The TalkingPoker.com Forum  

Go Back   The TalkingPoker.com Forum > All Things Poker > General Poker Discussion
Register Blogs Arcade HH Converter Calendar

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 02-09-08, 04:11 PM
Talking Poker's Avatar
Talking Poker Talking Poker is offline
Adminimus Maximus
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Florida Coast
Posts: 27,480
Talking Poker has between 3000 and 3499 Rep PointsTalking Poker has between 3000 and 3499 Rep PointsTalking Poker has between 3000 and 3499 Rep PointsTalking Poker has between 3000 and 3499 Rep PointsTalking Poker has between 3000 and 3499 Rep PointsTalking Poker has between 3000 and 3499 Rep PointsTalking Poker has between 3000 and 3499 Rep PointsTalking Poker has between 3000 and 3499 Rep PointsTalking Poker has between 3000 and 3499 Rep PointsTalking Poker has between 3000 and 3499 Rep PointsTalking Poker has between 3000 and 3499 Rep Points
Default

That is interesting. I'm actually a little bit surprised to see Stars on that list with the other two operations.

As for the "huge fines" the US is facing from the WTO, unfortunately, that didn't really work out the way any of us hoped it would. They ended up getting off for peanuts. I don't know how the US got away with it (I can certainly speculate), but it's really disappointing.

Let's see if I can find a link or you somewhere.

OK, here ya go:


Freaking $21 million a year. They were looking for $3.4 billion.

Ridiculous.
__________________

Got RakeBack?
27% at Full Tilt | 33% at Cake Poker | 30% at Carbon Poker
  #27  
Old 02-10-08, 03:47 PM
billyboy62 billyboy62 is offline
Fish
 

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 27
billyboy62 has less than 10 Rep Points
Default

21 mill are they taking the piss or what i thaught the eec was going to nail the usa for breaching freadom of trade .How the hell did they buy there way out of that situation
  #28  
Old 02-10-08, 06:27 PM
Kurn's Avatar
Kurn Kurn is offline
cha'DIch of the Poker Gods
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Warwick, RI
Posts: 3,584
Kurn User has between 2000 and 2499 Rep PointsKurn User has between 2000 and 2499 Rep PointsKurn User has between 2000 and 2499 Rep PointsKurn User has between 2000 and 2499 Rep PointsKurn User has between 2000 and 2499 Rep PointsKurn User has between 2000 and 2499 Rep PointsKurn User has between 2000 and 2499 Rep PointsKurn User has between 2000 and 2499 Rep PointsKurn User has between 2000 and 2499 Rep PointsKurn User has between 2000 and 2499 Rep PointsKurn User has between 2000 and 2499 Rep Points
Default

Really not how it happened. The WTO regs explicitly state that no member nation will be required to accept any business that is in violation with its own laws.

The crux of the debateis the fact that no other nation has anything remotely resembling US federalism (the separation of federal and state jurisdiction and thus, law).

The US (federally speaking) has a clearly written law that makes it illegal to use electronic means to wager on sporting events (the Wire Act). In and of itself, that would normall exempt the US from having to allow its citizens to gamble on such events online.

However, there is a carve-out in the law, that permits electronic wagering (in those states that allow it) on horse racing. From the outside, that looks protectionist and thus in violation of the WTO regs. In reality it isn't, but there is an understandable disconnect. Most non-US entities have a hard time grasping that in the US, the federal government, in many cases, has zero authority to determine what is and is not legal in the several States.

Its a dichotomy. On constitutional grounds(since the US Constitution supercedes international agreements), the US is correct vis-a-vis the WTO. On rational libertarian grounds, the US govt is wrong on gambling in general.
__________________
"Animals die, friends die, and I shall die. But the one thing that will never die is the reputation I leave behind."

Old Norse adage
  #29  
Old 02-12-08, 12:00 AM
billyboy62 billyboy62 is offline
Fish
 

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 27
billyboy62 has less than 10 Rep Points
Default

Urgh what a very complicated situation we have here.I have studied a bit off polotics it is something i am really intrested in.I really do have a problem with understanding how state law can override federal law.I suppose it is a bit like the european community overriding british law something else that i have trouble getting to grips with lol.
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2004-2008 TalkingPoker.com