More offshore gambling arrests

Comment #25

Todd — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 22:16:37 GMT

Your post is a clich . It is a common crutch of the left to throw out bad things that happened in history, as if people on the right were the ones who did those things, or as if the liberals of the time were the ones who righted the wrongs .

The fact is that people of the liberal persuasion were most often the ones who started and maintained those problems, and the conservatives were the ones who ended them. I could go into detail on each of your bullet points, but I'll leave that up to... [ More ]

Comment #24

Rip Snorter — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:31:58 GMT

Discourage people from imposing their moral values (so long as those moral values don't do any of the above) on others by any of the methods listed above, or by physical force, psychological force, intimidation, or by any other means.

However, might happens to amount to right, and you are definitely on the right side on this issue.

I'm uncertain which part of the Item 5 was unclear. However, there's probably no reason for us to elaborate. We're both well established in our viewpoints and... [ More ]

Comment #23

Lurk More N00b — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:31:22 GMT

I give you permission to be as angry as you choose to be.

Hey, thanks mom!

Rather than blowing mud all over Todd's forums, I will agree to let it be and call it a day.

Comment #22

Rip Snorter — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:10:22 GMT

Lurk More:

I give you permission to be as angry as you choose to be.

Whatever I might have said that you find offensive, I apologize.

I promise you've not done less than you've actually done as a result of my post here. I also promise that whatever I might have done, or haven't done, is also unmoved by what I've said here. Both exist in the inaccessible past.

Consider yourself unharmed by my blanket statements. Your past is safe from my attacks and underminings.

I'm not going... [ More ]

Comment #21

Todd — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:01:26 GMT

Yes, there plenty of elbow room for differing beliefs , but only one set of laws.

Numbers 1-4 make sense, but number 5 is very unclear. I think number 5 may even be wrong. I also don't understand your sentence, However, might happens to amount to right, and you are definitely on the right side on this issue.

Laws are by definition a manifestation of society's collective morality, so to say that people are discouraged from imposing their moral values is more of a philosophical propos... [ More ]

Comment #20

Lurk More N00b — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 20:22:52 GMT

I'm not easily angered, nor easily drawn into flamewars on message boards, but you must understand that the way you presented your statement was very accusatory of others while offering no evidence whatsoever that you are any better than the rest of us.

If you are a saint, then by all means, present evidence that shows us how it's all our fault and you had nothing to do with it.

I didn't exclude myself from my blanket statements, Lurk More.

Then what was this?

You've all sat... [ More ]

Comment #19

Rip Snorter — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:59:57 GMT

Todd:

I don't know how a Libertarian might reply to your post, but here's an alternative viewpoint:

In a free society where freedom of religion is an ideal there's a lot of elbow room for differing beliefs concerning morality.

Criminal laws is such a society would be intended to do the following:

Discourage people from harming one another,Discourage people from threatening one another,Discourage people from destroying the property of one another,Discourage people from stealing the pr... [ More ]

Comment #18

Rip Snorter — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:33:47 GMT

I didn't exclude myself from my blanket statements, Lurk More. I only gave you a couple of factors you could use to exclude yourself.

I have no idea what you've done, nor what you haven't done. And I haven't a care either way.

If you wish to exclude yourself, by all means do it with my best wishes.

However, if you wish to exclude yourself you probably ought to be ecstatic such things are being discussed, as opposed to worrying you aren't getting pats on the back and kudos for whatev... [ More ]

Comment #17

Todd — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:10:25 GMT

Let me start by saying that I do not support the ban on Internet gambling, as I do not feel it is immoral.

Then, my point:

You have it backwards. People do not use laws as the basis for what they feel is moral. They create laws based on what they feel is moral.

I understand that libertarians want fewer laws, and I support that to a degree, but that is because libertarians generally do not feel that there is a heck of a lot that could be deemed immoral . Hence, they do not want a lot... [ More ]

Comment #16

Lurk More N00b — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:04:36 GMT

You have no idea what I've done. Your assumptions are baseless and asinine. You cannot blame society as a whole while leaving yourself out of the equation. It's just ignorant.

Comment #15

Rip Snorter — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 17:49:14 GMT

It's not important enough to clarify for your benefit. But if you've ever served on a jury and refused to vote for conviction and imprisonment of a person who was clearly guilty of a victimless crime, if you've ever done anything at all to change the situation I'll disinclude you.

Otherwise, count yourself inside the fences, amigo.

No need for me to cram it with butter and sunshine. You excluded me inside your 'unless you're a' piece of the permission you gave me, though the 'life-long... [ More ]

Comment #14

Lurk More N00b — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 17:29:54 GMT

You've all sat quietly by and tacitly consented while others have been jailed and robbed for doing things you didn't happen to do, but which acts also had no victims. Many of you have even applauded.

I'd like for you to clarify who you've included in this blanket statement. One finger pointing at me, three pointing back at you. Unless you are a life-long political activist, you can cram it with peanut butter, sunshine

Comment #13

Rip Snorter — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:02:51 GMT

By their own standards, those who use legality as the measure of morality should feel repelled by the entire issue of online gambling once it's passed by an Act of Congress and signed by the Prez. They should applaud as they are, themselves, hauled off to the slammer for a few years if they're caught doing it.

By the same token, they should have no problem with pornography because it is evidently not illegal (immoral). (Except in the instance of kiddie porn, which is both illegal and immora... [ More ]

Comment #12

Rip Snorter — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 14:27:42 GMT

As it was said: If there is no victim there is no crime , after all, alcohol is a drug, but it is a legal drug here on the USA, it might not be on one or more countries, different people(s) have different morality, rules and laws.

Right(s) and wrong(s) are not the same to everybody.

What is a right to you, might be a wrong to somebody else.

And what is a wrong to you, might be a right to somebody else

Morality might be defined in a lot of ways. Probably in the US the most common an... [ More ]

Comment #11

EXCALIBUR — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 06:16:16 GMT

If gambling was a crime, there would be no horse and dog races, no casinos, no states' and country lotteries.

Gambling itself is not a crime, prostitution and illegal drug use are.

I mean here on the U.S.A. in some countries, prostitution and drug use might be or is legal, at least prostitution is.

As it was said: If there is no victim there is no crime , after all, alcohol is a drug, but it is a legal drug here on the USA, it might not be on one or more countries, different people(s... [ More ]

Comment #10

Rick G — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 00:56:58 GMT

I agree100%. If there is no victim, there is no crime. We can't read victims or create potential victims into the crime as defined by our government or social mores. A crime has to have a victim to be a crime. If a person commits a crime against themselves it is a crime against themselves and there is no victim. A criminal and a victim involve two individuals not one: One person perpetrating the crime (criminal) and the victim being an unwilling and injured participant of that crime.... [ More ]

Comment #9

Rip Snorter — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 00:05:51 GMT

Each count carries a maximum sentence of five years in federal prison, a $250,000 fine, three years supervised release and a $100 special assessment.

No excuse is too small to lock a man behind bars and confiscate his property in the US.

You've all sat quietly by and tacitly consented while others have been jailed and robbed for doing things you didn't happen to do, but which acts also had no victims. Many of you have even applauded.

Even though I'm saddened to see another piece of fre... [ More ]

Comment #8

dvdiva — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 04:44:58 GMT

I'm so glad with people wanting to blow us up and others selling children for sex that they take the time out to focus on the real enemy, Americans gambling in their own homes.

Comment #7

orangeman — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:56:26 GMT

If the government blocks gambling sites and doesn't block porn sites, we need to file a class action suit to force them to either block porn sites or leave gambling sites alone. Are there any lawyers who want a lot of publicity on a pro bono basis? Perhaps we can start by suing the two moron Con gressmen who started this mess to start with.

The people need to hold our alleged representatives directly responsible for the trouble they cause. That will make them think twice before pushing tr... [ More ]

Comment #6

EXCALIBUR — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:05:02 GMT

They say that China runs or has a country wide blockade, that is they filter out what comes in and also what goes out.

The BILLION + children there can only see and send what Big Red Papa allows them too.

The US might not be too far behind on also doing the same here.

They might even add gov propaganda pop-ups to everything that you see, something like what Hitler would had done.

There already are some ISPs that run the Web thru a filtered proxy, like PAX.

It might not be too

Comment #5

bellyache — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:52:04 GMT

I wonder how long this internet gambling crusade is going to last.

Comment #4

fxsterling — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:00:22 GMT

If it's about tax Put big computers in Biloxi and run all bet though them . The Gulf states need the Tax $$$$ and jobs problem sloved

Comment #3

Todd — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:51:46 GMT

It probably means the site's data center removed the DNS records. The US government cannot block it. (At least not yet....

Comment #2

LOTTOMIKE — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:44:37 GMT

i'm wondering if this is going to have any affect on the bill thats being voted on.it sure isn't helping our cause any with these knuckleheads getting caught......

Comment #1

JAP69 — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:42:44 GMT

The web site www.bettheduck.com no longer appears to be online, and returns 502 error messages, indicating that several steps have been taken to ensure that the web site, if it is still operating, is impossible to access.

Does that mean that the U.S. can block or error code any site that it desires

More offshore gambling arrests

Lottery Post — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 13:33:14 GMT

New case involves same pattern of offshore web site accepting sportsbets from US residents over the phone

Four men were indicted for allegedly running an illegal offshore gambling operation, federal authorities said.

The U.S. attorney's office reported Wednesday that four men have been indicted in connection with an ongoing investigation into a gambling and money laundering scheme that allegedly involves facilitating illegal betting through a Costa Rica-based Web site.

According to the... [ More ]