Bush to outlaw online gambling, you agree it is a moral threat?

Question

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.

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

Answer 1

I do not want to get into the arena of explaining Gambling. It is a matter of "you can gamble here, but not here" WTF?

If you are going to legalize gambling in one place, legalize it in all.

Internet Gambling is no different. If they are going to allow gambling at a casino, they should allow it online. They also need to tax the company that runs the service just like a casino.

Ah well, it will change again when the next President comes in. Gambling will never go away...that I do know.

Answer 2

It's funny you mention morality when the "no fund" bill is attached to a completely unrelated bill named Port Security. How the two topics are related is beyond me. It's a case of conflict of interest in my opinion and circumvents the basic premises of freedom of rights.

Ask anyone about the morality of gambling and you'll get a different answer. The fact that you can lose (probably) hard earned money and jeopardizing families' futures is what makes it immoral. But like the sex trade, you're not going to be able to get rid of it completely. So why not regulate it? I think that's a better idea.

But you guys are missing the point a bit. Online gambling is not illegal, otherwise what's the point of all the new legislation? You can't make it MORE illegal... There's no law against me picking up the phone (or on a messenger chat conversation) and telling my buddy "Yo, bet you $10 that the Lakers are going to win tonight"?

What is illegal is setting up a bookmaker or any such operation that takes these bets "in bulk". The perpetrator is not the bettor, rather the sportsbook. That's why they all set up shop offshore.

In my opinion, the best way to bet is person to person where no bookie is involved. Betfair is ok, but BetBug (www.betbug.com) is a true peer-to-peer.

Answer 3

You can still gamble online. You just can't deposit money into your online gambling account from a financial institution in the United States. But you can always open a Swiss bank account. The setup fee is a one time payment of $776. And you have to keep a minimum balance of $8600 in the account if you want to have access to Internet Banking.

If you have an extra $10,000 laying around, you can still gamble online.

Answer 4

Online gambling has been outlawed for decades.

It is illegal to place any bets over any telecommunications lines in the USA. The companies doing it are all outside the USA, but using names of US cities and casinos. They are all crooked and you will always lose eventually.

If you are caught, the US Federal goverment will confisgate your bank accounts first, then try you. Online gambling is always based outside of the USA because of this. The US Government cannot touch them, but they can get you.

They write a computer program, for the game, and that computer program, controlls everything about that game. There is nothing left to chance. They will win. They are in total control of the game.

Never gamble against a computer program where your opponent has total control of the computer program. Why? Because it is stupid.

Answer 5

Here are several arguments I've heard: 1. Marriage needs to be protected: Historically communities considered marriage as the cornerstone of their society. They sought to establish strong, stable marriages so that a new generation would come that would preserve their culture and values. Today marriage is under threat by the high divorce rate, domestic violence, casual sex, and girls having babies outside of marriage. So we need to take steps to preserve and strengthen marriage. All gay marriage does is change the definition to accommodate a special interest group. 2. Wisdom of the ancients: Every culture throughout all of history has always regarded marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. Even cultures that accepted homosexual relationships, never regarded it as the same thing as marriage. Gay marriage is a contradiction in terms. If we accept gay marriage then we are saying that every culture from all of history got it wrong. We are saying that we know better than everyone that preceded us. That's a big risk. 3. Why not polygamy? If we accept gay marriage then why not accept polygamy. While gay marriage has no historical support, polygamy has a long history. Polygamy is still accepted in many societies including Muslims. Anthropologists tell us that there are more cultures that practice polygamy than monogamy. So while we are changing the definitions to accommodate one special interest group, then why not open it up to other special interest groups? 4. The uniqueness of the heterosexual union: All humans are to be treated with dignity and respect, not because they are rich or popular, but just because they are human beings. If we believe that human life is special then we have to accept that the origin of human life is also special. All human life has its origin in the heterosexual union. No human life is associated with the homosexual union. It is not the same thing. The heterosexual union is unique. 5. Marriage is about life: Gay proponent like to say that marriage is about love, not gender. Love is nice, real nice, but marriage has a long history of being arranged. Arranged marriages are still being done in some cultures and they are valid marriage. Love does not make marriage a civil right. Marriage is an institution which celebrates life, and the hope of having children (life again). Of course not all marriages result in progeny but they are still a member of the institution nonetheless. Gay marriage removes the association of progeny from marriage and reduces its meaning. Gays have the right to live in peace without fear of harassment or discrimination in the job market, but they do not have the right to change the definition of marriage for all of us.

Answer 6

This proves more idiocy on the part of the neo-cons. You
can make calls to your bookie if they ban online betting.
Lotteries/Raffles/Bingo and the like are still gambling.
Why don't they ban those too, instead of picking on
Internet casinos, and sports bookies. I don't agree it is a
moral threat, because they are trying to shove their religious
beliefs down our throats, and not every one in the world are
WASP right wing Christian conservatives, which is basically
the core support of the Republican Party.

Answer 7

If you want to get technical about it yeah but this country is so far gone in the "morals" department.It seems almost hypocritical,to me.In a country,where people of the same sex can legally get married,who cares about gambling?

Answer 8

I think it is a horrible abuse of power to legislate what we can do in our own homes. Furthermore, it is even worse to attach it LITERALLY in the middle of the night on the last day of the session. The bill was never even debated in the US Senate. What an outrage!

If you think it is B.S. too you can voice your discontent at this online petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/LOGNOW/petition.html

Answer 9

No more morally wrong than sending troops to a foreign land to be slaughtered by a people who have nothing to lose.

Answer 10

what about vegas? surly its worse? and crack cocaine? lol thats silly.