PDA

View Full Version : Does this apply to online Horse Race Betting?

Secretariat
07-06-2006, 10:51 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060706/pl_nm/leisure_gambling_congress_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The full U.S. House of Representatives is expected to debate next week legislation that would attempt to ban Internet gambling, a $12 billion-a-year industry that gets half its revenue from American gamblers, two Republican lawmakers said on Thursday.

The legislation to be debated blends two versions of bills that have been offered by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia and Rep. Jim Leach (news, bio, voting record) of Iowa, the two said in a statement.

Leach's bill has been approved by both the House Financial Services Committee and the House Judiciary Committee. It has broad support among conservative and religious activist groups, who want to keep gambling out of easy reach of minors.
kenwoodallpromos
07-07-2006, 12:54 AM
NO!
Secretariat
07-11-2006, 04:26 PM
The Gambling Bill has made it past the House.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060711/ap_on_go_co/internet_gambling

I did not know GW's Justice Department considers a horse racing bet online illegal. Could Lefty have broken the law?

"Greg Avioli, chief executive officer of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, said the mention of horse racing in the bill is merely "a recognition of existing federal law."

Avioli said the racing industry has a strong future in the digital age and suggested the bill would send Internet gamblers to racing sites and away from the banned sites.

The Justice Department has taken a different view on the legality of Internet betting on horse races. In a World Trade Organization case involving Antigua, the department said online betting on horse racing remains illegal under the 1961 Wire Act despite the existence of the more recently passed, and updated, Interstate Horseracing Act."

Would be kind of funny if the Repubs on this board who've made a bet on Bris are suddenly arrested by the current Justice Department...lol...
Snag
07-11-2006, 05:38 PM
Would be kind of funny if the Repubs on this board who've made a bet on Bris are suddenly arrested by the current Justice Department...lol...

What would be so funny? Finding pain in someone else life is funny?

It's not even a law yet and you are already venting your twisted sense of humor. That's sad.
Tom
07-11-2006, 06:40 PM
Sang - good post. And how true. Sad what floats some boats. Very sad.
Secretariat
07-11-2006, 07:19 PM
Sang, it would be funny because the people who come here blindly supporting anything GW supports are also horse players. It is ironic (and I consider irony funny) if those same blind supporters of GW were victims of GW's own Justice Department. By GW's Justice Department logic, placing an on-line wager is illegal according to the above article.

I find this funny. Not because of anyone being arrested, but the fact that so many Repub horse players here blindly nod their heads like bobble heads when that same Justice Department is against their wagering on-line. That is funny.

And unlike the house bill, the Justice Department includes horse racing in its determination.
Snag
07-11-2006, 08:05 PM
Sec, you know what they say about having to explain yourself over and over and over......and it's Snag to you. It's Sang, only to Tom.
rastajenk
07-11-2006, 08:37 PM
Man, I guess you can add "blindly supporting anything GW supports" to the long list of crap that passes for liberal gospel: Plamegate, stolen elections, lies about WMD, global warming, Bush is stupid/Bush is evil mastermind, the whole world loved us post-9/11, and on and on and on...... Look libs, you're never going to regain power by consistently telling the American people they're stupid; it's a losing tactic.
Tom
07-11-2006, 09:55 PM
Sec, you know what they say about having to explain yourself over and over and over......and it's Snag to you. It's Sang, only to Tom.

:blush::blush::blush: Oooops!

Sorry about that.
Dave Schwartz
07-11-2006, 11:48 PM
Snag,

.and it's Snag to you. It's Sang, only to Tom.

:lol:

Dave
PaceAdvantage
07-12-2006, 12:10 AM
Sang, it would be funny because the people who come here blindly supporting anything GW supports are also horse players.

Name the people who come here "blindly supporting anything GW supports"

I bet you honestly don't get past two or three names, if that many.
Secretariat
07-12-2006, 05:25 AM
Name the people who come here "blindly supporting anything GW supports"

I bet you honestly don't get past two or three names, if that many.

Lefty, JR, Isbets, Boxcar, SQ764, yourself. Those are the usual rush to GW's defense. Tom, bless his heart, whom I disagree with a lot, does not always rush to GW's defense, and has often stated his opposition both for and against him. The six above almost never have challenged anything he's done, and have almost unequivocally rushed to challenge anyone who questioned him.
rastajenk
07-12-2006, 05:32 AM
But where you say they blindly follow Bush everywhere, they may say (and I would say about myself) that we simply share core values, and that we formed them long before he was even a candidate for Prez, let alone actually becoming one.
Secretariat
07-12-2006, 05:48 AM
PA, add rastajenk to the list.
lsbets
07-12-2006, 07:40 AM
rastajenk, you have to understand - in Sec's little warped mind, if you don't hate Bush that means you blindly follow he him. He's not (Sec) very bright, so that all makes perfect sense to him. Sec will (and has) defend the indefensible as long as it is in opposition to Bush. That is all that matters to him. Truth, right and wrong, decency - those are all foreign concepts to Sec.
Tom
07-12-2006, 11:25 AM
How do you justify those of you here who blindly "negatively" oppose Bush - several of you have NEVER agreed with him on anything. Is this not the same offense on your side?

btw, bless your heart, too! ;)
Secretariat
07-12-2006, 03:00 PM
How do you justify those of you here who blindly "negatively" oppose Bush - several of you have NEVER agreed with him on anything. Is this not the same offense on your side?

btw, bless your heart, too! ;)

I'm not going to re-post the positives I've seen in the Bush administration again and again. Go do a search. You'll find them. On the other hand I've asked Repubs here to post positives about Clinton, and there's been posters who've never responded, or posted they can't come up with anything. So don't give me that "blindly negative" comment. I've listed GW's positives, now Tom and Isbets, list Clinton positives.
lsbets
07-12-2006, 03:06 PM
Tom, you're on a roll today. First you and Lefty call out Suff and he caves, now you call out Sec and he pouts "Go search!" If I didn't know better I'd think Sec and Suff were the same guy. But, I'm pretty sure Suff knows the letters of the alphabet and Sec obviously does not, or at least doesn't know the difference between an i and an l.
Tom
07-12-2006, 03:36 PM
Clinton positives:

1. Alcohol
2. Marijuana
3. DNA of Stain on dress
JustRalph
07-12-2006, 04:57 PM
Clinton positives:

1. Alcohol
2. Marijuana
3. DNA of Stain on dress

the obvious help he gave the Dems in the 94 election.......he basically helped them pass the contract with america.
Secretariat
07-12-2006, 07:11 PM
Thanks Tom, JR, and isbets, you've just proved my point.
lsbets
07-12-2006, 07:24 PM
Thanks Tom, JR, and isbets, you've just proved my point.

That you still don't know the letters of the alphabet? Yep, you sure don't. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Tom
07-12-2006, 07:42 PM
YOU said list positives.
shanta
07-12-2006, 08:23 PM
YOU said list positives.

wow I just got it ! lmao


:eek:
Lefty
07-12-2006, 11:37 PM
sec, key word is blindly. I don't blindly support anyone. And online betting was illegal BEFORE GW took office, but as we know, in the leftist world, nothing bad ever happened before GW.
Lefty
07-12-2006, 11:47 PM
Clinton positives: The man clearly knew how to take credit for other peoples voctories: The economy, welfare reform, bal budget.
He clearly knew how to deflect blame from himself. Waco, Monica, Paula Jones,etc, etc, etc.
PaceAdvantage
07-13-2006, 04:00 AM
Lefty, JR, Isbets, Boxcar, SQ764, yourself. Those are the usual rush to GW's defense.

Do you really believe this, or are you really just an internet troll? Lefty is the ONLY one on that list that I would even remotely agree belongs.

You know what your problem is? You're too busy getting the ol' cut and paste ready for tomorrow via the DU/moveon marching orders to even BOTHER reading what everyone else writes. Like GameTheory stated in a recent thread (and I'm surprised he's not on your list, even though he hardly ever posts in off-topic), you talk AT people, not with them, so it's no surprise you rarely take the time to read what others write. If you did, you couldn't in sound mind include most of those folks on your list.
Lefty
07-13-2006, 11:16 AM
I defend Bush because I agree with him on most issues. Nothing blind about that. I blve in tax cuts and supply side economics. I agree that to go after Saddam in Iraq and to stay and defend that country from the influx of terrorists was and is the right thing to do. Those are the big issues. And I agree. So sue me. Oops better not say that as libs just love the "sue" word.
Tom
07-13-2006, 11:55 AM
Clinton positives: The man clearly knew how to take credit for other peoples voctories: The economy, welfare reform, bal budget.
He clearly knew how to deflect blame from himself. Waco, Monica, Paula Jones,etc, etc, etc.

I can't help but wonder, where is the outrage over the 70+ days of bombings Clinton ordered of Seribia, killing innocent people? Wesley Clark, defying NATO and bombing bridges over the Danube River? Illegal bombing raids?
How come it is different when Billy did it?
Secretariat
07-13-2006, 12:36 PM
Do you really believe this, or are you really just an internet troll? Lefty is the ONLY one on that list that I would even remotely agree belongs.

You know what your problem is? You're too busy getting the ol' cut and paste ready for tomorrow via the DU/moveon marching orders to even BOTHER reading what everyone else writes. Like GameTheory stated in a recent thread (and I'm surprised he's not on your list, even though he hardly ever posts in off-topic), you talk AT people, not with them, so it's no surprise you rarely take the time to read what others write. If you did, you couldn't in sound mind include most of those folks on your list.

I disagree, and have seen from the above posters mentioned almost complete support of every GW decision with the exception of the border issue and the Minutemen.

....

"What we've got here is failure to communicate."

- Cool Hand Luke
JustRalph
07-13-2006, 12:38 PM
I can't help but wonder, where is the outrage over the 70+ days of bombings Clinton ordered of Seribia, killing innocent people? Wesley Clark, defying NATO and bombing bridges over the Danube River? Illegal bombing raids?
How come it is different when Billy did it?

good point tom. Not to mention the 16 unbid contracts that Clinton Gave to Halliburton! Lions, tigers and Bears ! Oh my! Halliburton!
Steve 'StatMan'
07-13-2006, 12:56 PM
I can't help but wonder, where is the outrage over the 70+ days of bombings Clinton ordered of Seribia, killing innocent people? Wesley Clark, defying NATO and bombing bridges over the Danube River? Illegal bombing raids?
How come it is different when Billy did it?

good point tom. Not to mention the 16 unbid contracts that Clinton Gave to Halliburton! Lions, tigers and Bears ! Oh my! Halliburton!

Great points both of you guys!

I had rare respect fo Clinton when he finally sent forces to Serbia to stop the attocities there. Never once did I feel he did that to deflect criticism over the Lewinsky scandal. I was just upset that he did do similar with Iraq - after all, Clinton was telling us they had WMDs! To me, the Lewinsky scandal was more like the Chaney incident, more embarasing, and he didn't shoot her in the face by accident.

Clinton and the 16 unbid contract to Haliburton! Wow - sure wasn't because his best buddy Dick Chaney was running the company. Haliburton obviously is main/only provider of special miliatry needs items so that the U.S.A. can do what it feels it needs to do. Nothings changed that through 2006.

Man, great to clear some more of that smoke out of here.
ljb
07-13-2006, 02:37 PM
Like I said, Clinton was the best Republican the Democrats ever elected.
Things must really be getting tough on the repugs here. They are bringing slick willie up with a vengance. hmmm
PaceAdvantage
07-13-2006, 09:37 PM
Things must really be getting tough on the repugs here. They are bringing slick willie up with a vengance. hmmm

Nothing will ever top your posts during the 2004 Presidential Campaign. Those are priceless.
Lefty
07-13-2006, 10:03 PM
Like I said, Clinton was the best Republican the Democrats ever elected.
Things must really be getting tough on the repugs here. They are bringing slick willie up with a vengance. hmmm
lbj, if you would pay att you would know that it was sec who brght up Clinton and tomand i merely answered. If you're going to fall asleep in class, you'll never learn anything.