavior that can be detrimental to family members be curtailed? Drinking, drugs, gambling, skydiving, serving in the military? And what of those who don't have a family or familial obligations. Dave has no family yet he is prevented from gambling because he might harm his family? What family?

We cannot base law upon making sure children have good Daddies. It is the parents responsibility to be a good parent. Parents are to raise children not the government.

IHateGovernment
10-11-2006, 02:08 PM
Drug dealers are often great entrepreneurs who given another outlet would accel. Read freakonomics about the economy of a drug dealing gang.

TRGLDTE
10-11-2006, 02:12 PM
Would we not have more drug problems if illegal drugs were more available ?

We wouldn't have three year old girls shot up in drive bys over drug turf wars I know that. The news reported that she was not the victim of a stray round, but rather executed because one gang thought her dad was in the other gang. Yeah, somebody, please, show me how legalization is worse than this...

IHateGovernment
10-11-2006, 02:16 PM
Yeah thats right I read about that today.

Truly disgusting.

TRGLDTE
10-11-2006, 02:16 PM
Drug dealers are often great entrepreneurs who given another outlet would accel. Read freakonomics about the economy of a drug dealing gang. I have and, like any good pyramid, the top levels make the big bucks while the street dealers make less than minimum wage.

TRGLDTE
10-11-2006, 02:18 PM
Yeah thats right I read about that today.

Truly disgusting.Right now, thinking about it, I feel (literally) sick to my stomach. I think I might puke.

IHateGovernment
10-11-2006, 02:23 PM
Yeah the disparity truly surprised me. In the hood though kids follow fantasies instead of realistic goals. Many either think they are going to be the next Pablo Escobar, 50 Cent, or Kobe Bryant.

IHateGovernment
10-11-2006, 02:24 PM
Yeah I try to keep away from that stuff it depresses me. My wife is always sure to inform me. She's always on that court TV website. Don't know how she can read about one atrocity aftern another.

BRUTALITOPS
10-11-2006, 04:03 PM
Nope I just have no use for anyone exploiting a loophole in the law and then whining when the looophole is closed. You should be glad you had it when you did. And if I have to pay my taxes like I should so should we all.


I really want you to die.

BRUTALITOPS
10-11-2006, 04:05 PM
We were doing fine till you threw in the everything.
And as I told IHG, yes I do support govt control of gambling because people are too stupid as a rule to properly regulate themselves.
and innocent people get hurt as a result.
.

Tough shit.

I REALLLLLY want you to just die...

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 05:27 PM
I really want you to die.
get in line ;)

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 05:29 PM
So what SHOULDN'T we regulate usc? Business? Moral Values? What do you think is something the government should just keep its nose out of?
Sex as along as it is between consenting adults.

Cancel7
10-11-2006, 05:48 PM
get in line ;)

LOL.

Usc you are so unflappable. That's great.

uscitizen
10-11-2006, 09:34 PM
Why would I let someone on a board get my panties in a wad Darla ?
Life is too short to look for things to get upset about or get upset about something that does not matter. There are plenty of rocks in the road of life that we can't dodge anyway.

Cancel7
10-12-2006, 05:05 AM
Why would I let someone on a board get my panties in a wad Darla ?
Life is too short to look for things to get upset about or get upset about something that does not matter. There are plenty of rocks in the road of life that we can't dodge anyway.

Very true usc. But I still like to hit them with a, why don't you go f yourself you sniveling little worm, from time to time. I can't help myself.

Do you know that Dusty Springfield song, Son of a Preacher Man? "It ain't easy being good, no matter how hard I try." That's me.

uscitizen
10-12-2006, 07:12 AM
Sometimes it is good to be bad Darla.

OrnotBitwise
10-12-2006, 06:02 PM
Yeah the disparity truly surprised me. In the hood though kids follow fantasies instead of realistic goals. Many either think they are going to be the next Pablo Escobar, 50 Cent, or Kobe Bryant.
Perhaps because the goals that seem "reasonable" in our world aren't in theirs . . . statistically speaking, that is. While many human responses aren't strictly rational they almost always procede from rationally describable causes.

Damocles
10-12-2006, 07:18 PM
Perhaps because the goals that seem "reasonable" in our world aren't in theirs . . . statistically speaking, that is. While many human responses aren't strictly rational they almost always procede from rationally describable causes.
It is more realistic to believe in the cultural aspects as well. Often when people make it the regular way they are called "oreos" or are said to be "race traitors" sometimes even worse euphemisms are used.

So, doing well in school, working hard and making it through regular means often nets people punishment rather than worship and being set as the goal to work toward.

OrnotBitwise
10-12-2006, 08:46 PM
It is more realistic to believe in the cultural aspects as well. Often when people make it the regular way they are called "oreos" or are said to be "race traitors" sometimes even worse euphemisms are used.

So, doing well in school, working hard and making it through regular means often nets people punishment rather than worship and being set as the goal to work toward.I would argue that's more effect than cause. Certainly there is feedback but a secondary effect is still secondary.

The behavior you object to -- from your comfortable vantage -- while definitely a problem, is learned. It's an adaptation to pressures from without, not a mamanifestation of any defect in the population itself.

Damocles
10-12-2006, 08:48 PM
I would argue that's more effect than cause. Certainly there is feedback but a secondary effect is still secondary.

The behavior you object to -- from your comfortable vantage -- while definitely a problem, is learned. It's an adaptation to pressures from without, not a mamanifestation of any defect in the population itself.
From my comfortable vantage? LOL. You wouldn't say that if you knew where I grew up!

OrnotBitwise
10-12-2006, 08:54 PM
From my comfortable vantage? LOL. You wouldn't say that if you knew where I grew up!
Wanna trade horror stories? You wouldn't want to: trust me. ;)

Gratuitous minor flame-baiting aside, I stand by the basic analysis. You're looking at a cultural adaptation and casting a value judgment against it from outside. That's *always* a very risky proposition. I'll even grant that some aspects are indeed maladaptive, but the pressures that gave rise to the adaptation are still there.

In short, the only way to change it is two pronged. Commitment to change within the sub-culture and commitment to aleviating the economic and social pressures from without.

Damocles
10-12-2006, 08:59 PM
Wanna trade horror stories? You wouldn't want to: trust me. ;)

Gratuitous minor flame-baiting aside, I stand by the basic analysis. You're looking at a cultural adaptation and casting a value judgment against it from outside. That's *always* a very risky proposition. I'll even grant that some aspects are indeed maladaptive, but the pressures that gave rise to the adaptation are still there.

In short, the only way to change it is two pronged. Commitment to change within the sub-culture and commitment to aleviating the economic and social pressures from without.
I've never argued against that. I have been committed to education for a long, long time.

I have been clear. I believe that the cultural aspects are more significant than that. I don't need "horror" stories to back me up. Just memory. Shoot, even I was made fun of for being so "white". There was significant negative pressure on my friends. I knew that almost all of them could easily make it out of there if they'd just get past this...

uscitizen
10-12-2006, 09:43 PM
Damo and Ornot, I have been reading your posts and it is not just the ghettos that are hard to escape it is all over. In the hills of eastern KY one who strives to learn and do better is often labeled by their own parents as being too good for their own raising or somesuch. I view this as petty insecurity and or jealousy on their parents and peers parts. Sad , so sad for a parent to not want his child to do as good as they can in the world, but it is a fact.

Prakosh
10-13-2006, 01:53 PM
for me that would be acceptable, unlike Grind I do have some compassion for the innocent though. But none for the heroin junkie or the gambling addict or alkie.

Thats taking it to an extreme end. Are you suggesting that any behavior that can be detrimental to family members be curtailed? Drinking, drugs, gambling, skydiving, serving in the military? And what of those who don't have a family or familial obligations. Dave has no family yet he is prevented from gambling because he might harm his family? What family?

We cannot base law upon making sure children have good Daddies. It is the parents responsibility to be a good parent. Parents are to raise children not the government.

This is especially troubling: "It is the parents responsibility to be a good parent. Parents are to raise children not the government." And what of those parents who don't or won't accept this responsibility? What of parents who are just not emotionally capable of accepting or shouldering the responsibility of raising children? Do you actually believe that all parents love their children? How far are you willing to go in your abandonment of children to their parents?

Damocles
10-13-2006, 02:00 PM
Damo and Ornot, I have been reading your posts and it is not just the ghettos that are hard to escape it is all over. In the hills of eastern KY one who strives to learn and do better is often labeled by their own parents as being too good for their own raising or somesuch. I view this as petty insecurity and or jealousy on their parents and peers parts. Sad , so sad for a parent to not want his child to do as good as they can in the world, but it is a fact.
Oh, yeah. That is a cultural phenomena as well. That is one I saw on my uncle's ranch. They called them, "Too big for his britches"...

uscitizen
10-13-2006, 02:06 PM
It is sad when the child is more mature in some ways than the parent Damo.