In Necro's defense, I somehow hadn't heard it either. :)

 

 

 

I think this is silly. Then again, if you've seen me on tip.it ever, I oppose most laws that limit freedom instead of expanding it. I think people can decide for themselves if they want to gamble or not. Some people get far too into it, addicted, and play unhealthily, it's true - but banning the whole thing just because some people abuse it surely is not a smart solution. Instead, provide more education and support for people who have addictions of all types.

 

 

 

Should people not also have their freedom to spend their money on the services and goods which they personally see fit. Why should tax payers money be spent to educate idiots who lack responsibility and self control?.

 

 

 

Because these people AREN'T idiots - anybody could fall into that situation. The difference is in education you get to prevent these habits and promote good habits, and support you get once it happens (which helps improve the entire society). Thus, people from more privileged backgrounds are less likely to fall into these traps of addiction - look at statistics. So what we need is to put people on a sort of equal basic footing ground (i.e. mobility through equal education - education is the ultimate creator of social mobility) and THEN give them the freedom to do whatever they want, including how they spend their money.

 

 

 

I believe that most government funding should be cut, except that for public education. Weird theory, right? :D

I was wondering when someone was going to post about this. :P

 

 

 

Prices of stocks of large online poker businesses fell 28% to even 64% in some cases...

 

 

 

Ouch. Someone lost a fortune today. :P

 

 

 

It's always been illegal. All of these online casino's operate OFF of American soil...So they cannot do anything about it.

I was wondering when someone was going to post about this. :P

 

 

 

Prices of stocks of large online poker businesses fell 28% to even 64% in some cases...

 

 

 

Ouch. Someone lost a fortune today. :P

 

 

 

It's always been illegal. All of these online casino's operate OFF of American soil...So they cannot do anything about it.

 

 

 

Like many previous statements, it WAS illegal in the first place, just not enforced.

Maybe not in the brain no... But if you examine the bloodstream, you'll find some extra stuff in there.

 

 

 

The "excitement" people get when doing something daring, like gambling(amounts depend on different people). The "excitement", or what some people call adrenaline rush, is what people get addicted to.

 

 

 

Like the people who eat to feel better, the brain releases endorphines when you eat to represent satiety. Endorphines are the body's way to reduce pain or feel good or the like.

 

 

 

Gambling is like eating a ton, it affects the chemistry of your blood and body, thus people who are addicted are addicted to rush of certain chemicals in their body.

 

 

 

I'm not talking about "what" they are addicted to - I'm talking about the physical ailment known as "addiction." It doesn't matter what the addiction is, once it's classified as an addiction it's because of how the chemicals in the brain are functioning - and it's the same no matter what the addiction is.

The government just didn't like not being able to tax it since the gambling companies were based off-shore.

 

 

 

End of story. There's no moral dilemma attached to this one.

 

 

 

Not that it will restrict those who really want to play, $10 says there will be even sites dedicated to proxying poker sites and changing your IP to that of a non-USA based one.

 

 

 

Remember that also, many sites offer payment to PayPal, eGold, and other online payment processors. Just use that approach and your bank can never know the money came from poker.

 

 

 

The law wont fix anything else than the fact that gambling corporations in tax havens will lose out on a few million bucks because average players will be getting the message "Sorry, but your country's legislation restricts you from logging in"

The government just didn't like not being able to tax it since the gambling companies were based off-shore.

 

 

 

Yup that's probably the most important reason. That is their own fault though. It's their choice to scare away any initiative to start US based online poker businesses.

 

 

 

Also for those who say it has always been illegal, that's not true. In fact, it still isn't illegal. Read this if you have time to waste and want to know more on that. :P

The government just didn't like not being able to tax it since the gambling companies were based off-shore.

 

 

 

Yup that's probably the most important reason. That is their own fault though. It's their choice to scare away any initiative to start US based online poker businesses.

 

 

 

Also for those who say it has always been illegal, that's not true. In fact, it still isn't illegal. Read this if you have time to waste and want to know more on that. :P

 

 

 

That was an interesting read, thank you for linking it :D

Yep, that's exactly what I'd expect from Bush. Sneaking an anti-online gambling into an anti-terrorism law, not the opposite.

OH NO! God forbid that we actually go outside 2 a friends house 2 play poker with a guarantee you actually get the money you win!

Yep, that's exactly what I'd expect from Bush. Sneaking an anti-online gambling into an anti-terrorism law, not the opposite.

 

 

 

It's not like every politician in a democratic or parliamentary state in the world has not put a completely unrelated proposition into a bill. At least this is useful, unlike when a senator gets 4 million dollars for "civil improvements" to build a statue in his consituencies from a bill designed for roadway improvements.

 

 

 

It's called "Pork" and it's been around for hundreds of years.

Yep, that's exactly what I'd expect from Bush. Sneaking an anti-online gambling into an anti-terrorism law, not the opposite.

 

 

 

It's not like every politician in a democratic or parliamentary state in the world has not put a completely unrelated proposition into a bill. At least this is useful, unlike when a senator gets 4 million dollars for "civil improvements" to build a statue in his consituencies from a bill designed for roadway improvements.

 

 

 

It's called "Pork" and it's been around for hundreds of years.

 

 

 

No problem with unrelated issues being dealt with in the same bill. But in that case, it's a way to make voting against the bill an unpatriotic thing to do, using this shortcut, they can make virtually any bill pass the senate. :|

Oooooooo what next? No more RuneScape, Maple Story, games outside of US? Yep probably...The government only want money. Idiots.

Yep, that's exactly what I'd expect from Bush. Sneaking an anti-online gambling into an anti-terrorism law, not the opposite.

 

 

 

It's not like every politician in a democratic or parliamentary state in the world has not put a completely unrelated proposition into a bill. At least this is useful, unlike when a senator gets 4 million dollars for "civil improvements" to build a statue in his consituencies from a bill designed for roadway improvements.

 

 

 

It's called "Pork" and it's been around for hundreds of years.

 

 

 

No problem with unrelated issues being dealt with in the same bill. But in that case, it's a way to make voting against the bill an unpatriotic thing to do, using this shortcut, they can make virtually any bill pass the senate. :|

 

 

 

Not the first time that's happened. In fact, over 75% of Pork gets passed for that very reason. Once again, nothing new here. Do I agree with it? Not particularly, but in this case I have no love for gambling.

Of ALL things wrong in America, they ban onlime gambling? My mom was furious to this because she enjoys playing PartyPoker. It's peoples CHOICE whether or not to go all-in with 300$. That's what gambling is. America is like in-debt over 1 billion dollars, wars in Iraq (pointless IMO), and whatever dumb shat that America is going through. I'm not big in politics and world events as I could care less as of what Bush's ideas are. This is just getting out of hand banning online gaming. I just feel that if people want to blow their money away and be poor because of a online gambling game, LET THEM. It's their fault to be an idiot. An example would be that my mom puts 50$ in her account and she can play with that 50$ going up and down in money for over 5 months. I gave my opinion to this and that's how I feel. Thanks for listening...

 

 

 

EDIT: I also want to state how many people are mad over this bill being passed? Over 5 million people play PartyPoker (biggest gambling program) and plus the other 20+ gambling programs. Equaling a total of probably 30-40 million people PISSED. Bush has problems.

America is like in-debt over 1 billion dollars

 

 

 

Try $14 trillion, bud. A nation that isn't in debt probably has a dictator in charge. The fun thing is, if we ever paid off all that debt, the value of currency worldwide would plummet and all nations would go back into debt. Over $8 trillion of our debt is owned by foreign nations :P.

 

 

 

And Bush probably was not the mastermind behind this. I know that our State's senators have been going after the prohibition of online gambling for 10 years now. Fourty-eight interest groups have worked for years to get this legislation passed.

 

 

 

It was not "snuck" in. Unlike most pork, they actually stated on the floor the provision of the bill that banned gambling online. All the senators and representatives knew what they were voting on.

OH NO! God forbid that we actually go outside 2 a friends house 2 play poker with a guarantee you actually get the money you win!

 

Don't pull that irrelevent nonsense. Those two mediums are completely different, and doesn't make what they did in the slightest any more OK. I love playing with friends and playing online is fun, and neither should be taken away, unless someone personally finds themselves addicted. Not because the government's constantly power hungry to obliterate things not under their jurisdiction/control.\

 

 

 

America is like in-debt over 1 billion dollars

 

 

 

Try $14 trillion, bud. A nation that isn't in debt probably has a dictator in charge. The fun thing is, if we ever paid off all that debt, the value of currency worldwide would plummet and all nations would go back into debt. Over $8 trillion of our debt is owned by foreign nations :P.

 

 

I thought we had a surplus while President Clinton was president? Maybe I'm wrong, I just remember hearing that. Either way, if you link dictatorship/fascism to having more money, I would think we'd be doing better, since under Bush's reign, he's been heading the country closer and closer to a fascist state. ( http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthought ... on_fas.php )

No problem with unrelated issues being dealt with in the same bill. But in that case, it's a way to make voting against the bill an unpatriotic thing to do, using this shortcut, they can make virtually any bill pass the senate. :|

 

 

 

Not the first time that's happened. In fact, over 75% of Pork gets passed for that very reason. Once again, nothing new here. Do I agree with it? Not particularly, but in this case I have no love for gambling.

 

 

 

I find that quite antidemocratical (sp?). Not just because it's a "double bill", but because they are using terrorism to pass it. And you do know how crazy people tend to go when someone takes a stance "favorable" to terrorism, what voting against this bill could be considered.

America is like in-debt over 1 billion dollars

 

 

 

Try $14 trillion, bud. A nation that isn't in debt probably has a dictator in charge. The fun thing is, if we ever paid off all that debt, the value of currency worldwide would plummet and all nations would go back into debt. Over $8 trillion of our debt is owned by foreign nations :P.

 

 

I thought we had a surplus while President Clinton was president? Maybe I'm wrong, I just remember hearing that. Either way, if you link dictatorship/fascism to having more money, I would think we'd be doing better, since under Bush's reign, he's been heading the country closer and closer to a fascist state. ( http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthought ... on_fas.php )

 

 

 

Canada has surplusses every year - they go to paying off the debt :P

 

 

 

Because these people AREN'T idiots - anybody could fall into that situation. The difference is in education you get to prevent these habits and promote good habits, and support you get once it happens (which helps improve the entire society). Thus, people from more privileged backgrounds are less likely to fall into these traps of addiction - look at statistics. So what we need is to put people on a sort of equal basic footing ground (i.e. mobility through equal education - education is the ultimate creator of social mobility) and THEN give them the freedom to do whatever they want, including how they spend their money.

 

 

 

I believe that most government funding should be cut, except that for public education. Weird theory, right? :D

 

 

 

I disagree, I believe the state has almost no place in education. The private sector can, and probably would provide much better solutions, which would would meet the needs of the student better and are likely to be less expensive to operate.

 

 

 

People should be allowed to spend their money on the education provider which best suits their needs. It is also highly arguable about the need for a formal education, many of the great inventors and commercial successes have came from people who completely failed in such educational environments.

 

 

 

I also fail to see how a state operated education system can teach people not to be addicts... They choose to be addicts and are mostly influenced by their environments. They need to learn self restraints, self respect and common sense and I do not believe that such a education could provide such training. I personally believe the removal of benefits, and other such handouts would have a much greater positive effect in reducing the level of addiction then educational brainwashing.

I disagree, I believe the state has almost no place in education. The private sector can, and probably would provide much better solutions, which would would meet the needs of the student better and are likely to be less expensive to operate.

I dont know if you've heard of Academy schools in the UK. They are privately run businesses. Some of them are very good... others, like in Bristol are complete failures. All the Private sector ever seem to do is balls up a perfectly good service, railways, busses, schools. Privatisation just never seems to work.

I disagree, I believe the state has almost no place in education. The private sector can, and probably would provide much better solutions, which would would meet the needs of the student better and are likely to be less expensive to operate.

I dont know if you've heard of Academy schools in the UK. They are privately run businesses. Some of them are very good... others, like in Bristol are complete failures. All the Private sector ever seem to do is balls up a perfectly good service, railways, busses, schools. Privatisation just never seems to work.

 

 

 

The private comapnies and schools around here are much more efficient and competitive...

I thought we had a surplus while President Clinton was president? Maybe I'm wrong, I just remember hearing that. Either way, if you link dictatorship/fascism to having more money, I would think we'd be doing better, since under Bush's reign, he's been heading the country closer and closer to a fascist state. ( http://scienceblogs.com/evolvi.....on_fas.php )

 

 

 

According to the Debt Clock, we are both wrong. As of 3 days ago, the US National Debt was 8 trillion.

 

 

 

Clinton only managed to keep the books even for 1 year. That means, we managed to keep from adding to the debt. Which is amazing, since that is a sign that we totally did not spend money on anything that year. Considering the nation's history, 229 out of 230 years have contributed to the debt. I do believe that in today's currency, Abe Lincoln and FDR were the Presidents with the largest debt accumulations in thier term.

 

 

 

And why we are getting political commentary from a science blog, I dont know. Bush only has 2 years left, and if he did anything truly fascist I would be the first in line to oppose him. The only thing wrong with Bush is that he is a Republican acting like a Democrat with religious ideals. Which is just plain odd.

Anyone else find it interesting that in today's world, the word "fascism" means pretty much anything you want it to mean? Basically, if someone has different political ideologies from you, they're a fascist.

I thought we had a surplus while President Clinton was president? Maybe I'm wrong, I just remember hearing that. Either way, if you link dictatorship/fascism to having more money, I would think we'd be doing better, since under Bush's reign, he's been heading the country closer and closer to a fascist state. ( http://scienceblogs.com/evolvi.....on_fas.php )

 

 

 

According to the Debt Clock, we are both wrong. As of 3 days ago, the US National Debt was 8 trillion.

 

 

 

Clinton only managed to keep the books even for 1 year. That means, we managed to keep from adding to the debt. Which is amazing, since that is a sign that we totally did not spend money on anything that year. Considering the nation's history, 229 out of 230 years have contributed to the debt. I do believe that in today's currency, Abe Lincoln and FDR were the Presidents with the largest debt accumulations in thier term.

 

 

 

And why we are getting political commentary from a science blog, I dont know. Bush only has 2 years left, and if he did anything truly fascist I would be the first in line to oppose him. The only thing wrong with Bush is that he is a Republican acting like a Democrat with religious ideals. Which is just plain odd.

 

Every day on digg there are tons of articles linking Bush's actions towards fascism - that was just the first one I found.

 

There was a great video up on google video, "America: From Freedom To Fascism" - see if you can still find it somewhere since it's been taken down. I'd link that one, but since it's not up anymore, here's an interesting read still: http://www.alternet.org/story/42884/

 

(I'm done being off topic now :s )

old new heard about it weeks ago