Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   How Reid lost the internet poker gamble. Turns out he's easy to read and can't really bluff. This sorta explains his time as Senate president   (politico.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, senate president, signing bonus, Yucca Mountain, Jon Kyl, Dean Heller, Shelley Berkley, games of chance  
•       •       •

1169 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jan 2013 at 9:27 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



29 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-01-23 09:24:57 AM  
Harry Reid was the senate president?
 
2013-01-23 09:28:56 AM  
He did get McConnell to filibuster his own bill the other day.
 
2013-01-23 09:29:17 AM  
So subby, does that mean Biden is the Majority Leader?
 
2013-01-23 09:30:42 AM  

Aar1012: Harry Reid was the senate president?


Forget it, subtard's rolling.
 
2013-01-23 09:33:26 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: He did get McConnell to filibuster his own bill the other day.


That was actually a pretty brilliant bit of outmaneuvering.

The best part was that McCaskill was presiding and from the chair made fun of McConnell over it.
 
2013-01-23 09:35:12 AM  
So, according to the line of succession, does this make Boehner president pro tem?
 
2013-01-23 09:37:01 AM  

propasaurus: So, according to the line of succession, does this make Boehner president pro tem?


It means that Van Jones is speaker.
 
2013-01-23 09:38:15 AM  
I wish he would get it legalized. I used to make a little bit of money before they screwed it all up.
 
2013-01-23 09:41:19 AM  
This issue baffles me, there's no good reason to ban online poker other than as a puritanical morality power play.  Online poker could bring in BILLIONS in tax revenue.  Last I checked, revenue was an issue that was being talked about a bit in Washington.
 
2013-01-23 09:42:55 AM  

Hobodeluxe: I wish he would get it legalized. I used to make a little bit of money before they screwed it all up.


Same here. I was no high roller, but usually brought in an extra few hundred a week. Now it's too much of a hassle to fund and get paid.
 
2013-01-23 09:44:27 AM  

Trivia Jockey: This issue baffles me, there's no good reason to ban online poker other than as a puritanical morality power play.  Online poker could bring in BILLIONS in tax revenue.  Last I checked, revenue was an issue that was being talked about a bit in Washington.


This country does not have a revenue problem... it has a lack of God worshiping problem... or something like that...
 
2013-01-23 09:44:43 AM  

LarryDan43: Hobodeluxe: I wish he would get it legalized. I used to make a little bit of money before they screwed it all up.

Same here. I was no high roller, but usually brought in an extra few hundred a week. Now it's too much of a hassle to fund and get paid.


Ditto.  One year I won enough to go play one of the $1,500 NLHE WSOP events.  Now I have to pony up the cash myself (or take a lot of trips over to Indiana to play at the Horseshoe).
 
2013-01-23 09:45:33 AM  

hugram: This country does not have a revenue problem... it has a lack of God worshiping problem... or something like that...


Well, if God wanted us to have the right own guns, I'm sure he would be in favor of a little whisky and poker.
 
2013-01-23 09:48:29 AM  

Trivia Jockey: This issue baffles me, there's no good reason to ban online poker other than as a puritanical morality power play.  Online poker could bring in BILLIONS in tax revenue.  Last I checked, revenue was an issue that was being talked about a bit in Washington.


And not to mention that gambling is legal in like 40% of the states, and there are Indian casinos in about 60%. Only like 20% of the states are there neither casinos nor indian casinos.
 
2013-01-23 09:56:16 AM  

Hobodeluxe: I wish he would get it legalized. I used to make a little bit of money before they screwed it all up.


Yeah...just what a vast majority of welfare recipients need....a very easy way to lose money. You want to gamble....travel to a casino.
 
2013-01-23 09:59:14 AM  

ferretman: Hobodeluxe: I wish he would get it legalized. I used to make a little bit of money before they screwed it all up.

Yeah...just what a vast majority of welfare recipients need....a very easy way to lose money. You want to gamble....travel to a casino.


That's simply not true.  The demographics of online poker (when it was legal) was definitely different than those you might see at a casino.  Poker is not "gambling" in the traditional sense.  And let's not forget that online poker enjoyed a good decade (if not longer) of legal success without destroying the nation's poor.
 
2013-01-23 10:01:29 AM  

ferretman: Hobodeluxe: I wish he would get it legalized. I used to make a little bit of money before they screwed it all up.

Yeah...just what a vast majority of welfare recipients need....a very easy way to lose money. You want to gamble....travel to a casino.


Lottery notwithstanding?
 
2013-01-23 10:04:42 AM  

Trivia Jockey: This issue baffles me, there's no good reason to ban online poker other than as a puritanical morality power play.  Online poker could bring in BILLIONS in tax revenue.  Last I checked, revenue was an issue that was being talked about a bit in Washington.


Brick-and-mortar casinos, while they do want the ability to run online tables, are more than a little afeared of people simply not going to their psychological isolation chambers to spend way more time and money than they'd planned.

There's a whole lot that goes into casino design to make sure you stay longer and spend more. Not so much the case with the onlines.

// and don't underestimate the morality police
 
2013-01-23 10:05:29 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Brick-and-mortar casinos, while they do want the ability to run online tables, are more than a little afeared of people simply not going to their psychological isolation chambers to spend way more time and money than they'd planned.


But the casinos are actually in support of making online poker legal again.
 
2013-01-23 10:18:09 AM  

Trivia Jockey: Dr Dreidel: Brick-and-mortar casinos, while they do want the ability to run online tables, are more than a little afeared of people simply not going to their psychological isolation chambers to spend way more time and money than they'd planned.

But the casinos are actually in support of making online poker legal again.


FTA: Most of the large casino companies, represented by the AGA, want Congress to ban betting on games of chance online but leave a carve-out for online poker, which they argue is a game of skill. Without that, they warn, the nation will see an explosion in online gambling of all sorts, from lotteries to roulette, that would discourage players from visiting brick-and-mortar casinos in Nevada and elsewhere.


They only want online poker made legal. For everything else, attend services at your local gaming establishment.


// OR ELSE
 
2013-01-23 10:23:54 AM  

Trivia Jockey: But the casinos are actually in support of making online poker legal again.


Dr Dreidel: They only want online poker made legal.


What we have here is failure to communicate.
 
2013-01-23 10:30:08 AM  

Trivia Jockey: Trivia Jockey: But the casinos are actually in support of making online poker legal again.

Dr Dreidel: They only want online poker made legal.

What we have here is failure to communicate.


Heh. The B&Ms are against anything other than poker, to protect their other interests. I suspect the exception is due to the popularity of poker (and many variants), the formerly-legal status of online poker (and the popularity of that specifically) - they want to be on "our" side, getting "our" favorite game back to us, but they still want to protect their other cash cows. Poker, IIRC, is the worst money-maker for casinos, since you're not playing against the house (they just take a rake - it's steady money, sure, but not roulette money).

Weren't the casinos part of the reason online poker was made illegal to begin with?

// so we otherwise agree?
 
2013-01-23 10:34:50 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Weren't the casinos part of the reason online poker was made illegal to begin with?


I'm not positive, but I don't think so.  Everything I read back in 2006 was that it was a morality-police type of law typical of a religiously-motivated president (you know, the one who said God told him to do stuff).  Sure, I suppose it's possible the casino lobby could have been involved, but none of the articles I read mentioned that.

I remember being furious with the Bush administration because the GOP often railed against Big Government overreach, and this law was a prime example of Big Government overreach.  I was a big online poker player.
 
2013-01-23 10:36:42 AM  
Pokerstars' cashout policy sure does suck balls now.

Just thought I'd share.
 
2013-01-23 10:38:04 AM  
The GOP's stance:

"Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet and call for reversal of the Justice Department's decision distorting the formerly accepted meaning of the Wire Act that could open the door to Internet betting."

Link
 
2013-01-23 10:40:39 AM  
I was in Las Vegas, playing 1/2 NL at The Venetian when the shut down and seizure of Full Tilt happened.

The dealer broke the news to the table. Most people were like "how about that".

I was like "well that really f*cking sucks".
 
2013-01-23 11:01:53 AM  
fark congress and their farking internet poker ban rider on the port protection act. That shiat made me have to go back to school a get a job.

/bitter
//jobs are for suckers
 
2013-01-23 11:13:22 AM  
The 'problem' with online poker is that Harrah's and MGM didn't figure out how to make $$ on it first. Their lobbyists were better than FT's and UB's.
 
2013-01-23 12:12:31 PM  

LiquidTester: fark congress and their farking internet poker ban rider on the port protection act.


Yeah, that was some sneaky bullshiat adding it on to the Safe Port Act.  Who was going to vote against the Safe Port Act?  I personally think unrelated riders on bills are total crap.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report