Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="the Styb, post: 1727818, member: 57740"] I'm not going to go point by point since there's a lot there, but thanks for the info! I admit I'm talking out of my ace about taxes and just spouting off what I believed was common sense. The extent of my tax knowledge is fill out the EZ, (though lately the A), stamp, mail, cash check if I'm lucky! Does this mean I need to notify the IRS of the .59¢ stuck in Full Tilt limbo…? For the quote above though… Old ladies yanking cranks aren't gambling. They're passing the remaining minutes of their lives with a fun hobby. Honestly though, that statement was meant as a joke. :) [B]In Other News:[/B] I was reading the 1996 [I]National Gambling Impact Study Commission Final Report[/I] available [URL="http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ngisc/reports/fullrpt.html"]here[/URL]. It's the end product of a three-year, Bill Clinton funded study on the effects of the then-growing gambling craze and the basis of everything that went into the UIGEA. There is an entire section devoted to internet gambling. (You know, after typing that acronym a million times these past few days and understanding the smoke and mirrors used to build and enact it, I can't help noticing its striking similarity to the word "ouija"…) [I]Section Seven: Gambling's Impact On People And Places[/I] deals primarily with B&M casinos and contains the following statements: ([B][I]bold italics are mine[/I][/B]) What the…? Or, to put it another way… Casinos bring in a lot of jobs and money to poor communities, but they also have adverse affects which we can't quite put our finger on, but we've got it narrowed down to either abuse and neglect of family and friends or, possibly, ghosts. There are also some great tearjerker snippets salted around the report from gambling addicts and families torn apart by gambling. While I don't discount that these are serious issues, I find it incredibly flawed that dozens of people were invited to testify before the commission about how they lost their homes, jobs and families to the evils of gambling, yet at no point did the commission invite a Doyle Brunson, Danny Negreanau or Chris Moneymaker to testify that gambling improved their lives, or at least their finances. Can you say "flawed methodology"? [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us

Language