#$*&, it's going to be harder to play online poker or any other internet gaming now...

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
FVCK YOU BUSH. The most disgusting thing about this bill is that they tucked this into a homeland security bill so it put pressure on more congressmen to sign it. What kind of BS is that?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/02/061002132728.nt5b8tr6.html

Bush to sign bill to prevent Internet gambling
Oct 02 9:27 AM US/Eastern



US President George W. Bush this week is expected to sign a bill making it harder to place bets on the Internet, a practice which already is illegal in the United States.

Bush was expected to act quickly after Congress approved the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act making it illegal for financial institutions and credit card companies to process payments to settle Internet bets. It also created stiff penalties for online wagers.

Billions of dollars are wagered online each year and the United States is considered the biggest market.

"It is extraordinary how many American families have been touched by large losses from Internet gambling," said US Representative Jim Leach, the bill's main sponsor in the House, in a statement after its passage early Saturday.

The bill's chief Senate sponsor was conservative Republican Jon Kyl, who, like Leach, has said he believed Internet gambling was a moral threat. He has called online betting as the Internet version of crack cocaine.

"Gambling can be highly addictive, especially when its done over an unregulated environment such as the Internet" he said this year.

"If Congress had not acted, gamblers would soon be able to place bets not just from home computers, but from their cell phones while they drive home from work or their Blackberries as they wait in line at the movies," Leach said.

The US Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Board will jointly develop implementing rules for the new law, while financial institutions have nine months to incorporate its provision.

Leach cited research which showed that young people who tend to spend hours of leisure time on the Internet, are particularly vulnerable.

A 2005 survey by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center found that 26 percent of male college students gamble in online card games at least once a month, while nearly 10 percent of all college students gambled online at some point last year.

"Never has it been so easy to lose so much money so quickly at such a young age. The casino is in effect brought to the home, office and college dorm.

"Children may play without verification, and betting with a credit card can undercut a players perception of the value of cash, which too easily leads to bankruptcy and crime," Leach said.

Experts said the vast majority of bettors are placing wagers on poker.

"Everyone loses if this industry continues its remarkable growth trends," Leach said.

Republicans tucked the measure into a bill aimed at enhancing port security, which passed early Saturday.
 

pulse8

Lifer
May 3, 2000
20,860
1
81
It shows just how little he actually knows about internet gambling. Most credit cards refuse internet gambling charge attempts and children can only play without verification if their parents are stupid enough to give them their bank information. Otherwise, if the kid has no money he cannot play for real money.
 

mchammer187

Diamond Member
Nov 26, 2000
9,114
0
76
i dont really know how this is gonna change things much

typically credit cards and banks dont deal with gambling sites anyway

i'd like to see them try to ban interaction between services like firepay, and neteller though which i'm sure is what the majority of US players are using anyway
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: mugs
Isn't Internet gambling illegal anyway?

It's illegal to host an internet gambling site in the USA (say hello to the Caribbean!). Not illegal to play.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: mchammer187
i dont really know how this is gonna change things much

typically credit cards and banks dont deal with gambling sites anyway

i'd like to see them try to ban interaction between services like firepay, and neteller though which i'm sure is what the majority of US players are using anyway

Yep, that is how all the money is funnelled around. A friend tried to get me into betting on college football a couple of years ago and there was no way to use a credit card. Only by going through neteller was I able to deposit funds to place bets. I lasted only two weeks and never went back because I just suck at gambling.
 

Yossarian

Lifer
Dec 26, 2000
18,010
1
81
21st century Prohibition. Fvck Bush and the POS politicians who tagged this onto a bill that was guaranteed to pass. I don't think I've ever been this angry over a piece of legislation.
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
34,690
1,862
126
Yay! More of the government protecting us from ourselves. It's really the casino's fault if you have no self control.... Riiight. :roll:
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: Phokus

Republicans tucked the measure into a bill aimed at enhancing port security, which passed early Saturday.

Politicians all over have been using this devious, low-life tactic for a long time now.

It smears sh!t on the face of democracy
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Yay! More of the government protecting us from ourselves. It's really the casino's fault if you have no self control.... Riiight. :roll:

Gamblers are terrorists. We gotta smoke 'em out!
 

z0mb13

Lifer
May 19, 2002
18,106
1
76
how the hell do they "tuck" a bill in another one? how is this even legal?

when they sign it, don't they see that they are practically signing TWO bills?
 

QueBert

Lifer
Jan 6, 2002
22,966
1,166
126
While there needs to be better regulations for Online gambling, Bush is a tard. I work at a store that has Western Union. We have a few regulars who constantly send money to people in weird countries like Peru, and the money it xfered so they can gamble with it online. I use to think it was so these places couldn't be tracked (the recievers name changes all the time) and so they wouldn't have to pay taxes, but since they're not in the US I don't believe I'm right as I know nothing about taxes anywhere outside of California even :) This is huge business, I asked one of the dudes who sends a good 300 a week with Western Union to bet online if anything would stop him "no" he's willing to risk getting in trouble. Leave it to the goverment to fvck things up.

Internet gambling = t3h evils!?!
State Lottery = t3h r0x0rs!?!

wonder if it has anything to do with the fact the first on the Gubb'ment can't get their greedy hands on any of the money? :) I see people come in where I work and buy scratchers and lotto tickets all day and loose TONS of money, but I'm sure Bush is fine with that. The leaders of this country make me sick, they don't want to protect any of us what a joke
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: z0mb13
how the hell do they "tuck" a bill in another one? how is this even legal?

when they sign it, don't they see that they are practically signing TWO bills?

yeah it happens all the time. personally i think its crap. but this brings up the idea of line item veto eh?
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
29,391
2,738
126
Originally posted by: Phokus
FVCK YOU BUSH. The most disgusting thing about this bill is that they tucked this into a homeland security bill so it put pressure on more congressmen to sign it. What kind of BS is that?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/02/061002132728.nt5b8tr6.html

Bush to sign bill to prevent Internet gambling
Oct 02 9:27 AM US/Eastern



US President George W. Bush this week is expected to sign a bill making it harder to place bets on the Internet, a practice which already is illegal in the United States.

Bush was expected to act quickly after Congress approved the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act making it illegal for financial institutions and credit card companies to process payments to settle Internet bets. It also created stiff penalties for online wagers.

Billions of dollars are wagered online each year and the United States is considered the biggest market.

"It is extraordinary how many American families have been touched by large losses from Internet gambling," said US Representative Jim Leach, the bill's main sponsor in the House, in a statement after its passage early Saturday.

The bill's chief Senate sponsor was conservative Republican Jon Kyl, who, like Leach, has said he believed Internet gambling was a moral threat. He has called online betting as the Internet version of crack cocaine.

"Gambling can be highly addictive, especially when its done over an unregulated environment such as the Internet" he said this year.

"If Congress had not acted, gamblers would soon be able to place bets not just from home computers, but from their cell phones while they drive home from work or their Blackberries as they wait in line at the movies," Leach said.

The US Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Board will jointly develop implementing rules for the new law, while financial institutions have nine months to incorporate its provision.

Leach cited research which showed that young people who tend to spend hours of leisure time on the Internet, are particularly vulnerable.

A 2005 survey by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center found that 26 percent of male college students gamble in online card games at least once a month, while nearly 10 percent of all college students gambled online at some point last year.

"Never has it been so easy to lose so much money so quickly at such a young age. The casino is in effect brought to the home, office and college dorm.

"Children may play without verification, and betting with a credit card can undercut a players perception of the value of cash, which too easily leads to bankruptcy and crime," Leach said.

Experts said the vast majority of bettors are placing wagers on poker.

"Everyone loses if this industry continues its remarkable growth trends," Leach said.

Republicans tucked the measure into a bill aimed at enhancing port security, which passed early Saturday.

Repost?
 
Feb 24, 2001
14,513
4
81
Originally posted by: z0mb13
how the hell do they "tuck" a bill in another one? how is this even legal?

when they sign it, don't they see that they are practically signing TWO bills?

Yes, but why would they refuse to sign a homeland security bill? Then people would say they aren't being hard on terrorists.

 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: z0mb13
how the hell do they "tuck" a bill in another one? how is this even legal?

when they sign it, don't they see that they are practically signing TWO bills?

yeah it happens all the time. personally i think its crap. but this brings up the idea of line item veto eh?

Of course that wouldn't help if the president WANTS to sign that line item into law. ;)

And yeah this is very common, and of course it's legal. How could it be illegal? How do you objectively evaluate a law to determine if everything in it is closely related?

It's called a rider.
 

z0mb13

Lifer
May 19, 2002
18,106
1
76
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: z0mb13
how the hell do they "tuck" a bill in another one? how is this even legal?

when they sign it, don't they see that they are practically signing TWO bills?

Yes, but why would they refuse to sign a homeland security bill? Then people would say they aren't being hard on terrorists.

so this is almost a surefire way of getting a bill to pass, just tuck it in to a bill that will always pass
 

Thraxen

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2001
4,683
1
81
Originally posted by: mugs
Of course that wouldn't help if the president WANTS to sign that line item into law. ;)

And yeah this is very common, and of course it's legal. How could it be illegal? How do you objectively evaluate a law to determine if everything in it is closely related?

It's called a rider.

Common sense? Let's see... Internet Gambling vs Port Security. Nope, not related. Seems simple to me.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
62,491
18,525
136
The bill's chief Senate sponsor was conservative Republican Jon Kyl, who, like Leach, has said he believed Internet gambling was a moral threat. He has called online betting as the Internet version of crack cocaine.

So I guess he's not familiar with WoW or Everquest...
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: Thraxen
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: z0mb13
how the hell do they "tuck" a bill in another one? how is this even legal?

when they sign it, don't they see that they are practically signing TWO bills?

yeah it happens all the time. personally i think its crap. but this brings up the idea of line item veto eh?

Of course that wouldn't help if the president WANTS to sign that line item into law. ;)

And yeah this is very common, and of course it's legal. How could it be illegal? How do you objectively evaluate a law to determine if everything in it is closely related?

It's called a rider.

Common sense? Let's see... Internet Gambling vs Port Security. Nope, not related. Seems simple to me.


I agree. i think they shouldnt be allowed. but thats not going to happen.


though they did refuse to pass one. the guy in Alaska had some BS rider and they refused to pass the bill. can't remember the detals now but it was all over the news.
 

myocardia

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2003
9,291
30
91
Originally posted by: Yossarian
21st century Prohibition. Fvck Bush and the POS politicians who tagged this onto a bill that was guaranteed to pass. I don't think I've ever been this angry over a piece of legislation.
I think you should reevaluate your priorities.
 

Mo0o

Lifer
Jul 31, 2001
24,227
3
76
Originally posted by: z0mb13
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: z0mb13
how the hell do they "tuck" a bill in another one? how is this even legal?

when they sign it, don't they see that they are practically signing TWO bills?

Yes, but why would they refuse to sign a homeland security bill? Then people would say they aren't being hard on terrorists.

so this is almost a surefire way of getting a bill to pass, just tuck it in to a bill that will always pass

But it also depends on how controversial the bill you're tucking in is. Usually its pork barrell legislation. other times its to provide talking points for election campaigns.