FBI seizes online poker sites

[MMA_scientist]

I would take a progned approach:

I. The argument from practicality: everyone does it anyway, we might as well all benefit.
A. Benefit to players. Regulation. We would not have to just hope the book decides to pay, the government would oversee if they operated in the U.C. legally. They would also regulate the chance games and make sure we are not being cheated.
B. Benefit to non-players. Taxes. There are billions of dollars in untaxed money flowing through the onlne casinos. Players would be taxed on their winnings, casinos would be taxed on thier profits. It would be billions of dollars in taxes to improve the quality of life for everyone. This is the same reason many states have allowed riverboats or other gaming operations.


II. The Argument from Freedom.
A. Personal recreation decision.
B. This is America, use X's argument.

III. The Argument from Logic
A. It is completely arbitrary. Horse racing, state lotteries, raffles, and land based casinos are all legal. What is the difference?
B. Counterpoint: I don't think there is one.

Which brings us to

IV. The argument from conspiracy. The mob controls Congress. (this is a joke, don't use this one).


Address the only counter-argument which is "moral decay" and it is "addictive"... Shoot down the counterpoints. The end. A+ good job.

[MMA_scientist]

I would you can gamble in Nevada and New Jersey and this is the land that the everyone is suppose to be treated equal why is it that only people in those two states are able to gamble? Shouldnt everyone be treated equally and be allowed to gamble if they choose so?

Because of State's rights, just sayin.

I have a riverboat right down the street from me.

[SPX]

Re: Nevada and New Jersey, I'd be tempted to say that both places are gambling meccas, and they also are fully functioning states that haven't been brought under by gambling, but the truth is that outside of the glitz and glamour of the casino areas, both Vegas and Atlantic City are really pretty shitty. Or at least that's what I've heard.

[Luke]

Re: Nevada and New Jersey, I'd be tempted to say that both places are gambling meccas, and they also are fully functioning states that haven't been brought under by gambling, but the truth is that outside of the glitz and glamour of the casino areas, both Vegas and Atlantic City are really pretty shitty. Or at least that's what I've heard.

Vegas is pretty crappy, off the strip. At night I wouldnt even go a block off the strip .I did once and ran in to a bunch of drunks and crackheads

[poopoo333]

I am required to have established sources to back up some claims, and I think I am going to cite you guys for the lolz. I am gonna be like "According to (whatever SPX goes by in his magazines) of InvestWithSports.com blah blah blah". And "According to one of the most highly proclaimed lawyers in the state of Indiana, (I guess I should come up with a name other then MMA Scientist), blah blah blah blah"

[SPX]

Ha ha ha. You should totally do that shit.

[poopoo333]

Ha ha ha. You should totally do that shit.

I will. What is your name for your articles and stuff again?

[Vandelay]

I would take a progned approach:

I. The argument from practicality: everyone does it anyway, we might as well all benefit.
A. Benefit to players. Regulation. We would not have to just hope the book decides to pay, the government would oversee if they operated in the U.C. legally. They would also regulate the chance games and make sure we are not being cheated.
B. Benefit to non-players. Taxes. There are billions of dollars in untaxed money flowing through the onlne casinos. Players would be taxed on their winnings, casinos would be taxed on thier profits. It would be billions of dollars in taxes to improve the quality of life for everyone. This is the same reason many states have allowed riverboats or other gaming operations.


II. The Argument from Freedom.
A. Personal recreation decision.
B. This is America, use X's argument.

III. The Argument from Logic
A. It is completely arbitrary. Horse racing, state lotteries, raffles, and land based casinos are all legal. What is the difference?
B. Counterpoint: I don't think there is one.

Which brings us to

IV. The argument from conspiracy. The mob controls Congress. (this is a joke, don't use this one).


Address the only counter-argument which is "moral decay" and it is "addictive"... Shoot down the counterpoints. The end. A+ good job.

With regards to your first point "everyone does it anyway, we might as well all benefit"

I'm not sure if that's a valid argument because A. not everyone does it. I actually think less than 25 percent of people gamble. B. That sounds similar to the argument that potheads make when they try and argue that weed should be legalized.

[SPX]

I will. What is your name for your articles and stuff again?

The incomparable Soren Patrick Xavier.

[poopoo333]

Now I just have to make sure I do not crack up when I cite you.

[SPX]

I actually think less than 25 percent of people gamble.

No doubt. I bet that even if there were casinos widely available in every state it would still be something like 1 in 8.

That sounds similar to the argument that potheads make when they try and argue that weed should be legalized.

Well, not everyone does anything, but a shitload of people do smoke pot (an estimated 50 million in the US, I think) with little to no negative impact on society as a whole.

[SPX]

Now I just have to make sure I do not crack up when I cite you.

You should cite me as "leading MMA journalist Soren Patrick Xavier."

[Luke]

You can cite me as "boxing analyst " if I could come up with anything smart to say on the subject.........which I probably wont cause I'm too lazy to think about it

[poopoo333]

Sure. Hey, can you link me or show me a copy of your gambling guide?

[SPX]

Sure. Hey, can you link me or show me a copy of your gambling guide?

I can send you a copy of the Word doc if you want to PM me an e-mail.