interesting implications

[highnote]

To me, it's not whether betting online is legal or illegal. My problem is that it is a waste of taxpayer money to run a sting operation on something that should be legal.

There must be worse crime to fight than online gambling.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by traynor

Not dumb enough to blindly accept a posting suggesting that ...

I'm not dumb enough either to blindly accept a posting....
Traynor, I'm still waiting for you to give the University of Arizona link to the study that say 95 % of all horse players lose. Several sparrows chirped in supporting you. They claimed the number was higher.
Cheerio. Wishing you well in your new enterprises.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by traynor

I don't think that "PA said it was OK" is going to fly as a legal defense. One of the most basic facts is that "ignorance of the law is no defense." If a bettor wants to bet offshore, that is fine and dandy. The issue for US citizens and residents is whether they are breaking US laws, not whether the betting site is legal in its host country.

Where do you get this stuff? In case you didn't know it, you and I basically agree here. I've stated more than once that even though nobody has been arrested yet for placing offshore bets, that doesn't make the act any less illegal.

[yak merchant]

Originally Posted by traynor

Bombarding elected officials with letters expressing displeasure is the equivalent of carrying signs and "protesting" some thing or another. It is something that is allowed to create the impression of meaningful activity, while producing little, if any, real effect.

While I agree our politicians don't give a flying crap about 99.99% of their constituents, and our whole fundraising makes the world go round political system is broke as hell, but voicing displeasure to your representatives in whatever form does have some effect. When the first Kyl bill (the rediculous one that basically made saying the word gambling illegal) was in the house in 1995?, I wrote a letter to my representative who was very senior in the house Republican party and about as right as right gets. I figured he would be one of the first to back the bill. Now while, I'm sure one of his lackeys wrote the reply, and the reply came after the vote, I did receive a hand signed letter from his office, that explained the reasons he voted against the bill and actually had a reference to something I had written; so somebody read it or his form letter just happened to address one of my specific concerns. And while I knew he'd back the next gambling bill if it was written without the not so subtle orwellian language in that bill, atleast some intern had to read my letter and may some day be high enough up the political garbage disposal to make a difference.

But most importantly I am "allowed" to voice displeasure and peacefully protest not because "it creates the impression of meaningful activity" but because it is my first Amendment right. A right that is being threatened every day.

[maxwell]

Something is legal or it's not. I can bet on-line, but if it were illegal I sure as hell wouldn't do it.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by maxwell

Something is legal or it's not. I can bet on-line, but if it were illegal I sure as hell wouldn't do it.

Exactly. When I was 17 I wanted to drink beer. But I waited until I was 18 (most of the time )

Gambling online in CT is illegal, so I don't do it. I want to do it and I'll wait until it's legal. But, as an adult, it sure as hell is my right to bet online. Who the hell do these politicians think they are that they think they can tell me how to spend my money.

Here's the absurdest part of the Attorney General's argument. He says he worries that minors could gamble online.

It would be as easy for a minor to call Connecticut OTB and place an automated bet as it would be to bet online. Yet, phone wagering is legal and online betting is not?

I have just begun to fight.

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by yak merchant

While I agree our politicians don't give a flying crap about 99.99% of their constituents, and our whole fundraising makes the world go round political system is broke as hell, but voicing displeasure to your representatives in whatever form does have some effect. When the first Kyl bill (the rediculous one that basically made saying the word gambling illegal) was in the house in 1995?, I wrote a letter to my representative who was very senior in the house Republican party and about as right as right gets. I figured he would be one of the first to back the bill. Now while, I'm sure one of his lackeys wrote the reply, and the reply came after the vote, I did receive a hand signed letter from his office, that explained the reasons he voted against the bill and actually had a reference to something I had written; so somebody read it or his form letter just happened to address one of my specific concerns. And while I knew he'd back the next gambling bill if it was written without the not so subtle orwellian language in that bill, atleast some intern had to read my letter and may some day be high enough up the political garbage disposal to make a difference.

But most importantly I am "allowed" to voice displeasure and peacefully protest not because "it creates the impression of meaningful activity" but because it is my first Amendment right. A right that is being threatened every day.

I hope this doesn't balloon into a political debate, but....

While you might expect some Republicans to be against gambling, keep in mind that there are Republicans who lean toward less laws, so those guys might want to allow gambling. Of course, most politicians are going to find a way to endorse what they feel their constituents want, regardless of how it otherwise plays out.

Just saying the above to point out that contacting legislators is unlikely to hurt, more likely to help. No matter what the party affiliation.

[JPinMaryland]

Originally Posted by yak merchant

.... I did receive a hand signed letter from his office, that explained the reasons he voted against the bill ...

No you received a letter signed by a machine.

I know, hurts doesnt it? I felt the same about my Spectacular Bid autographed photo.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by ranchwest

I hope this doesn't balloon into a political debate, but....


Just saying the above to point out that contacting legislators is unlikely to hurt, more likely to help. No matter what the party affiliation.

I agree. There are members of both parties who are for or against gambling online. The ones against probably know very little about gambling. They may know finance, politics or crime fighting. But those have little to do with the recreation or profession of gambling.

[Big Bill]

traynor,

Please check your private messages.

Big Bill

[Pell Mell]

I would think that if our government could tax the offshore outfits they would have no objections to gambling with them.

If they could figure out how to put a meter on a vagina, prostitution would be legal tomorrow.