Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

WTO Calls US Online Gambling Ban 'Illegal'

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

March 30, 2007, 2:57 PM

The World Trade Organization is pushing back against Internet gambling restrictions passed by United States, saying Friday it had ruled that the provision was illegal. The US will have the option to appeal.

A complaint was brought before the group by Antigua and Barbuda, where many offshore online casinos are located. It stems from a 2005 verdict by the WTO that ruled some of the US' restrictions ran afoul of WTO policies.

"The Panel concludes that the United States has failed to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the [Dispute Settlement Body] in this dispute," the compliance board ruled.

While Antigua called the ruling a "smashing success" for the country, which has built a industry out of online betting, the US government acknowledged the ruling was a setback.

It is not immediately clear whether the Bush administration would even pay attention to the ruling: its past actions in dealing with world bodies have shown the US government strongly resists any attempts to interject in its policies.

32 online casinos exist in the island country, and once had yearly revenues of nearly a billion dollars. However, restrictive policies like that of the United States have harmed its business, and now the casinos make around $130 million per year.

Add a Comment

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By royalkimer

edited Jun 27, 2007 - 4:50 PM

IS THERE SOMEONE TO INTERACT WITH ME PRESENTLY.

Score: 0

By Scotlad219

edited May 3, 2007 - 4:46 PM

The only thing I want to do is agre with the Statement about the lotery being legal in most States, They are saying it is okay for them to take peoples money as long as THEY make it Legal.
Of course, the feds may figure if the people cannot bet with their OWN money with the online Sportsbooks, the more the States might take from them Legally, the less the feds might have to pay to the States. I resent anyone telling me what is legal so THEY can take my Money but cannot do what I want to do with my money after the Goverment has allready taking their share of the money I earn from working.

Score: 0

By kiahaustin

edited May 28, 2007 - 5:57 AM

i like boobs

Score: 0

By PostDeals

posted Apr 2, 2007 - 8:39 PM

WTO get a life, fix the trade gap and the poverty gap.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted Apr 3, 2007 - 1:41 PM

While I applaud the emotion behind the statement, the WTO cannot fix these things. the trade/poverty gap are mostly as a result of internal differences between the countries. The root of the prosperity of western nations is the morality and capitalism of their people. It is not because someone is keeping them down. When corruption abounds, business cannot flourish, when the government tries to run the economy it cannot flourish. Look at Japan. They had their economy crushed after WW2 and have no neighbors they can trade with that don't require them to load their goods on ships, but they are a capitalist country that has a very moral stance when it comes to corruption and scandal. So even with all of their disadvantages, they did not wait for the world to give them handouts (although the US did heavily invest there after the war) or blame their problems on others, they worked hard and built one of the most powerful economies in their hemisphere.

So the WTO has its uses, but I regard it as only marginally effective at any task. Hopefully the WTO can help prevent some wars but it will never lift any nation out of poverty....they must do that for themselves by deposing the tyrants that oppress them and rooting out the corruption that strangles their economy and prevents foreign investement.

Score: 0

By Reap_r

edited Apr 2, 2007 - 5:09 PM

This issue is a thorny one. There are strong feelings on both sides of the US law against internet gambling. Especially since the US government is hipocritical about the entire thing. They legalize gambling that they get a cut of (powerball, casinos) or they give Indian reservations a free pass out of institutionalized guilt, but they outlaw internet gambling. Most internet gambling is offshore and the US govt does not get a cut...see the relationship?

However, this article is not about the rightness or wrongness of the US law. It is about a world body telling the US that it cannot make and enforce its own laws for its own people. That is what is distressing.

It is one thing to arbitrate a trade dispute when one party is engaging in blatant protectionism. The remedy for that is to make parternships and to penalize the offending country by slapping tariffs on their goods until they play nice.

It is quite another to say that a country cannot regulate its own people in what for most is a moral issue. Next they will be telling the US that we can't spank our kids or that we can't teach certain versions of history that embarrass powerful regimes. I know that there are few trade ties to those issues but the UN and world court have already shown that they think they have the right to control things like gun laws/sales.

Will we stand up for our sovereignty or will we roll over and let other countries decide for us what our laws should be?

That said, I think the current laws that allow and prohibit gambling are inconsistent and mostly self serving to the politicians. We should fire them and get some new ones.

Score: 0

By Aires

edited Apr 3, 2007 - 5:50 AM

Jeez why don't you just leave the WTO and the UN and while you're at it NATO and every other body you've previously agreed to abide by the rules of. You've already made a start with saying 'stuff that' to Kyoto so why stop there - barricade your borders with barbed wire and cut off all ties that's what I say!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 3, 2007 - 9:21 AM

You mean stop meddling in the affairs of other countries and keep them from meddling in ours?

It's a wonderful thought, but unfortunately, it's outdated. Iran, Syria, or North Korea...one of them will have nukes soon. Covering our eyes and ears isn't going to do anything to protect ourselves once that happens.

Score: 0

By mother4gaming

edited May 15, 2007 - 4:15 PM

amen

Score: 0

By Aires

posted Apr 4, 2007 - 8:37 AM

No I don't mean what you think I mean. You need to re-read what Reap_r wrote and then re-read what I wrote. I am opposed to his/her views completely.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 4, 2007 - 1:06 PM

I know your reply was sarcastic. I conveniently ignored that fact and added my own sarcasm.

Hope that clears things up a bit. :)

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

edited Apr 3, 2007 - 5:11 AM

Countries that promote world-wide disarmament at the UN; also export millions of their own brand name firearms and military surplus weapons to the United States. Even a water pistol is illegal in Japan; but Our stores are chuck full of their WW2 vintage ARISAKA rifles. Same goes for weapons that are exported from China, Russia, England, Italy Germany and many more. MORE of the same self-righteous BS to me. We have too many guns? Guess where we get many of them! From you!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 2, 2007 - 5:44 PM

We should fire them and get some new ones.

Great. Get that list together and we'll get cracking. :p

Good post. :)

Score: 0

By Reap_r

posted Apr 3, 2007 - 1:45 PM

I got my list but I won't share it. Even though the FBI/NSA have so scrupulously abided by the letter and spirit of the law when it comes to their surveilance powers, I just feel the tiniest bit paranoid about sharing a list of leaders to "get rid of" even through entirely legal means (ballot box).

After all, just because you are paranoid does not mean that they are not out to get you.

Score: 0

By FUHNAHTIK

edited Mar 31, 2007 - 11:37 PM

I used to love betting on sports - football mostly. I even made $1200 from an initial $100 deposit last season.

Having said that, and established myself as a gambler; I can still gamble online - I just need a credit card now.

They've taken my right to wage cash and made it my right to wage cash I don't have through credit - how will this help gambling addicts? - Ryan

Score: 0

By ghammer

posted Apr 2, 2007 - 12:18 PM

Buying Marlboros in 7-11 in the US is OK.
Buying them from a Swiss site is not OK.

Funny nobody is up in arms over smokers 'rights' and online smoke shops 'right' to their business.

I'd like to see the US go the other way on this issue. Open online gambling to US companies.

I'd much rather bet with Belagio Online than a noname virtual casino in another country.

I think the current online casions would be driven out by real/physical casinos in short order.

Score: 0

By PostDeals

posted Apr 2, 2007 - 8:41 PM

I would be forced to pay for your medical treatement. It just doesn't affect you but others around you and your employers who have to pay for your breaks, medical and all that.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Apr 2, 2007 - 12:31 PM

I totally agree. I would MUCH rather deal with US regulated businesses. Unfortunately, the Native Americans will never let that get through Congress.

Score: 0

By Straspey

edited Apr 2, 2007 - 11:14 AM

"HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IF ALL OF THE ABOVE APPLIED TO YOUR INVESTMENTS, DAY-TRADE ACCOUNTS, ETC.?"

Actually, those activities mentioned above are, in reality, a form of legalized gambling; which, as everyone knows, is heavily regulated by the SEC, IRS, and other arms of the government. Or maybe we should simply deregulate the securities trade and let the chips fall where they may.

Also, I'd like to clarify a few things:

First of all, I am not against gambling per se and would not try to prevent anybody from exercising their "right to gamble". It's your money and you have every right to do with it as you please, and if that includes losing it all while playing poker at an online casino in the comfort and privacy of your own home, I would support your right to do that.

The point was made that if "you" are able gamble without it becoming a problem, why should you have to suffer if *I* have a probelm ?

You're right, you should not be penalized because of *my* problem. My point was that if I have a serious gambling problem and, as a result, break into your home and steal your cash, jewelery, camera, etc., then my problem has affected you. It's simply a matter of cause and effect.

Finally, I really do not appreciate the personal attacks just because anyone here may disagree with my, or anyone's POV. I TOTALLY respect your right to vehemently disagree with my opinion, but you really don't know me or anything about me and/or my political views concerning anything other than the point being discussed in this thread.

If you happen to "hate" a certain group of people, be they liberals, conservatives, libertarians, or whomever, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from venting your hatred and frustration about those people by taking it out on me in the form of personal insults.

I enjoy this site and visit it frequently and have learned much; and I hope to continue participating in these interesting debates about important issues & topics.

I offer this in the spirit of congeniality and I hope you all receive it that way.

Thanks.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 2, 2007 - 2:14 PM

Remember this:

So, go ahead and get your drunken blow job while you exercise your right to gamble.

Your post.

Those living in glass houses should not throw rocks. We trade insults and barbs here quite regularly. Being a regular reader, you must know this.

Now, to the rest of your post:

You're right, you should not be penalized because of *my* problem. My point was that if I have a serious gambling problem and, as a result, break into your home and steal your cash, jewelery, camera, etc., then my problem has affected you. It's simply a matter of cause and effect.

Again, the situation you cite requires only simple security measures to avoid. No laws, no limitations on the rights of others, and certainly not the spending of money on drafting and enforcing such a law.

I cannot understand how you can state that you respect people's rights in one breath and then turn around and in the next defend a law that limits those rights.

Score: 0

By Straspey

edited Apr 2, 2007 - 7:32 PM

OK, I see your point, but here is my problem:

Many people involved in this debate are referring to their "right" to gamble. I find that people often refer to their preferred activities as a so-called "right" so long as there are no laws to prevent the said activity; and then, when they are presented with the prospect of that activity being regulated, or even possibly banned, by proposed legislation, they complain that their "right" to xxxxxxx is being infringed upon when, in fact, no actual "right" exists.

If there was such a thing as a "right" to gamble, then it would not be possible to pass any laws which might restrict that activity. And, conversely, as a society, we accept *many* laws which restrict our actions for the benefit of all.

Municipalities spend your tax dollars to pay for crossing guards at busy intersections for the safety of school children. Should we eliminate them on the grounds that all they need to do is simply "look both ways" before crossing ?

There are numerous and cumbersome laws which regulate the securities industry, (which is in essence a legal form of gambling) and yet we generally accept those regulations as being necessary to protect all investors and give everybody a fair playing field from which to start.

So, what it comes down to is that nobody really has the "right" to gamble...even in the privacy of their own home, for the exact same reason that you do not have the "right" to posses sexual images of minor children on your computer in the comfort and privacy of your own home either.

And, again, as a society we accept those restrictions. So...certainly, I would not try to prevent you from gambling, but I have no qualms with the idea of regulating your gambling such that you are able to fully enjoy yourself, while at the same time protecting others.

We will never see eye-to-eye on this issue, and that's perfectly fine. I respect your views and look forward to exchanges with you on other topics.

And finally, trading personal insults is not my way. My early days of online chatting and debating cam with lessons of being courteous however, I realize that if I want to particpate in this forum, then I have to abide by the rules which prevail. So be it.

AND...one final thought. I am certainly not one of those people who feels that the government should regulate each and every activity of every citizen to ensure that everybody "feels good"; nor do I take the Libertarian POV that if it isn't in the Constitution then the gov't has no business meddling in it. To me, both of those are extremes. We have been discussing one topic here and I have expressed my feelings about that topic. Given a different subject I might move farther in one direction or the other.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 3, 2007 - 9:18 AM

Many people involved in this debate are referring to their "right" to gamble. I find that people often refer to their preferred activities as a so-called "right" so long as there are no laws to prevent the said activity; and then, when they are presented with the prospect of that activity being regulated, or even possibly banned, by proposed legislation, they complain that their "right" to xxxxxxx is being infringed upon when, in fact, no actual "right" exists.

Heh...

It is a right. It's called freedom and the government cannot limit that freedom unless such a limitation is spelled out within the Constitution.

And, conversely, as a society, we accept *many* laws which restrict our actions for the benefit of all.

Sure, municipal laws. But this is not the job of the Feds, it's not their mandate. It's not *their* right.

Municipalities spend your tax dollars to pay for crossing guards at busy intersections for the safety of school children. Should we eliminate them on the grounds that all they need to do is simply "look both ways" before crossing ?

Muni vs. Fed. Different beasts, different rules, friend.

Score: 0

By Straspey

posted Apr 3, 2007 - 12:16 PM

"It is a right. It's called freedom and the government cannot limit that freedom unless such a limitation is spelled out within the Constitution."

So that would mean attempts by the federal government to pass laws which make identity theft a federal crime are unconstitutional, since identity theft is not mentioned in the constitution; and any argument which might connect those laws to a so-called "right to privacy" are faulty because, as I'm sure you must know, the word "privacy" does not appear anywhere in the constitution.

The government can and does limit many of our freedoms. If you own a rental property, you are not free to reject a prospective tenant solely on the basis of their race; and if you do, it is a crime.

If you are caught owning sexual images of minor children on your computer, and you transmit those images across state lines, you will be put in jail. After your release you will be placed on a list of registered sex offenders and some of your other "rights" will be limited, such as your right to live in any place you choose, your right to free travel and your right to free association. Some people feel that after the criminal has served his time, he should no longer be subject to any additional punishment which might infringe on his "rights".

Of course, others would say that law-abiding citizens have the "right" to know who is living in their community and to be aware of their criminal past (how does that jive with the "right to privacy" ?) and to have the "right" to not have sexual predators living in their neighborhood; and that people who have committed those types of crimes relinquish certain of their "rights" by default.

You're aware that the Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade is based largely on the "right to privacy" ? When the social climate changes and that ruling is overturned, do you think people will stop getting abortions ? Would you argue for their "freedom" to get an abortion because it is not mentioned in the Constitution ?

The concept of "freedom" can be subjective and used as a self-serving mantra. The Constitution provides you with the freedom to "PURSUE" happiness...but without any guarantees.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 3, 2007 - 1:44 PM

So that would mean attempts by the federal government to pass laws which make identity theft a federal crime are unconstitutional, since identity theft is not mentioned in the constitution; and any argument which might connect those laws to a so-called "right to privacy" are faulty because, as I'm sure you must know, the word "privacy" does not appear anywhere in the constitution.

Heh... You fail it.

Privacy is a right *because* it doesn't appear in the constitution.

Let me say it again: Anything not specifically limited by the constitution *is* our right.

Any limitations to that privacy are an offense to our freedom and our constitution.

Yeah, you heard me. The child pornographer? This should be handled at the state and local government level. It should *not* be a federal crime.

The instances you point out are instances where this has been or may be abused. It does *not* in any way make a case for the legal, legitimate limitation of freedom on a federal level.

Score: 0

By Straspey

edited Apr 3, 2007 - 4:13 PM

"Privacy is a right *because* it doesn't appear in the constitution.

Let me say it again: Anything not specifically limited by the constitution *is* our right."

So...would that include murder then ?

Tell me, what would constitutionally prevent the state of New York from legalizing murder, since those powers not specifically reserved for the federal government are relegated to the states ?

Please cite the clause in the constitution which specifically prohibits the act of murder.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Apr 4, 2007 - 9:28 AM

Please cite the clause in the constitution which specifically prohibits the act of murder.

From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The US constitution and the Bill of Rights were based on this document.

From the Bill of Rights, supporting my claim that no rights not limited in the constitution can be legally limited by the feds:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Score: 0

By Straspey

posted Apr 4, 2007 - 7:07 PM

Wrong again.

As you point out: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Keeping the above in mind, I asked you, specifically, what would prevent the State of New York from passing a statute legalizing murder ?

So here we are, it is now legal to commit murder in New York and someone has challenged that law and it is now before the Supreme Court, which must determine whether or not New York State's "Murder Law" is in violation of the Constitution.

Of course they would find the law to be unconstitutional, and here's why:

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

By murdering someone, you are in effect depriving them if life without due process. It would be the only legal argument which would stand up in court.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Apr 5, 2007 - 9:15 AM

SO...

You're proving my point?

NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE,

Thus, laws against murder are constitutional.

Thanks for playing. (That portion comes directly from the Declaration, in case you missed the near exact wording)

Really, it's been fun, and we should do this again sometime. But I think this specific dead horse has been beaten to a fine red mist, don't you?

Score: 0

By Straspey

posted Apr 5, 2007 - 9:53 AM

Agreed.

Thanks for the interesting exchange. :)

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Apr 2, 2007 - 8:12 AM

Oh, and as far as you folks crying over the ruling. You obviously did not read the rest of it!

The Geneva-based trade referee has said Washington can maintain restrictions on online gambling, as long as its laws are equally applied to American operators offering remote betting on horse racing. DUH!

Washington still has yet to say if it will appeal the compliance panel's findings. A final ruling upholding Antigua's claims would allow the twin-island nation to seek trade sanctions on the United States for its failure to comply.

To avoid the penalties, the U.S. government would then have to either permit Americans to gamble over foreign-based sites or eliminate exceptions for off-track betting on horses, including over the Internet, as permitted under the 1978 Interstate Horseracing Act.

Seems a simple solution to me. Eliminate the exceptions for off-track betting on horses.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Apr 1, 2007 - 4:20 PM

Regardless of the title of the bill...

GAMBLING WAS NOT MADE ILLEGAL!

There was NO restriction on one's ability to gamble. No casinos were shut down. No one was arrested.

The ONLY thing that has happened is that one cannot use electronic funds transfers for the purpose of gambling.

And the main reason behind this is that essentially anyone anywhere can set up an online gambling service and launder unlimited funds.

Can anyone see the real benefit of this? It closes a large loophole in the money laundering business. And money laundering is a big business for not only crime but for financing international terrorism and circumventing sanctions and embargoes.

But if you are stupid, as obviously many of you are as you persist in tilting at a phony windmill while exercising your teenage self-righteous angst, and you want to gamble, you Still can! And you can Still do so online, but you will have to use the standard 'non-electronic' means to transfer funds. And as such, a paper trail exists and identities are disclosed.

So get off this asinine issue of whether gambling is good or not!

Gambling, online or not, was NOT made illegal! Only electronic funds transfers for the purpose of gambling were made illegal.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Apr 2, 2007 - 2:33 AM

Actually, it was made a felony in Washington.

Gambling in most states is illegal online, even though it is a misdemeanor in most areas. I don't know of a state that explicitly allows online gaming, so if you do know one, please share.

Besides your obvious 'tilt' towards minimizing this, what if it was illegal to buy books from another country? OK, well, it's legal, but you have to use non-online payment methods... are you going to tell me that there's no merit to the WTO complaint?

As for, "No casinos were shut down," you couldn't be more wrong. Several gambling website CEOs have been arrested upon setting foot in USA territories because they have taken said online payments prior to this law.

I'm not going to extol virtue upon anyone here, but within the confines of the WTO, the US is dead wrong, like it or not.

Score: 0

By horsecharles

edited Apr 1, 2007 - 11:00 PM

as Dan Akroyd used to say to Jane Curtin,"*** *** ******** ****!"

you need to research this a little more, so you don't wind up like Emily Latella(on that same show),"Never mind!"

1. Casino execs have been arrested for taking bets.

2. Credit card & funds transfer processors have been arrested for passing on funds to said casinos.

3. Newspaper & broadcast honchos have been arrested and/or fined for accepting ads from said casinos.

4. Ditto for actors daring to appear in said commercials.

For entities in above 4 categories, we're not talking pirate / illegal outfits-- no, duly licensed institutions listed in various worldwide stock exchanges from Europe to Asia to the Americas even.

5. Banks in various states have been prohibited(threatened with legal action by state AG's if they persist) from allowing credit & debit cards to be utilized to transfer funds even to legal and local outfits like racetracks, off-track betting outlets, etc. for one simple reason ONLY:

when they go to audit the batch processing reports, they can't individually separate and ascertain each transaction is going where(local or off-shore).

1. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IF ALL OF THE ABOVE APPLIED TO YOUR INVESTMENTS, DAY-TRADE ACCOUNTS, ETC.?

2. WE HAVE BECOME A COMBO OF: THE FORMER SOVIET UNION & THE TALIBAN:

a nation of collaborators & spies-- employers, bankers, stores, isp's, insurance & real estate brokers, welfare agencies, drivers license bureaus, casinos, etc. have all been not only ordered to police their local turf & regularly report all our activities, but also deputized & empowered to prevent us from working, driving, accessing our money/benefits/privileges if we don't give up our national tatoo number(& have it verified on the spot mind you), if we have too many transactions(what a way to kill the economy, ehh?), etc.

I really hate to hurt your feelings, but with that pompous, insulting and error-filled post, you just confirmed yourself an arrogant imbecile.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Apr 2, 2007 - 8:04 AM

They did not stop gambling per se! They stopped ONLINE GAMBLING where the electronic transfer of funds were involved!

"arrested...because they have taken said online payments PRIOR to this law."

Who do you have for YOUR attorney??? Do you think maybe there was something else afoot? As it wasn't against the law if that is correct! oh...

"Casino execs have been arrested for taking bets...Credit card & funds transfer processors have been arrested for passing on funds to said casinos"

Gee whiz, these wouldn't be involved in facilitating ONLINE funds transfers, would they? oh!

If they are actively doing this, and it has involved someone in this country, and they then come into the country, they can be arrested for breaking the law. Duh!

As far as actors being arrested for being in a commercial??? There WAS this little fiasco, though: http://www.thebrushback.com/casino_full.htm

Online sportsbook BetonSports.com and its chief executive officer David Carruthers were recently indicted and charged with, among other things: Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), tax evasion and money laundering.

And ONLINE gambling operations using wire transfers ARE illegal by the law.

And any agency that facilitates ONLINE wire transfers, and that includes credit cards, are in violation of the law.

But I am glad you are so amazed by this.

And if they cannot they can't individually separate and ascertain where each transaction is going where(local or off-shore) then they are not in compliance with wire transfer regulations! DUH!!!

And all funds transfers by law must be able to be accounted for!!!!

I am glad you are amazed by such simple things. Legitimate operations are not afraid of such open and accountable practices. In fact, they demand them.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Apr 2, 2007 - 12:35 PM

You are such a blowhard, even if you had a point (which you don't), your condescending attitude is too childish to deal with. Keep crying till mommy gives you your Froot Loops.

Score: 0

By Hollywood__

posted Apr 1, 2007 - 1:39 AM

I hope anyone who gambles online goes broke doing so. You fat asses can't even get to a real casino to lose your money?

Score: 0

By dlab21

posted Apr 1, 2007 - 3:29 PM

yea cause of course everyone works 9-5 during the week and has the weekends off so they can all meet at the casino at the same time to get a decent tournament. As well as taking a break from playing at the casino to do others things is just as easy as online.
Oh, and the casino of course hosts thousands of people for tournaments nightly and you can of course keep track of every hand you play at the casino easily.
not like online allows any sort of convience everyone should get off their "fat asses" to go gamble at the american casinos so the american government gets to take a rake.

Score: 0

By kashin

posted Mar 31, 2007 - 1:42 PM

"It is not immediately clear whether the Bush administration would even pay attention to the ruling: its past actions in dealing with world bodies have shown the US government strongly resists any attempts to interject in its policies."

I love that paragraph. When an international body calls something the Bush administration has done illegal, they simply ignore it. On the other hand, when the Bush administration feels another country is doing something illegal, they sure have no problem applying political pressure and other tactics. The allofmp3.ru debacle comes to mind, where they tried to persuade the Russian government to change their laws in the RIAA's favor. Then there was the Pirate Bay incident in Sweden, where the Bush camp tried putting pressure on Swedish politicians. That created some rather nasty backlash, didn't it? Then there are those new tricks they're trying to pull in Canada, where they want fines drastically increased for recording movies in a theater and I think they want to tack on some jail time too. That's just a few things off the top of my head. I won't even get into the whole Iraq fiasco, where they're trying to force American ideals and bring "democracy" to a country which doesn't really want it.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 31, 2007 - 8:12 PM

I won't even get into the whole Iraq fiasco, where they're trying to force American ideals and bring "democracy" to a country which doesn't really want it.


Good for you, we'd all hate to have to school you on how incredibly wrong you are. :)

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Mar 31, 2007 - 11:35 PM

What makes you think he's wrong!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 2, 2007 - 9:32 AM

I know several people who have been or are stationed there. 2 Brother in-laws, one cousin, and 2 close friends.

I can't think of a better source of information. I certainly am not going to get unbiased information from the media.

Score: 0

By JeffMo

edited Apr 2, 2007 - 3:33 PM

Awesome. I just spoke to a guy stationed in Iraq, who also says that the U.S. is trying to change something quickly that can't be changed quickly.

Score: 0

By JeffMo

posted Apr 3, 2007 - 8:27 AM

Oh, and he's a soldier, and he's on his way back to Iraq now. According to him, there's no way to kill all the bad guys, and the U.S. is trying to change something about a culture that won't be changed in a few short years.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 3, 2007 - 9:13 AM

Never said it could be changed.

The middle east has been in conflict for over 4000 years. Anyone who tries to tell you our goal there is the stability of the region is trying to make a case for failure. They know it's impossible and have some other agenda, some other reason why hey want or need this to be viewed as a failure. Why else pretend our agenda is anything other than our stated goals early on as the removal of a despot and helping them get back on their feet?

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Mar 31, 2007 - 8:07 PM

When a foreign body stipulates what the US can do internally and where what the US is doing does not result in harm to people, it should ignore it!

And people can still gamble! So their critical rights are still preserved! Whoopee! It is only a ban on ALL online funds transactions for that purpose, be they foreign OR domestic!

DUH!

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Apr 1, 2007 - 8:26 PM

But it's not internal - the restrictions have an effect on global trade, at which point the WTO is involved. Regardless of what the actual restrictions are, that point needs to be made - this is an international issue, not just a US one.

Here's a hypothetical: the US imposes a 400% tariff on all imported goods - an 'internal tax', as you would put it. Yet it has global ramifications, and again, the WTO would step in. See how it's not just an 'internal' issue?

Score: 0

By Straspey

posted Mar 31, 2007 - 12:54 PM

This is all very interesting. However, here's an issue related to this debate which everybody seems to politely ignore:

*******************************************************
Gambling Addiction

Gambling, like sex, is an activity which is acceptable and fun. It is also an area where the behavior can cross over and become compulsive, abnormal, and destructive. Gambling, like sex, can easily be ignored as an extremely common, pleasurable, and legal activity. Many times, it is associated with trading or investing, and deemed as acceptable.

The individual and his associates are quick to deny and reach for the most convenient rationalization. But the behavior is a very high stakes game, where friendships, family, finance, and reputations are all at great risk.

It is significant to note that teens are about three times more likely to become pathological gamblers than adults. This is the reverse of the case in most addictions, where the problem among adults is statistically more prevalent than among children and teens.

For this reason, early education about the dangers of gambling addiction and information on how to get help for the problem is vital for preventing the disease.

Problem and pathological gamblers across age groups also use tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, and other drugs more often than do other groups.

TWENTY QUESTIONS:

1. Did you ever lose time from work or school due to gambling?

2. Has gambling ever made your home life unhappy?

3. Did gambling affect your reputation?

4. Have you ever felt remorse after gambling?

5. Did you ever gamble to get money with which to pay debts or otherwise solve financial difficulties?

6. Did gambling cause a decrease in your ambition or efficiency?

7. After losing did you feel you must return as soon as possible and win back your losses?

8. After a win did you have a strong urge to return and win more?

9. Did you often gamble until your last dollar was gone?

10. Did you ever borrow to finance your gambling?

11. Have you ever sold anything to finance gambling?

12. Were you reluctant to use "gambling money" for normal expenditures?

13. Did gambling make you careless of the welfare of yourself or your family?

14. Did you ever gamble longer than you had planned?

15. Have you ever gambled to escape worry or trouble?

16. Have you ever committed, or considered committing, an illegal act to finance gambling?

17. Did gambling cause you to have difficulty in sleeping?

18. Do arguments, disappointments or frustrations create within you an urge to gamble?

19. Did you ever have an urge to celebrate any good fortune by a few hours of gambling?

20. Have you ever considered self destruction or suicide as a result of your gambling?

****************************************************

So...offshore, onshore, foreign, domestic, democrat, republican, blah...blah...blah...

And before anybody suggests this means they should fight alcoholism by banning the import of all foreign liquor, the answer to that argument is that in order to get hold of a bottle of foreign booze, you actually have to get up from your computer, get dressed and travel to a liquor store.

Score: 0

By kashin

posted Mar 31, 2007 - 1:47 PM

You preach on about gambling addiction. Why don't we just make all online gambling illegal then? But then there's still "offline" gambling, to which even more people are addicted. Let's make that illegal too. There are far more people addicted to porn, alcohol and cigarettes. We'd have to make those illegal too. See where I'm going with this? Just because in our society there happens to be quite a few weak minded individual, it doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer and have our right to choose what we do taken away. If I want to gamble online/offline, while getting drunk, blown by a hooker and smoking a cigarette with extra tar, I should be able to do that. If *YOU* do the same and get addicted, that's your problem, not mine.

Score: 0

By Straspey

edited Mar 31, 2007 - 3:31 PM

Here's how it does become YOUR problem:

* - The mechanic at your garage who's supposed to be fixing the brakes on YOUR wife's car has an online gambling addiction. He rushes through the repair job on YOUR car so he can return to the PC in the back room and get back to his gambling. YOU and/or YOUR wife will be picking up YOUR kids from school later today in that car.

* - The guy who manages YOUR portfolio and investments...the money for YOUR retirement & kids' college education...is an uncontrollable gambling addict sitting at the PC in his office and "borrowing" money from YOUR account, which he plans to repay after he recoups his $75,000 in losses.

* As a result of an acute addiction to online gambling, YOUR doctor can barely drag himself away from his computer long enough to spend time with his patients. He mixes up YOUR blood samples with that of another patient and as a result YOUR health is mis-diagnosed.

* - The teenager behind the counter at your local Target is in deep over his head and is looking for a way out. While you're making a purchase, this kid steals YOUR credit card info and later that day maxes out the card at an online casino, while ruining YOUR credit.

* - The day after having a visit from your in-laws, you notice that YOUR favorite $450 power tool is missing from the garage. YOUR brother-in-law stole it (while telling his wife that he asked if he could "borrow" it from you) because his online gambling has become so out of control he's now reduced to visiting the pawn shop to feed his addiction.

* - That addicted mechanic failed to properly repair the brakes on some other guy's car because he was too busy feeding his addiction to online gambling. While driving on the highway, the guy's brakes fail, he loses control and slams in YOUR car injuring or killing YOU and YOUR family.

So, go ahead and get your drunken blow job while you exercise your right to gamble. You're right, it's not YOUR problem because you just keep telling yourself, "None of those things could ever happen to ME."

And...btw...except for those areas in which it is strictly regulated by law, offline gambling IS illegal.

Finally, just for the record, I am not now, nor have I ever been addicted to gambling. I find it boring.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Apr 1, 2007 - 11:39 PM

'ZZZzzap!!!!'

"OUCH!"

Damn, I just got hit by lightning!

'*thud...ga-thud*'

Then run over by a bus!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Apr 2, 2007 - 2:05 PM

Solution: Ban lightning and buses.

Spend billions to draft and enforce those laws.

Or...

Stay inside when there's lightning and stay out of the way of buses.

Huh...decisions, decisions... :p

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Mar 31, 2007 - 8:10 PM

lmao...

Typical "save the children" rhetoric.

Each one of the instances you mention are *extremely* rare if they've ever occured at all.

You want laws to deny the rights of billions becuase those very few who abuse that right *might* inflict *some* damage on an insignificant (statistically non-existant) portion of the population?

Go away. Your emotional pandering doesn't work here.

Score: 0

By Straspey

posted Mar 31, 2007 - 10:30 PM

"Each one of the instances you mention are *extremely* rare if they've ever occured at all."

And your statistical data to back up that assumption is....???

"You want laws to deny the rights of billions becuase those very few who abuse that right *might* inflict *some* damage on an insignificant (statistically non-existant) portion of the population?"

BILLIONS ??? Erm...have you checked the population of the planet lately ? And again..."statisically non-existant"...please provide some of your "statistics"

"Your emotional pandering doesn't work here."

Seems like it worked with you. Of course since my scenarios are "statistically impossible", that means it could NEVER happen to you.

Sorry if I made you feel a bit uncomfortable.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 2, 2007 - 9:29 AM

BILLIONS ??? Erm...have you checked the population of the planet lately ? And again..."statisically non-existant"...please provide some of your "statistics"

6.7 Billion World Population. I think this would qualify as billions.

Statistics?

From http://www.oagaa.org/html/statistics.htm

Current estimates state that approximately 1-3% of the population meet the DSM-IV criteria for pathological gambling.

Do the math. 1-3 percent of the population has a problem (and this is world population, not just the US)...and you want to limit everyone else's rights?

Don't let the lobbyists and emotional pandering of special interest groups dissuade you for the FACTS.

Not the least bit uncomfortable. I enjoy every chance I get to give liberals a little peek into this thing called REALITY.

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Mar 31, 2007 - 11:41 PM

Actually, I agree with PCTool on this one...there's a reason why I would get a recommendation from a satisfied customer before going to a mechanic (or a doctor, for that matter) , or to put it another way, it's up to me to do the due dilligence to make sure that the person I'm hiring will do the job properly.

Having the government make something illegal will not solve the underlying problem.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 2, 2007 - 9:15 AM

You got it.

He didn't.

Surprise, surprise...

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Apr 1, 2007 - 11:41 PM

Exactly. Straspey's opinion is typical of the 'not my fault, I can't help it' attitude of so many people these days. It's not my fault I stood on a rake while trying to rob you, and I'll sue you to prove it.

I'm sick of this bulls*** 'Nanny State' crap.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Mar 31, 2007 - 10:10 AM

Such intelligence.

I love the assumption that if there is online gambling that all of the money goes overseas.

Really????

Let's see. With an online gambling ban, neither domestic nor offshore online gambling is supported.
The DOMESTIC operations are effected as well, and I suspect more than the offshore operations.

So shove this notion that it is a domestic versus a foreign issue.

But if you do a bit more research, the notion that gambling is banned is complete nonsense!
You can still participate via alternative methods of payment.

Oh really??? But...But...But...

No. What the US government is trying to do is prevent poker players from sending and receiving money using online payment systems, such as Neteller (which is based off-shore and has promised to continue business as usual). They are NOT after players, they are targeting the organizations which support the players by moving their money back and forth.

And these same methods are major sources of money laundering.

Oh? Really? But...But...

There’s absolutely nothing to prevent US players from sending and receiving checks and money orders. Yes, it’s more difficult and time-consuming, so the chances are that the net result of the Online Gambling Ban will be to drive out the casual players.

So all of you jumping up and down over "all online gambling is banned" and "all the money will go overseas".

Sit down and Get your facts straight.

Score: 0

By dlab21

edited Mar 31, 2007 - 5:36 PM

"such as Neteller (which is based off-shore and has promised to continue business as usual)."
us: http://content.neteller....r_businessupdate_us.htm
canadian: http://content.neteller....sinessupdate_canada.htm
yea withdrawing from the us market and now not servicing canadian players even though the US ban did not affect them... business as usual i guess.
get your facts straight

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Mar 31, 2007 - 8:01 PM

Like I give a Sh!t if they lose business!

The ban was with regards to the online transfer of funds with regards to these operations, domestic as well as foreign! I don't care what the name of the bill says!

But just keep focusing your stupidity on domestic versus foreign! What a bunch of idiots!

Try debating the real issues for a change instead of your ignorant fantasy perceptions of it!

Score: 0

By dlab21

posted Apr 2, 2007 - 5:26 PM

yea cause thats what i was focusing on. you stated neteller had promised to continue serving all customers, i corrected you. my domestic vs foreign debate must have confused you as i was actually reminding you to check your facts before posting a jackass comment like "Sit down and Get your facts straight" when you obviously feel you can say whatever you want regardless of validity.

Score: 0

By Alex Stevens

posted Mar 30, 2007 - 9:07 PM

But if we allow overseas gambling, all the money goes overseas too and it might support TURRRR!

Score: 0

By AntiochMedia

posted Mar 30, 2007 - 6:07 PM

I think that situations like this are like porn - they should take this to ICANN and place restrictions on usage of domain names. If a domain name is .casino or what not, then ISPs can be federally pushed to block the domain completely. I'm not sure how this would work if people access the site via IP, but I think that if Ohio (random state) has laws that restrict gambling, then ISPs should not be allowed to facilitate a conduit to gambling within Ohio and the federal government / FCC should enact a plan to restrict this.

Personally, I think that online gambling is 'neat' - however, I believe that US Citizens are subject to US law, and hell - people paying online gambling sites are in essence placing their $ in foreign countries whereas local lotteries and other US regulated 'gambling' areas lose. Hell if everyone stars gambling online, it can only hurt Las Vegas tourism in the end.

Bush is a fool though - I'm not comfortable with him being involved in this as an amicable solution pleasing to the US and the WTO would be ignored at his pleasure.

Score: 0

By Natrunner

posted Mar 30, 2007 - 8:07 PM

Get your facts straight before typing away with anti-Bush rhetoric. The bill was passed by congress with bipartisan support. And I might add congress is elected by the people. You are the fool my friend.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 31, 2007 - 1:05 AM

Isn't that the beauty of the US? Even if the majority wants something, if it's unconstitutional, it can't be done.

Right?

Right?

Well, that was how it was *supposed* to work...

Nothing Anti-Bush here. That comment was directed 100% at BOTH parties.

Score: 0

By Natrunner

posted Mar 31, 2007 - 6:49 PM

"Bush is a fool though - I'm not comfortable with him being involved in this as an amicable solution pleasing to the US and the WTO would be ignored at his pleasure."

I guess you didn't read his last line which invalidated his comment. Very politically motivated and very short sighted. Try reading the comment again PC. You must have conveniently left that part out.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 31, 2007 - 8:05 PM

I should have italicised the portion of your comment I was referring to. Don't need to read his, because it had no bearing.

The bill was passed by congress with bipartisan support.

As I said, isn't it great they can't pass unconstitutional laws? Oh..wait...

Score: 0

By Scary Guy

posted Mar 30, 2007 - 7:26 PM

Yeah and that's going to work about as well as the .xxx domain name that was suggested did.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Mar 30, 2007 - 5:48 PM

This was only a matter of time in coming. Whether you like a trade or not, you can't have it legal within your borders, illegal to trade, and expect that no one will complain. Those islands have a great case.

Take Washington State, for example. State and multi-state lotteries, card rooms, native casinos, online ponies... but it's a felony to bet 25c online. If there were a trade violation, that's a textbook definition. If you aren't sure, switch gambling to something benign, like apples.

We grow apples, here, there, all over, but if I want an apple from Antigua, I go to jail. Figure that one out...

Score: 0

By radioactive21

posted Mar 30, 2007 - 3:26 PM

australia has banned online gaming for awhile now. If the WTO cared so much they would have said something, why now?

If they had made a case with Australia the US would probably have had second thoughts about the ban.

Australia still strongly bans online gambling but it seems like no one knows that.

Score: 0

By horsecharles

posted Mar 31, 2007 - 11:43 AM

Individual provinces can and do allow online gambling-- some do, some don't.

Score: 0

By Alex Stevens

edited Mar 30, 2007 - 3:51 PM

Australia? Where is tha...oh. That's that little island with the kangaroos isn't it?

/kidding :P

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Mar 30, 2007 - 3:47 PM

because the us only bans foreign online gambling...

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Mar 30, 2007 - 3:02 PM

Yeah, like the government should care.

As if the WTO has any say in the internal policies of this or any country.

Maybe they should pass a UN resolution....

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Mar 30, 2007 - 7:47 PM

Bottom line: WTO needs their heads shoved up their butts. I may have heard them out if they'd shown any signs of reason and sanity, but since they believe themselves to have powers of an international dictator, I don't care what the issue is--nobody owns the world, the buck stops at the leaders of the nation and they answer to the people of the US not some wanna-be dictators.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Mar 30, 2007 - 3:09 PM

Perhaps not directly, but most countries want to become or retain their membership in the WTO.

...hence Putin's caving on the issue of copyright.

While they don't have much direct influence, or ability to censure, most countries aren't going to want to piss them off.

King George, of course, probably won't even blink. (Unless the media picks up on it and tries to use it as yet another excuse to crucify him, ala the US Attorney Generals)

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Mar 30, 2007 - 8:32 PM

"While they don't have much direct influence, or ability to censure, most countries aren't going to want to piss them off."

I'm reminded of the words Thomas Jefferson used in over a dozen of his speeches/writings:

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."

This UN/WTO/World Dictator's Association/etc. crap is getting way too out of hand. US needs to break from it all, and yes, suffer the consequences.

Think I'm an arrogant prick? No, I just give a da*n about a country that sadley nobody else that lives here seems to care for anymore.

Arrogance? No--it's called reality. Political correctness has destroyed all of our ability to see things for what they are. It's stupid to say anything short of what things are and how they are, yet we can't say anything truthful because God forbid any fool's feelings get hurt? Since when was right thing ever popular in any culture throughout history? Wasn't Jesus, the only perfect man in human history, CRUCIFIED for cryin out loud?!? The fact that this was an unpopular decision with the rest of the world shows me it really was the right decision.

This isn't a dam popularity contest--white is white, even if it means me, my friends, or even my family die because of it. THAT is patriotism. Is this a democracy? No, read your frikin constitution--it is a "Democratic REPUBLIC", which is NOT a Democracy. The people elect leaders to represent their views, but the leaders make the ultimate decisions. I could never run for office in this country because truth has no room for compromise. I would accomplish absolutely nothing, nor would anyone, save about 12,000 people in this country that may stand behind me, actually vote for me in the first place.

"However, restrictive policies like that of the United States have harmed its business, and now the casinos make around $130 million per year."

It is restrictive because we elected leaders that have decided that was in our best interest. Perhaps we screwed up, but again this has 0% to do with the topic at hand, Ed. I am beginning to be quite skeptical of your intentions as well having read that last statement. Your opinion is fine, give it, but my opinion is that you are crossing the line between opinion and anti-US propoganda, and I'll leave this site in a heartbeat if you don't believe me.

So--what about the Online gambling business? Since when did anybody here care? Quit lying to yourself, nobody in this country gives a dam about casinos profiting in or for other countries. If you're in need, we (the US) are ALWAYS there to assist with financial support. Sure, we make mistakes, but just because you can't live without our money doesn't mean we are responsible for your lack of reason.

"A complaint was brought before the group by Antigua and Barbuda, where many offshore online casinos are located. It stems from a 2005 verdict by the WTO that ruled some of the US' restrictions ran afoul of WTO policies."

"A" complaint? Wonderful--so Osama Bin Ladin can tell the WTO something and if it is against the United States it makes the news. Why not just replace your right arms with white flags, frikin cowards!!! Don't give me that anonymous source crap either, if anybody wants to tell me what my country MUST or MUST not do, they'd better have the balls to back it up. No Mr. Anonymous tells me what to do--I take orders from just one Person, one Entity, and following His laws mean following our laws--but I'm not gonna listen to some phantom complainer.

"It is not immediately clear whether the Bush administration would even pay attention to the ruling: its past actions in dealing with world bodies have shown the US government strongly resists any attempts to interject in its policies."

I pray Bush make the sane decision on this one. Will it be popular? Not a chance. Oh--noticed how unpopular Bush is accross the globe, speaking of which?

Well, I'm off this site for a while. I'll check back from time to time but until I see drastic change--which believe me I'm not confident I'll ever see (especially given the "extreme" stance I'm taking)--I'm getting my news from somewhere else.

I don't do business with those that essentially use my country as an example to the world, that they would accuse without any evidence, rhyme or reason. That last statement in this article is not fact, but you spout it with the implied "everyone knows that..." tag before it.

Well, not everyone knows, Ed. Sorry I come accross so harshley, but you just made a huge plunge in my book with that statement, whether your intentions were bad or not. It shows your attitude towards this country's government, and that was the last straw.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 31, 2007 - 12:59 AM

Dude...

You talkin' to Ed, or me?

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Mar 30, 2007 - 3:24 PM

Yeah, the media will crucify him for opposing online gambling as there is SUCH an upswell in grassroots support for gambling , let alone online gambling, in the US.

And what does This have to do with any other country? (But you are right about the Putin issue)

And the US had better get their act together or they will have to stop funding the WTO and the world bank??????? Now thats a real threat!

Many would argue that we should have stopped that years ago!

Heaven hope that they do not ask them who did it! That will really intimidate them!

And CONGRESS passed the measure - so you can play your little aristocracy game elsewhere. You are starting to sound like an idiot liberal. ;-)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 30, 2007 - 5:54 PM

Yeah, the media will crucify him for opposing online gambling as there is SUCH an upswell in grassroots support for gambling , let alone online gambling, in the US.

Depends on what region you live in, but there's a reason I put *tries* int here. :p (Ya gotta pay attention)

And the US had better get their act together or they will have to stop funding the WTO and the world bank??????? Now thats a real threat!

Don't have a clue what you're talking about here.

You are starting to sound like an idiot liberal. ;-)

Thanks for that. I haven't been that amused in quite some time. :D

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Mar 31, 2007 - 8:50 PM

Thanks for Finally catching an intended jibe intended to make you grin!

There MAY be hope for you yet...MAY being the operative word.

;-) ;-) ;-)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 2, 2007 - 9:14 AM

There is no hope. Hope is simply the denial of reality. *grin*

Score: 0

By elyl

posted Mar 30, 2007 - 5:27 PM

The US funding the WTO and the World Bank? What a laugh! The western country with the biggest national debt to the World Bank is the US - more like the World Bank funds the US!

Score: 0

By swlaurier

posted Mar 30, 2007 - 3:42 PM

And who Lobbied the congress & the senate for the this? The big Casino's in the US because they saw Big money leaving their Pockets. The US Gov't with just ignore the WTO until it's is Convenient and in their best interestof the US to comply. Just take a look at the Soft wood lumber issue with Canada. BTW the US never did comply with that issue.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Mar 30, 2007 - 4:08 PM

Oh no...and now we have the "its the huge corporations" conspiracy folks attributing blame for the world's ills.

Like I said. The average citizen in the US is going to be REALLY upset over a ban on online gambling! NOT!!!

Yup, the world would be a better place if we allow online gambling! And what a great cover for money laundering!

Score: 0

By iLLz

<