[PhilTheThrill14]

Too funny. Can't argue with someone who says their statement hasn't changed, then changes it by adding in some words.

Let's just drop it.

[jbones]

Originally Posted by PhilTheThrill14

Too funny. Can't argue with someone who says their statement hasn't changed, then changes it by adding in some words.

Let's just drop it.

You're right, I was obviously trying to say scratch tickets and the lottery are illegal, and I didn't assume you understood a few common sense statements.
Unbelievable.

Edit: maybe the problem is that I made too broad of a statement, but I'm sure you knew what I was talking about- why would I even try to argue that the lottery is illegal? Your home poker game IS illegal- and isn't that what we were talking about?

[PhilTheThrill14]

My **** is bigger than your ****.

[jbones]

Originally Posted by PhilTheThrill14

My **** is bigger than your ****.

I'll take that along with the fact that you have no argument of your own and are merely arguing semantics with me to seem like you have any idea what you're talking about as an admission that you're totally clueless as far as poker legislation is concerned.

[PhilTheThrill14]

"Gambling is illegal. Agreed."

That is the statement I really disagreed with you on. I even said I 100% disagree. You have since agreed with me that gambling is not illegal. Welcome under my rock.

As for online poker and it legality we have never really had different views. You call it illegal and just not enforced - I opn the other hand challenge it's illegality and there is certainly evidence of that in the links I provided.

Here's a snippet from one - did you read it?

"The question of whether Internet sportsbetting is covered by the Wire Act seems to have been answered by the US Supreme Court's refusal to review the conviction of Jay Cohen. Whether online casinos and online poker cardrooms are covered under the aimed-at-sportsbetting Wire Act is a different question. In February 2001, Judge Stanwood Duval of the US District Court in New Orleans ruled that it did not: "'in plain language' [the Wire Act] does not prohibit Internet gambling 'on a game of chance.'" (Text of Judge Duval's ruling, plus a news story, and Nelson Rose's view.)

On November 21, 2002, the US Fifth Circuit Federal Appeals Court upheld Duval's ruling, stating: "The district court concluded that the Wire Act concerns gambling on sporting events or contests... We agree with the district court's statutory interpretation, its reading of the relevant case law, its summary of the relevant legislative history, and its conclusion." (Text of Appeals Court ruling)

The Appeals Court further states: "Because we find neither the Wire Act nor the mail and wire fraud statutes may serve as predicates here, we need not consider the other federal statutes identified by the Plaintiffs... As the district court correctly explained, these sections may not serve as predicates here because the Defendants did not violate any applicable federal or state law."

The Appeals Court specifically cites Duval's statement: "[A] plain reading of the statutory language [of the Wire Act] clearly requires that the object of the gambling be a sporting event or contest." This is very explicit language. You would have to jump through a lot of mental hoops to consider the playing of online poker to be "a sporting event".

So, while the US Justice Department recently stated that the Wire Act covers casino games in addition to sports wagering, the Federal Appeals Court has directly ruled that that interpretation is not correct. This is not a small disagreement. It is a direct contradiction that could well spur the creation of new, 21st Century Federal legislation that actually deals with these issues. The UIGEA aims to inhibit the ability of citizens to gamble online. It however does not criminalize actual gambling online. But other bills may be introduced in the future with that goal.

Gambling regulation traditionally has been the responsibility of individual states. For instance, New York State Attorney General (now Governor) Eliot Spitzer reached a settlement with Citibank and PayPal regarding their involvement with online gaming. Some individual states have laws prohibiting any form of gambling, a different issue from whether it is legal on a Federal level."

[RTBrandy]

Originally Posted by jbones

Context ftw.

Regulation is horrible because based on this country's laws the games as we know them can not exist. I'm not positive on this, but for online poker to be legal in most states, pots will have to be capped at $10, and I don't know about you but I don't really want to play NL5.

why would there need to be a cap on the pots? The games we play in Vegas exist under laws and regulation...why would online be any different?

[RTBrandy]

Originally Posted by jbones

Bingo is legal because it is classified as charitable- the same goes for the lottery and scratch tickets.
.

By your logic, this means all the bingo game entry fee's and lotto ticket losses are tax write off's ?? !!!

[ipgyst]

Originally Posted by RTBrandy

why would there need to be a cap on the pots? The games we play in Vegas exist under laws and regulation...why would online be any different?

A lot of states' laws graciously allow you to gamble in your home, but for penny-ante amounts like $10 or less. In Indiana, if gambling takes place in a home and somebody loses money, the loser can sue to have his money returned, and it is required that everybody involved be truthful about what happened. Indiana sucks for home poker, but there are plenty of games anyway.