Republicans seek to ban internet gambling

[horses4courses]

Contained within the 2012 Republican Party Platform is the following:


Making the Internet Family-Friendly
Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families.
We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet and call for reversal of the Justice Department’s decision distorting the formerly accepted meaning of the Wire Act that could open the door to Internet betting.
The Internet must be made safe for children.
We call on service providers to exercise due care to ensure that the Internet cannot become a safe haven for predators while respecting First Amendment rights.
We congratulate the social networking sites that bar known sex offenders from participation.
We urge active prosecution against child pornography, which is closely linked to the horrors of human trafficking.
Current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced.


Here is a copy of the entire document:
http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf

[Greyfox]

Slots and roulette are gambling, totally based on chance.

Horse racing and poker are games of skill involving a chance element.

[Robert Fischer]

Slots and roulette are gambling, totally based on chance.

Horse racing and poker are games of skill involving a chance element.

Is this what the .pdf says?

[Robert Fischer]

Contained within the 2012 Republican Party Platform is the following:


Making the Internet Family-Friendly
Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families....

I thought democrats were the ones who want to protect us from ourselves?

This is all too confusing...

[Greyfox]

Is this what the .pdf says?

I can barely read what the .pdf says it's so poorly presented.

At any rate, I don't consider horse racing and poker gambling.

[Tom]

Making the Internet Family-Friendly
Millions of Americans suffer from problem or
pathological gambling that can destroy families. We
support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet
and call for reversal of the Justice Department’s decision
distorting the formerly accepted meaning of
the Wire Act that could open the door to Internet
betting.

Unacceptable and wrong.
Whatever we citizens suffer from is NOT the business of ANY government.
Period.

but...the Democrats want to let us gamble, but no have soft drinks over 16 ounces or french fries while we do it.


Both parties are pathetic.

[maddog42]

Lets see:
Getting rid of internet porn.
Getting rid of internet gambling.
Against abortion even in cases of incest and rape.

This is supposed to be the party of freedom?
If the republicans would stick to the core issues of balanced budget and strong military/defense they would get a lot more votes, maybe even mine.
I will never vote for them again as long as they stick with unreasonable attacks on personal freedom and expression.

[Robert Fischer]

Shouldn't Child Predators and Pornography be in a completely different paragraph from Internet Gambling?

Contained within the 2012 Republican Party Platform is the following:


Making the Internet Family-Friendly
Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families.
We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet and call for reversal of the Justice Department’s decision distorting the formerly accepted meaning of the Wire Act that could open the door to Internet betting.
The Internet must be made safe for children.
We call on service providers to exercise due care to ensure that the Internet cannot become a safe haven for predators while respecting First Amendment rights.
We congratulate the social networking sites that bar known sex offenders from participation.
We urge active prosecution against child pornography, which is closely linked to the horrors of human trafficking.
Current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced.


Here is a copy of the entire document:
http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf

[ArlJim78]

Madison said that the powers granted in the constitution to the federal government should be "few and defined" whereas the power left to the states are to remain "numerous and indefinite".

we've stood this on it's head with so many people thinking that the federal government should have numerous and indefinite powers.

[Dahoss9698]

Kind of funny when you think about it. Here we are on a website founded because of a sport that is fueled by gambling, especially internet gambling.

At least Tom has the sense to realize both parties are a joke. Meanwhile the Republican sheep are fighting the good battle here, while their party looks to restrict gambling on the sport that brought us here.

Awesome.

[ArlJim78]

dahoss you are a fine addition to the clueless left wing down here. you certainly have no problem displaying your lack of having given serious thought to anything.

we on the right are the only ones to disagree and attack our own party. refer back to my comments about having balls. I wholeheartedly support Romney over Obama even though Romneys party has something I oppose (internet gambling ban) in it's platform. There are bigger issues at stake here.

"both parties are a joke" is a cop out posture. no party is going to reflect 100% of any individuals beliefs or preferences, but if you find 90% of one parties platform objectionable and 10% of anothers, it doesn't mean you have to bail out and run around shrieking about how both parties are the same. only someone who doesn't look very close would come to that conclusion.

when Paul didn't get all that he wanted from the RNC you lamented how it was unfair, but when social conservatives are listened to and the party adopts some of their views about internet gambling in the platform, it's now a joke?

[Dahoss9698]

Coming from you Jim, that's a compliment.

Although I notice that with all your "balls" you didn't call Tom out for his opinion that both parties are a joke.

L1Pmg3BxCCM

[thaskalos]

dahoss you are a fine addition to the clueless left wing down here. you certainly have no problem displaying your lack of having given serious thought to anything.

we on the right are the only ones to disagree and attack our own party. refer back to my comments about having balls. I wholeheartedly support Romney over Obama even though Romneys party has something I oppose (internet gambling ban) in it's platform. There are bigger issues at stake here.

"both parties are a joke" is a cop out posture. no party is going to reflect 100% of any individuals beliefs or preferences, but if you find 90% of one parties platform objectionable and 10% of anothers, it doesn't mean you have to bail out and run around shrieking about how both parties are the same. only someone who doesn't look very close would come to that conclusion.

when Paul didn't get all that he wanted from the RNC you lamented how it was unfair, but when social conservatives are listened to and the party adopts some of their views about internet gambling in the platform, it's now a joke?

Once again I will disagree with you, Jim...even at the risk of you calling me clueless as well...

Of course both parties are garbage...and we've just had back-to-back regimes which prove that precise point.

You cry out against the incompetence of Obama...even though you know full well that the only reason he ever got elected in the first place was because the people could no longer stomach Bush and his "associates". If Bush was not so deplorable as a president, then McCain would have been elected...and it would have been HE that we would be ridiculing and defaming right now.

And if Romney does indeed get elected now...then we will be saying the same things about him in 4 years that we are now saying about Obama.

Clint Eastwood made some sense in his speech at the convention. THIS IS OUR COUNTRY! And our elected officials are EMPLOYEES of ours...who are supposed to represent us...and protect our interests.

It doesn't work out that way, of course...and these "employees" of ours soon start calling themselves our "leaders"...even though the only things they are good at leading us to are confusion, misery and despair.

And even being our "leaders" is not good enough for them. Next, they presume to take over the role of our PARENTS...and tell us what we can or cannot do...and how to spend our money.

Isn't that nice?

We give them a big chunk of our money right off the bat...which they squander as the see fit...and then they want to tell us what to do with the rest.

Long live "Freedom"...:bang:

[Robert Fischer]

Guess we will no longer be able to trade stocks online ;)

[lamboguy]

Once again I will disagree with you, Jim...even at the risk of you calling me clueless as well...

Of course both parties are garbage...and we've just had back-to-back regimes which prove that precise point.

You cry out against the incompetence of Obama...even though you know full well that the only reason he ever got elected in the first place was because the people could no longer stomach Bush and his "associates". If Bush was not so deplorable as a president, then McCain would have been elected...and it would have been HE that we would be ridiculing and defaming right now.

And if Romney does indeed get elected now...then we will be saying the same things about him in 4 years that we are now saying about Obama.

Clint Eastwood made some sense in his speech at the convention. THIS IS OUR COUNTRY! And our elected officials are EMPLOYEES of ours...who are supposed to represent us...and protect our interests.

It doesn't work out that way, of course...and these "employees" of ours soon start calling themselves our "leaders"...even though the only things they are good at leading us to are confusion, misery and despair.

And even being our "leaders" is not good enough for them. Next, they presume to take over the role of our PARENTS...and tell us what we can or cannot do...and how to spend our money.

Isn't that nice?

We give them a big chunk of our money right off the bat...which they squander as the see fit...and then they want to tell us what to do with the rest.

Long live "Freedom"...:bang:whatever you do, if they tell you to hand in your gold to them, don't do it. and don't rely on paper gold to keep you out of the mess that this government is going to stick you with. when Romney gets in, if you don't have gold, you have nothing.

[PaceAdvantage]

Kind of funny when you think about it. Here we are on a website founded because of a sport that is fueled by gambling, especially internet gambling.

At least Tom has the sense to realize both parties are a joke. Meanwhile the Republican sheep are fighting the good battle here, while their party looks to restrict gambling on the sport that brought us here.

Awesome.Wait, WHAT? (I seem to be typing this a lot lately)

Republicans have about as much chance at banning gambling as they do abortion. Both will never be banned...it's all bullshit pandering. Both parties do it...

Oh, and if Democrats are such friends of gambling, how come there was no nationwide gambling resurgance after Obama was elected and both houses of Congress were solidly Democrat starting in January 2009?

I always ask this question of those that like to post on here how big bad Republicans are going to outlaw gambling, and nobody ever really has a good answer for me.

One answer, from my perspective, is that the Vegas casino lobby has Harry Reid in their back pocket, for starters...and we all know Vegas doesn't want to see gambling expanded nationwide...

[Valuist]

whatever you do, if they tell you to hand in your gold to them, don't do it. and don't rely on paper gold to keep you out of the mess that this government is going to stick you with. when Romney gets in, if you don't have gold, you have nothing.

Gold will do better if Obama is re-elected. If Romney wins, we already know they will get rid of Bernanke.

[lamboguy]

Gold will do better if Obama is re-elected. If Romney wins, we already know they will get rid of Bernanke.Obama not going to put us on gold standard, Romney wants to if he can get away with it

[Dahoss9698]

Wait, WHAT? (I seem to be typing this a lot lately)

Republicans have about as much chance at banning gambling as they do abortion. Both will never be banned...it's all bullshit pandering. Both parties do it...

Oh, and if Democrats are such friends of gambling, how come there was no nationwide gambling resurgance after Obama was elected and both houses of Congress were solidly Democrat starting in January 2009?

I always ask this question of those that like to post on here how big bad Republicans are going to outlaw gambling, and nobody ever really has a good answer for me.

One answer, from my perspective, is that the Vegas casino lobby has Harry Reid in their back pocket, for starters...and we all know Vegas doesn't want to see gambling expanded nationwide...

You put a whole lot of words in my mouth. All I said was both parties are a joke.

[PaceAdvantage]

You put a whole lot of words in my mouth. All I said was both parties are a joke.I just read what you wrote again, and you said a helluva lot more than that.

[ElKabong]

Wait, WHAT? (I seem to be typing this a lot lately)

Republicans have about as much chance at banning gambling as they do abortion. Both will never be banned...it's all bullshit pandering. Both parties do it...



People need to read this over and over until they learn and understand it.

[Jens]

Republicans managed to ban it in Arizona. I won't vote for a Democrat but Republicans scare the s@@t out of me.

[Tom]

Oh, and if Democrats are such friends of gambling, how come there was no nationwide gambling resurgance after Obama was elected and both houses of Congress were solidly Democrat starting in January 2009?

What are you talking about.....it's been a crap shoot ever since he was elected! :eek:

[PaceAdvantage]

It's funny, New York has been a BLUE STATE FOREVER, DEMOCRAT to the CORE, and how long did we have to wait for slots to come to the racetracks? Was NY one of the first racino states?

NO. Not even close.

Does NY Metro Area still lack a FULL SCALE casino?

YES.

How is that possible? The entire state is BLUE! lol

Maybe that Atlantic City/Connecticut Indian Casino lobby is stronger than we think...its tentacles reach over state lines?

[Valuist]

Obama not going to put us on gold standard, Romney wants to if he can get away with it

Obama wants to keep printing more and more money. Romney does not.

[Greyfox]

Guess we will no longer be able to trade stocks online ;)

:ThmbUp: Excellent point RF.

Horse racing is just a faster moving "stock market" investment.:ThmbUp:

[MrBaseball]

Wait, WHAT? (I seem to be typing this a lot lately)

Republicans have about as much chance at banning gambling as they do abortion. Both will never be banned...it's all bullshit pandering. Both parties do it...

Oh, and if Democrats are such friends of gambling, how come there was no nationwide gambling resurgance after Obama was elected and both houses of Congress were solidly Democrat starting in January 2009?

I always ask this question of those that like to post on here how big bad Republicans are going to outlaw gambling, and nobody ever really has a good answer for me.

One answer, from my perspective, is that the Vegas casino lobby has Harry Reid in their back pocket, for starters...and we all know Vegas doesn't want to see gambling expanded nationwide...


Clips from an article in Las Vegas Sun last year...........

Wynn Resorts on Thursday announced a partnership with PokerStars, a company that operates online poker games, saying the two companies would work toward the passage of federal legislation to regulate gambling on the Internet.

Nevada Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign have pushed for federal regulation of online poker. The most recent bill in front of Congress, floated in December, fell flat.

South Point Casino will be operating online poker sometime this fall getting the approval of Nevada Gaming.

Additionally, William Hill & Cantor Gaming have purchased numerous Nevada properties
with a business model promoting online wagering. Of course we can bet via our phones and computers here in Nevada.

Long-time 'Vegas much respected bookmaker Jimmy Vacarro has
been quoted:"It's just a matter of time 3-5 yrs max" :D

Mr BB

[lamboguy]

Obama wants to keep printing more and more money. Romney does not. http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2008%3Ahow-long-will-the-dollar-remain-the-worlds-reserve-currency&catid=64%3A2012-texas-straight-talk&Itemid=1&Itemid=69

[PaceAdvantage]

Clips from an article in Las Vegas Sun last year...........

Wynn Resorts on Thursday announced a partnership with PokerStars, a company that operates online poker games, saying the two companies would work toward the passage of federal legislation to regulate gambling on the Internet.

Nevada Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign have pushed for federal regulation of online poker. The most recent bill in front of Congress, floated in December, fell flat.

South Point Casino will be operating online poker sometime this fall getting the approval of Nevada Gaming.

Additionally, William Hill & Cantor Gaming have purchased numerous Nevada properties
with a business model promoting online wagering. Of course we can bet via our phones and computers here in Nevada.

Long-time 'Vegas much respected bookmaker Jimmy Vacarro has
been quoted:"It's just a matter of time 3-5 yrs max" :D

Mr BBI was giving my example of why Democrats might not be the savior for nationwide expanded gambling. I wasn't limiting my comments to online gambling.

Do you think Vegas casinos want to see casino gambling flourish nationwide?

That was my point...

[MrBaseball]

I was giving my example of why Democrats might not be the savior for nationwide expanded gambling. I wasn't limiting my comments to online gambling.

Do you think Vegas casinos want to see casino gambling flourish nationwide?

That was my point...


PA.........I understand your point. My point is that not all the 'Vegas movers and shakers are against internet wagering. When Steve Wynn and Michael Gaughn (South Point) two big movers in this town
coupled with the outside Euro mega-gambling corps (Cantor & William Hill) and then stir in Harry Reid, you gotta fair-sized group pushing for internet wagering.

Of course on the other side of the equation you've got old-school Sheldon Adelson giving $20 mil to Mr. Romney (cost of adding ban on internet wagering to the Republican planl?).

Interesting to see how this will shake out in the long run. :confused:

Mr BB

[Striker]

It's funny, New York has been a BLUE STATE FOREVER, DEMOCRAT to the CORE, and how long did we have to wait for slots to come to the racetracks? Was NY one of the first racino states?

This stuff is very situational IMO. I can't speak to NY but here in Illinois where the water is more blue than the caribbean, Gov. Quinn has given his veto twice now to slots at racetracks and (I think) 5 more land based casinos across the state. The IL senators and congressmen of BOTH parties voted to pass 2 different bills through both houses of congress yet it was given the veto by our democratic governor. I would never put the blame on the democratic party for not having slots at ractracks or a casino closer to my house just because ONLY the governor was truly against these bills. Stepping a few feet to my right, out there in NJ, I recall Gov Christie fighting pretty hard to allow sports betting in that state. Last time I checked he was giving a speech at the RNC. But totally agree with you on how Las Vegas feels about this topic, as the only true reason that I go to LV is to gamble on sports legally, and if that was allowed closer to me I would probably not ever go back there again.

[PaceAdvantage]

This is why I cringe at thread titles like this. As if Republicans have been the only party standing in the way of expanded gambling.

It's simply not true. Both parties are seriously to blame, for whatever the motivation, sometimes the same (lobbyists) and sometimes different (ideology).

[horses4courses]

This is why I cringe at thread titles like this. As if Republicans have been the only party standing in the way of expanded gambling.

It's simply not true. Both parties are seriously to blame, for whatever the motivation, sometimes the same (lobbyists) and sometimes different (ideology).

If someone can find similar content in the Dem Party Platform, then fire from the hip. I doubt it will happen.

Of course, opposition to gambling crosses the party divide.
Only one party, though, would seek to include it in their message.

It's all about image........

[bigmack]

Of course, opposition to gambling crosses the party divide.
Only one party, though, would seek to include it in their message.
Well, a big thanks :confused: for starting the thread to call attention to something that will never be reversed and both parties use for posturing.

Do roll over to Dem Coven thread and weigh-in on God/Jerusalem. As if.

[Tom]

If someone can find similar content in the Dem Party Platform, then fire from the hip. I doubt it will happen.

They have moved past gambling - they kill kids and fund sluts.

[maddog42]

This is why I cringe at thread titles like this. As if Republicans have been the only party standing in the way of expanded gambling.

It's simply not true. Both parties are seriously to blame, for whatever the motivation, sometimes the same (lobbyists) and sometimes different (ideology).

In the 2006 house vote, republicans voted 201 for and 17 against the bill restricting online poker and gambling. Democrats voted 116 for and 76 against. Who do you think is the party to blame the most? This BS about
"it can't happen here " was EXACTLY what people were saying then.



http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/house/2/votes/363/

My computer won't let me paste the link. sorry

[johnhannibalsmith]

..."it can't happen here "...

Great tune... made me take a listen... for the enjoyment of all...

vKITpVovTAE

[maddog42]

Great tune... made me take a listen... for the enjoyment of all...

vKITpVovTAE

Far out!!!!

[PaceAdvantage]

In the 2006 house vote, republicans voted 201 for and 17 against the bill restricting online poker and gambling. Democrats voted 116 for and 76 against. Who do you think is the party to blame the most? This BS about
"it can't happen here " was EXACTLY what people were saying then.



http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/house/2/votes/363/

My computer won't let me paste the link. sorryWe can argue this all night. I'll just ask you what memorable expansion of gambling came out of the US Congress when it was filled with Democrats from Jan 2009 until Jan 2011?

This way, you can contrast how different Republicans and Democrats are when it comes to gambling.

And hell, while we're at it, why didn't Congress (CONTROLLED BY DEMOCRATS FOR TWO WHOLE YEARS), REPEAL the 2006 ban on online poker?

[lamboguy]

Obama not going to put us on gold standard, Romney wants to if he can get away with ithttp://www.321gold.com/editorials/russell/russell090612.html


this is the type of deal that i understand Romney wants wants to do. after following gold for the last 40 years, in my opinion it will work too and this country will prosper.

i really don't think any democrat has the guts to pull this type of a move, it would probably mean the end of that political party.

[maddog42]

We can argue this all night. I'll just ask you what memorable expansion of gambling came out of the US Congress when it was filled with Democrats from Jan 2009 until Jan 2011?

This way, you can contrast how different Republicans and Democrats are when it comes to gambling.

And hell, while we're at it, why didn't Congress (CONTROLLED BY DEMOCRATS FOR TWO WHOLE YEARS), REPEAL the 2006 ban on online poker?

I showed you the vote breakdown. You answer my question and I'll answer yours. Hell, I'll answer your question now. I don't know why Democrats didn't repeal the 2006 ban. Probably a low priority for them. Obviously the Dems are not champions of internet gambling. I never said they were.Now you answer mine.
What party should be blamed the most? Your defense of the republicans in this instance is ridiculous.

PS To insinuate that both party's are equally to blame is wrong. What party is most likely to repeal the 2006 law?

[PaceAdvantage]

I showed you the vote breakdown. You answer my question and I'll answer yours. Hell, I'll answer your question now. I don't know why Democrats didn't repeal the 2006 ban. Probably a low priority for them. Obviously the Dems are not champions of internet gambling. I never said they were.Now you answer mine.
What party should be blamed the most? Your defense of the republicans in this instance is ridiculous.

PS To insinuate that both party's are equally to blame is wrong. What party is most likely to repeal the 2006 law?If they didn't repeal the 2006 law, then they are both to blame. The Republicans for initiating it, and the Democrats for continuing it.

Republicans are to blame more. There, are you happy now? That changes everything, doesn't it? :lol:

[horses4courses]

So, while the Dems don't call for any ban of online gambling, ignoring it seems to be their position of choice:

http://www.lvrj.com/business/democratic-platform-omits-references-to-web-gaming-poker-168531996.html

[maddog42]

If they didn't repeal the 2006 law, then they are both to blame. The Republicans for initiating it, and the Democrats for continuing it.

Republicans are to blame more. There, are you happy now? That changes everything, doesn't it? :lol:

I am happy now.

[maddog42]

If they didn't repeal the 2006 law, then they are both to blame. The Republicans for initiating it, and the Democrats for continuing it.

Republicans are to blame more. There, are you happy now? That changes everything, doesn't it? :lol:

We seem to be pretty close on this. The Dems are Morons, but more Morons
on the Repub side. Neither side has much respect for freedom.

[Tom]

Neither side has ANY respect for freedom.

[acorn54]

if i remember, the internet gaming bill was a rider to some homeland security bill and the politician who was responsible for it was some evangelical religious zealot. so it seems both sides have their fanatics, the dems who want the nanny state, and the repubs who want to determine what is sinful activity and what is not for everyone else.

[horses4courses]

It should be pointed out, too, that the politician doing the most to promote gambling right now is Republican - Gov. Christie in NJ.

Likely, he will eventually be defeated by the Feds in his attempt to bring sports betting to NJ,
but I applaud him for having the balls to take them on over it :ThmbUp:

[lamboguy]

It should be pointed out, too, that the politician doing the most to promote gambling right now is Republican - Gov. Christie in NJ.

Likely, he will eventually be defeated by the Feds in his attempt to bring sports betting to NJ,
but I applaud him for having the balls to take them on over it :ThmbUp:i was always under the assumption that since no other state was grandfathered in to operate sports gambling that it would take a constitutional amendment to get that law reversed. and that in reality would be impossible to get done.

[PaceAdvantage]

if i remember, the internet gaming bill was a rider to some homeland security bill and the politician who was responsible for it was some evangelical religious zealot. so it seems both sides have their fanatics, the dems who want the nanny state, and the repubs who want to determine what is sinful activity and what is not for everyone else.That was different than the 2006 bill maddog was talking about.

[fast4522]

If you put enough horseshit out there chances are someone will smell it and talk of it, I will not read much in to it. On the other hand what they do not want you to focus on is that they are spending 4 billion per day more than they are taking in. So in my mind the main focus will always be the moneys I do want them to spend, and not the piss ass distractions some brother in law wants to post. Let the brother in law feed his sister and her husband, the hell with the left and what it wants, keep the hell out of my yard.

[BlueShoe]

Do you think Vegas casinos want to see casino gambling flourish nationwide?.
It pretty much already has. The proliferation of the Indian casinos nationwide has certainly had an impact on Nevada and AC gaming. Reno, Lake Tahoe, and Laughlin, as well as Las Vegas, have lost business to them as many customers stay closer to home rather than make the longer trip.

There are only two states in the nation that have a total ban on gambling in any form, one very Blue and the other very Red. Hawaii is the puzzling one, since would think that casinos in the tropical tourist driven state would be a sure winner. Utah we can understand, driven by the heavy LDS influence not likely to ever see this change.

[Tom]

They do a lot of LSD in Utah?
I never knew that.

[maddog42]

Mormons are big into acid. Common knowledge.

[lsbets]

Mormons are big into acid. Common knowledge.

That explains the underwear.

[hcap]

Romney in the Sky with Diamonds?

From the planet Kolob of course.

[BlueShoe]

They do a lot of LSD in Utah?
I never knew that.
The Latter Day Saints are not real big on gambling, at least not up front where it shows. Depending on their location, to get some action the Mormons, and everyone else in Utah, must head for Wendover, Mesquite, or Las Vegas.