Poker Forum

This whole thing (the law now) is still unclear.

Frank is such a joke. He will do to online gaming what he and his committee did to "Freddie Mac n Cheese" and "Fannie May I Please"

"because public opinion [is] demanding the right to gamble online."

That is comedy at its finest. I wonder how the founding fathers missed capturing that? That is about as rational as our right not to be offended. Wait, that is happening already.

I don't mind the gambling online, but come on...a right?

the founding fathers imagined a country where our liberties were protected. Too much of the anti-gambling fever is from religion. Our founding fathers desired to keep religion out of government.

Your example is backwards. Our consitition protects our rights to do certain things. So, it protects my right to "offend" someone, so long as I don't do any physical or extreme mental harm. (apparently I am told I quite often offend people, so thank God (in a non-religious context within this argument of course).) So, your logic is backwards! The constitution actually defends our right to do something. It doesn't defend our rights to not do something.

People should have the right to "pursue" private activities that is not of an actual detriment to an unwilling participant. As a result, we should have a right to gamble!

mrdick2u wrote

the founding fathers imagined a country where our liberties were protected. Too much of the anti-gambling fever is from religion. Our founding fathers desired to keep religion out of government.

Your example is backwards. Our consitition protects our rights to do certain things. So, it protects my right to "offend" someone, so long as I don't do any physical or extreme mental harm. (apparently I am told I quite often offend people, so thank God (in a non-religious context within this argument of course).) So, your logic is backwards! The constitution actually defends our right to do something. It doesn't defend our rights to not do something.

People should have the right to "pursue" private activities that is not of an actual detriment to an unwilling participant. As a result, we should have a right to gamble!

I'd say that was stated clearly. Nice response.

davega wrote

mrdick2u wrote

the founding fathers imagined a country where our liberties were protected. Too much of the anti-gambling fever is from religion. Our founding fathers desired to keep religion out of government.

Your example is backwards. Our consitition protects our rights to do certain things. So, it protects my right to "offend" someone, so long as I don't do any physical or extreme mental harm. (apparently I am told I quite often offend people, so thank God (in a non-religious context within this argument of course).) So, your logic is backwards! The constitution actually defends our right to do something. It doesn't defend our rights to not do something.

People should have the right to "pursue" private activities that is not of an actual detriment to an unwilling participant. As a result, we should have a right to gamble!

I'd say that was stated clearly. Nice response.

+2

+3