muddysmind.com

Yeah....other than wanting to control what people do with their own time and money - I really don't see the point in this.

Oh well, there goes *your* Friday nights.:-P

This wont stop anything. I dont know how the Exact legislation is phrased, but it wont stop bets.

Instead of putting dollars into your doker or betting account, youll just "tokens" or some other form of currency. They cant stop people from buying "virtual" money and placing "virtual" bets. Or buying tokens to play other people with tokens etc. Its just like MMORPG games, where people pay money for real estate or assets/weapons in a virtual world on a server.

This wont stop anything. With all the tens and more likey, Hundreds of Billions of dollars on the line, you better belive people will find away around this. Hell, even if you have to use paypal or neteller to buy tokens. This is like 1 speed bump on a long road. It may slow down gambling for a few minutes, but there is just WAY too much money out there.

But hey, thats Dubya and the Pseudo moral police for you.

"But hey, thats Dubya and the Pseudo moral police for you."

Actually, that's BOTH the dummyrats and republicant's - they're both at fault.

The legislation specifically forbade banks from depositing money at online gambling websites. When you deposit your money there, you were already buying some other fiat currency (chips). That's irrelevant if you can't give them your money to begin with.

BTW it passed 317 - 93, so you might want to spread the blame around there.

Oh, side note, this legislation was proposed 6 years ago, but was derailed by...Jack Abramoff who was the lobbyist for gambling firms. It was derailed by lobbying to both sides of the aisle BTW.

One lawmaker said "This is the beginnings of an effort to remove the smudge Jack Abramoff left on this house." Does that mean they're going to go back and reconsider every bill he dealt with?

The claims the house and senate made were actually mostly false, including that most gambling sites are overseas (true but misleading, the most popular ones are based in the US) and that most of the money goes to support drugs and terrorism (okay, prove that one?)

"and that most of the money goes to support drugs and terrorism"

When I first read this article, that's the first thing I thought that could be the reason behind their thinking (But as you stated - I don't know how they could prove that one. I guess they could have their ways but....). I've tried to read different articles on this but none of them give a good clear reason behind the decision. At least, not that *I've* seen.

I blame republicans because they did their politicing on this one. They added a few lines onto a port security bill to slip this one in, a few weeks before the elections. How the hell is someone in a tight race supposed to say, "I voted against this port security bill because it is wrong to ban toker online and full of pork."

Its a lose lose situation, and its republicans pseudo morality policing, to try and think most people are against gambling.

If Bush signs this bill, which he will then Yes it will be under his watch and Ill blame him, because he is he anti-christ.

I still know sites will get around this. If they have it where you must sign up for a bank account in romania and deposit money, just to transfer money into your toker account, people and these gambling sites will find away around this.

and why the hell cant you say p o k e r?

I mean usually christian and conservative people favor the fact that you can get ahead by working hard, not by speculating on the speculative bets made by others ...

now working hard has been made less and less a way to get ahead and playing with borrowed money the best way to feel rich (as long as there s no market crash).
Are you ready. I bet the next one, I mean major one bigger than 20% is in the coming month.

I ll take the chance and I say chances of success of the bet are about as high as chances of failure of the irakian invasion by the USA back in 2003.
I d say 70% chance of a major crash. And my money is where my words are

"and why the hell cant you say p o k e r?"

I wasn't aware that you couldn't but now that you mention it, I can see why. Just think about it. Ok, well maybe that's just *my* dirty mind. It's most likely because of spam.

You can blame who you want. That's your right, of course but neither side seems to be concerned about more important issuse anyway. I'll be completely honest here....for the past month, I haven't really been keeping up with tv news so I can't truely say what the house has or has not put fron and center. However, from what I've read, neither the republicans nor the democrats have been fighting very strongly for stronger security at our borders, nor cracking down on ILLegal imigration, nor fighting to get legislation pushed through on ankle braclets for pedifiles (I can't remember what senator came up with that one but I think that plan is BRILLANT!!!!). No. Both sides what to consentrate on the stupid things so neither side rocks the boat too much for their voters at the same time making it appear as if they're actually doing their job.

Oh, and btw....as far as "anti-Christ"? Technically anyone who is not with God - as in following Him and being born again - is considered having an "anti-Christ" heart/spirit. It doesn't mean that the person is evil but only that they do not serve Christ. Just wanted to clear that up considering that word gets thrown around all the time.

Well, the invasion of Iraq was a success DF, we accomplished 100% of our pre-war goals: disarmed Hussein and regime change.

BTW, i'm in favor of people being able to do with their money as they please. And playing po ker and wining BTW, isn't exactly an easy task. Same with sports betting. There is a lot of time and research in volved if it is to be profitable.

Mooseboy, if the democrats REALLY had a problem with this, and they don't, they could have submitted an identical port security bill without the gambling stuff and made a big stink about it. THere PR machine IS that good.

"Well, the invasion of Iraq was a success DF, we accomplished 100% of our pre-war goals: disarmed Hussein and regime change...."

And they found all those WMD's too.....

"And they found all those WMD's too....."

They just might if they look in Damascus(sp). Then again - someone else may have already gotten their hands on them by now.

Then again, the invassion of Iraq was never *completely* about the WMD's (though that's what was mostly talked about) it was about the fact that Saddam did not comply with the resolution of the UN (wasn't it 1741 or 1441? Something like that).

Lurker: Might want to read the news, they did.