Congress bans credit card usage for internet gambling...

Van Plowboy · Post by **Van Plowboy** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:39 pm

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4411:

Better cash out, and quick-like.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:47 pm

This hasn't been passed in the Senate.

Not for nothing, but this kind of legislation is nothing more than typical nanny state bullshit.

Dog · Post by **Dog** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:23 pm

But if they attach it to the stem-cell bill, then it will make it a little more interesting.

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:45 pm

Few credit card companies were still allowing it anyway, so it's basically just for show.

BSmack, it's not so much nanny state b.s. as it is the fact that they can't tax internet gambling, so they're finding ways to discourage it. One of the provisions of the bill is that it doesn't bar use for state lotteries or horse racing(both of which are taxed), so it's not like this was some sweeping moral edict from D.C.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:55 pm

OCmike wrote:One of the provisions of the bill is that it doesn't bar use for state lotteries or horse racing(both of which are taxed), so it's not like this was some sweeping moral edict from D.C.

Nope, not a moral edict, at all.

Just another symptom of rampant corruption.

Which party is all over this, again?

Fucking liberals.

Neely8 · Post by **Neely8** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:20 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
OCmike wrote:One of the provisions of the bill is that it doesn't bar use for state lotteries or horse racing(both of which are taxed), so it's not like this was some sweeping moral edict from D.C.
Nope, not a moral edict, at all.

Just another symptom of rampant corruption.

Which party is all over this, again?

Fucking liberals.

Wait just a minute there Dinsey!! You know the people of this country can't think and act for themselves. They need their democratic leadership to think and do things for them. Kinda like standing on your roof waiting for the government to come save you rather then wading/swimming to safety......

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:41 pm

Neely8 wrote:Wait just a minute there Dinsey!! You know the people of this country can't think and act for themselves. They need their democratic leadership to think and do things for them. Kinda like standing on your roof waiting for the government to come save you rather then wading/swimming to safety......

Here's a list of the bill's cosponsors...

Rep Akin, W. Todd R-MO
Rep Bachus, Spencer R-AL
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham R-SC
Rep Bass, Charles F. R-NH
Rep Blunt, Roy R-MO
Rep Boehlert, Sherwood R-NY
Rep Bordallo, Madeleine Z. D-GU
Rep Dent, Charles W. R-PA
Rep Ehlers, Vernon J. R-MI
Rep Fortenberry, Jeff R-NE
Rep Franks, Trent R-AZ
Rep Gilchrest, Wayne T. R-MD
Rep Gillmor, Paul E. R-OH
Rep Hooley, Darlene D-OR
Rep Inglis, Bob R-SC
Rep Kennedy, Mark R-MN
Rep Kirk, Mark Steven R-IL
Rep Latham, Tom R-IA
Rep McCaul, Michael T. R-TX
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. R-MI
Rep Osborne, Tom R-NE
Rep Pence, Mike R-IN
Rep Petri, Thomas E. R-WI
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. R-PA
Rep Ramstad, Jim R-MN
Rep Rogers, Mike R-MI
Rep Shadegg, John B. R-AZ
Rep Shays, Christopher R-CT
Rep Souder, Mark E. R-IN
Rep Terry, Lee R-NE
Rep Upton, Fred R-MI
Rep Walsh, James T. R-NY
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie D-FL
Rep Wicker, Roger F. R-MS
Rep Wilson, Joe R-SC

Do the math and shove that "Democrats are the party of the nanny state" bullshit up your ass.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:47 pm

OCmike wrote:Few credit card companies were still allowing it anyway, so it's basically just for show.

BSmack, it's not so much nanny state b.s. as it is the fact that they can't tax internet gambling, so they're finding ways to discourage it. One of the provisions of the bill is that it doesn't bar use for state lotteries or horse racing(both of which are taxed), so it's not like this was some sweeping moral edict from D.C.

If the feds want to tax internet gambling, it is a no brainer. The feds need to sell licences to conduct legal, onshore online casinos. The sites would then run through federaly monitored servers (kinda like your phone calls) and the feds take a peice of the action for "protection".

But they won't do that.

Why? Because fundementalist fucksticks and existing gaming concerns don't want it. Thus, the nanny state steps in and "protects" us all from the "evils" of offshore gaming.

BTW: What about debit cards? No reason a bank wouldn't allow those to be used?

Dog · Post by **Dog** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:48 pm

BSmack wrote:
Neely8 wrote:Wait just a minute there Dinsey!! You know the people of this country can't think and act for themselves. They need their democratic leadership to think and do things for them. Kinda like standing on your roof waiting for the government to come save you rather then wading/swimming to safety......
Here's a list of the bill's cosponsors...

Rep Akin, W. Todd R-MO
Rep Bachus, Spencer R-AL
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham R-SC
Rep Bass, Charles F. R-NH
Rep Blunt, Roy R-MO
Rep Boehlert, Sherwood R-NY
Rep Bordallo, Madeleine Z. D-GU
Rep Dent, Charles W. R-PA
Rep Ehlers, Vernon J. R-MI
Rep Fortenberry, Jeff R-NE
Rep Franks, Trent R-AZ
Rep Gilchrest, Wayne T. R-MD
Rep Gillmor, Paul E. R-OH
Rep Hooley, Darlene D-OR
Rep Inglis, Bob R-SC
Rep Kennedy, Mark R-MN
Rep Kirk, Mark Steven R-IL
Rep Latham, Tom R-IA
Rep McCaul, Michael T. R-TX
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. R-MI
Rep Osborne, Tom R-NE
Rep Pence, Mike R-IN
Rep Petri, Thomas E. R-WI
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. R-PA
Rep Ramstad, Jim R-MN
Rep Rogers, Mike R-MI
Rep Shadegg, John B. R-AZ
Rep Shays, Christopher R-CT
Rep Souder, Mark E. R-IN
Rep Terry, Lee R-NE
Rep Upton, Fred R-MI
Rep Walsh, James T. R-NY
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie D-FL
Rep Wicker, Roger F. R-MS
Rep Wilson, Joe R-SC

Do the math and shove that "Democrats are the party of the nanny state" bullshit up your ass.

I counted 30 GOP sponsors and 3 Dems, but I'm having a hard time fitting this up my ass.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:51 pm

I'm sure the think tank Bill Bennett works for wrote it.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:54 pm

Dog wrote:I counted 30 GOP sponsors and 3 Dems, but I'm having a hard time fitting this up my ass.

When Neely gets around to removing Karl Rove's strap on from his orifice, he should have plent of room for it.

PrimeX · Post by **PrimeX** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:21 pm

I'm about to have no reason to log onto Al Gore's internets anymore.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:10 pm

BSmack wrote:Here's a list of the bill's cosponsors...

Like I said...the liberals.

the_ouskull · Post by **the_ouskull** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:16 pm

I'd just like it noted for the record that there were no Oklahoman's on that list.

We like our gamblin' here... as long as the greeters are wearing head-dresses.

the_ouskull

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:40 am

BSmack wrote: Here's a list of the bill's cosponsors...
.
.
Do the math and shove that "Democrats are the party of the nanny state" bullshit up your ass.

What, so it doesn't apply in this one situation so therefore the tag no longer applies? :? Gimme a break. You can shove as many things up as many asses as you want, but you can't shake that well-deserved party label because of one bill.

Hell, in CA, the dems are such nannies they want the state to pay for pre-school for all 4 y/o's when more than 75% of the residents already pay for it themselves.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:32 am

BSmack wrote:
Do the math and shove that "Democrats are the party of the nanny state" bullshit up your ass.

The DemocRats are just being knee-jerk obstructionists. If one of them had thought of it first, they'd be accusing the Stupid Party of gravytraining their idear