Sheldon Adelson's Attack on Online Gambling

[LarkMarlow]

Who is the government to babysit my money?

Ironically the party and candidates that Adelson supports unilaterally feel the same way, which can only be interpreted to mean that he does too.

 

[LarkMarlow]

I have time now to properly respond to this article and I am going to pick him apart quite easily.

And so you did, with elegance and grace. I agree with everything you said 100%. Kudos!

 

[curtinsea]

Say a guy with $10k to his name deposits it all, and a millionaire deposits $100 twice in one day and loses it all both times. Are we really cutting of the millionaire while we are fine with the other guy putting his life savings online?

I'm not arguing against a cap on number of daily deposits, just that I think an amount being associated with it would also be a good idea.

I'm really not sure how to tackle the "cap" issue. I would say that we could have a low cap (like $1k) and then allow people to request larger caps based on their wealth, but that just seems like over regulation and a hassle for people. I'm not sure how to handle the issue, but I would agree there ideally would be some safeguards in place.

It's a pattern of behavior that, while not always, often indicates problem gambling. While you give an example that is pretty extreme to the point of being silly, it would surely be an exception, not the rule.

More likely, someone decides they are willing to put $100 at risk, and upon losing that hundred, decides they can spare another $100 trying to win the first hundred back. And upon losing that $100 . . . .

If they were operating upon reason, if they could afford to risk $300, they would have risked $300 to begin with. Mind you, we are talking about in a regulated marketplace, where your money is not in 'danger' (as in being stolen, confiscated, seized, etc).

It may inconvenience some briefly. After all, we're only talking about giving you a day to cool off. And next time you deposit, if you wish you can deposit $500.

 

[Reptar7]

It's a pattern of behavior that, while not always, often indicates problem gambling. While you give an example that is pretty extreme to the point of being silly, it would surely be an exception, not the rule.

More likely, someone decides they are willing to put $100 at risk, and upon losing that hundred, decides they can spare another $100 trying to win the first hundred back. And upon losing that $100 . . . .

If they were operating upon reason, if they could afford to risk $300, they would have risked $300 to begin with. Mind you, we are talking about in a regulated marketplace, where your money is not in 'danger' (as in being stolen, confiscated, seized, etc).

It may inconvenience some briefly. After all, we're only talking about giving you a day to cool off. And next time you deposit, if you wish you can deposit $500.

While I appreciate this position, I don't think 2 deposits in a day is that unreasonable. However, I wouldn't be in favor of any more deposits in a day than that. Perhaps a new player will only put on $10, sit at 10NL, lose it while enjoying themselves, and want to continue playing. Do you really want to decline that player's deposit? They might never play again if they can't deposit that day. Another possibility (which I've had experience with) is that a player will sign up because they heard there is a $25 tourney that day. They deposit and find out the tourney is $25+2 and need to get another $2. Are we really going to decline that person's 2nd deposit?

I think the deposit dollar cap is much more important than number of deposits allowed daily in preventing problem gamblers from destroying their lives. I don't know how that would be implemented though. Certainly depositing on credit should be discouraged or banned, as people can run up huge bills that they can't pay for by using a credit card.

Really, I just think something needs to be done to look out for those gambling addicts who only lose. I'm just not sure what. I'd be fine with limiting daily deposits to one, but I don't think that really helps those addicts and it can inconvenience people.

 

[Reptar7]

Who is the government to babysit my money? If I want to make six $100 deposits in a day or a one time $30k deposit, it's MY MONEY!!! I'm tired of acquiescing control of MY LIFE to the government. We need to stop allowing the government to dictate how we spend our free time and money. The government is there to serve us, not be a parent!

Just to be clear, in my posts I am not advocating government involvement at all. I think the responsibility for looking out for gambling addicts who do nothing but lose should fall on the establishment offering the games, much like a bartender can be found negligent for over serving.

 

[S3mper]

Cardschat should try to get people who speak out against poker and people who are for poker who have the publics eye on Cardschat and do a Q&A like they have done with Chris Moneymaker or Vanessa Rousso, or to have a live debate with these people and put it out on a public stage where more then CardsChat members will see it and more then Poker Players will see it.

Dakota picked apart his statement very well, people who are for online gaming probably picked apart what he said as they were reading it I know I was doing so. But people who don't know much about poker may not pick apart what he said and may believe his (I'm sorry) his stupidity and lies.

Which is a big deal especially if some one in a position to affect change reads this or hears about it and believes it.

There are two sides of every story we know his side and his story is complete and utter (explicit) but his side and his story is being heard, ours however is NOT, and this needs to change.

 

[Aces2w1n]

You need some known icons to speak up for poker. Not poker pro's because the outside world doesn't know of them like we do.

Money talks.


Could you manage a bycott?

 

[S3mper]

Matt Daemon or Ed Norton would be two big names to talk about poker...

Also I wanted to add that online poker is one of the best things that could of happened to live poker because of one man Chris Moneymaker if it weren't for online poker Moneymaker would of never played in a satellite to go to the wsop he would of never went to the WSOP and he would of never won the WSOP therefore the Moneymaker effect would of never happened.

So Sheldon should be thanking online poker =)

 

[Michael Paler]

Are this guy's eyes brown?

What a crock! He is so full of @#$%...Ok, I cannot really add to what's been said here, his hypocrisy is clearly called out..."Oh, that 20% downswing has not affected US, but I feel bad for the little guys this will hurt". What a load! If you feel so bad, why not reduce your own business 20% to help those poor Indian casinos you are stomping on in a downturn market? Yes? No? Clearly, you fear the competition.

Most likely, however, you are facing tough questions as to why your business is down by whatever amount (no one escapes a downturn, NO ONE) it is! So, instead of admitting you are behind the curve on this (probably by thinking if you stop one online entity, you can stop them all) and taking responsibility for backing a dead horse, you are clearly performing what we in the Navy used to call "covering your backside"!!! CLEARLY, some on your board of directors have questioned your belief that the light at the end of the tunnel is not, as you insist, the exit, but rather the oncoming train!

It happens. You get older, look at those kids on the corner and automatically think "criminal", It's ok, baby. It happens.

One thing I think we can do as a community is this: Call these reporters AND OTHERS out on one simple thing...

"legalized online gambling"

POKER IS NOT GAMBLING!!! Stop lumping us in with horse betting and online slots! It's not the same thing! And, Mr. Adelson, since so many casinos have no longer continued to carry live poker, changing it to an online system in house (Valley View casino, for one example, here in CA) perhaps you could as well amend your statements to leave us out of it. You don't like people sitting at home playing someone elses electronic one arm bandit, or placing a bet on a horse? Fine. LEAVE US poker PLAYERS, PLAYERS OF A GAME OF SKILL, THE HELL OUT OF IT.

I swear, would these guys really compare Chess with Sorry and The Game of Life? Of course not, they would look stupid. But this clown knows the common misconception, so he takes advantage and throws us under the bus.

Want to guess where I will not ever play poker? Want to guess where I would never invest my money? That is correct sir, LVS. Your stock is down, I wonder why.

 

[curtinsea]

While I appreciate this position, I don't think 2 deposits in a day is that unreasonable. However, I wouldn't be in favor of any more deposits in a day than that. Perhaps a new player will only put on $10, sit at 10NL, lose it while enjoying themselves, and want to continue playing. Do you really want to decline that player's deposit? They might never play again if they can't deposit that day.

A two deposit per day limit is what I am talking about. It's the third deposit request that would indicate a problem, imho

 

[curtinsea]

Just to be clear, in my posts I am not advocating government involvement at all. I think the responsibility for looking out for gambling addicts who do nothing but lose should fall on the establishment offering the games, much like a bartender can be found negligent for over serving.

That bartender would be found negligent only by government involvement. But I agree with what you are getting at here.

 

[TeUnit]

sheldon always seems to go against the grain

vegas has the most to gain be legalizing

 

[Leo 50]

I will NOT be spending any of my money at his casinos!

In California there are plenty of poker rooms and they are always busy.
Online poker never took away from them, in fact I would guess it made a
lot of online players go to the brick and mortar rooms just to experience live poker.
And most of them lost the first few times around.

The Nevada poker site “AbsolutePoker” has teamed up with Stations Casinos to allow players to
deposit and withdraw and even play in their rooms while staying in
their casinos as long as you are in Nevada.

Doesn’t sound like they're worried about legalized online poker!

 

[rhombus]

all about adapting to change, alot of businesses have gone bankrupt in the UK and ROW due to not adapting to the internet and technology. Why should casinos be any different.
Just sems like an attack on a threat/competition. Get over it, adapt and stop being a greedy B$*&£"!

 

[Michael Paler]

I think the deposit dollar cap is much more important than number of deposits allowed daily in preventing problem gamblers from destroying their lives. I don't know how that would be implemented though. Certainly depositing on credit should be discouraged or banned, as people can run up huge bills that they can't pay for by using a credit card.

Really, I just think something needs to be done to look out for those gambling addicts who only lose. I'm just not sure what. I'd be fine with limiting daily deposits to one, but I don't think that really helps those addicts and it can inconvenience people.

Do not fool yourself! Look, New York tried to ban large soda's, and it was just stupid; People will simply buy 2 smaller ones. Or go someplace else.

You just cannot control the people who abuse things, and by trying you instead abuse those of us who do not have a problem!

You really think limiting deposits will have an affect? It will not. They will then just deposit on more locations, or go and blow it elsewhere.

I realize the tragedies that occur, but you simply cannot regulate bad behavior. IT NEVER WORKS. Go to any small casino and you will see folks who run in with the family paycheck, every dime to their name, ASAP. You close it down, they go someplace else. What about the good old state lottery? It's for a good cause, our schools, right? Bull hockey!! You know how many do the same thing...blow half or more of their weekly pay hoping to hit odds that are in the millions-to-one?!? How many spend every dime buying those tickets? Is education of a child more important than a roof over his head or food in his stomach? Yet, lets face it - you close down the lotto, they will just find another place to spend it. What then? Take their money from them and dole it out? Force them to do the right thing?

At that point, welcome to communism. Be careful where this line of thinking takes you. Who will decide who has a problem and needs to be controlled? Who will decide what constitutes a problem in the first place? Not you, Not me. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.

Sadly, the only thing that can ever possibly help an addict of any kind is the addict him or her self. It's never a program or restrictions, ITS THEM! Just because they follow a ten step program, that does not mean that it "worked". The abuser has to want it to work. With gambling, It's (sadly) just never going to happen until they are out on the curb, family and all opportunity lost, and sick of what has happened more than they are happy when betting. You just hope to God it doesn't get that far before they wake up. I think Eric Lindgren has a problem with sports betting or horses, and he woke up before it was too late. I wish him all the luck in the world, but I will not support limiting my freedoms to accommodate his bad behavior, nor do I think he would either.

We just have to accept the fact that some people will always have weaknesses, and they are the only ones who can cure it. Help them, support them, yes, yes. But do not control them. Put up a fence, they will climb over it, under it, around it; They must simply no longer want what is being fenced in.

 

[Propane Goat]

This reminds me of Caesars trying to sell the WSOP brand to pokerstars and calling them a criminal organization at the same time.

Somebody should ask this crusty old fossil if he would have a problem with people buried under student loans to come to his B&M casinos to try and erase their debt, I'll bet he wouldn't complain about that. Nice try with the red herring, student loans have nothing to do with online gambling. If he had a lock on the online poker market he certainly wouldn't be complaining.

At some point we have to face up to the fact that large-scale prohibition of anything hasn't and isn't going to work, the more stringently something is banned the larger and more profitable the black market will be and the more likely organized crime will be in control of it. It can be argued that organized crime is already in control of B&M casinos but that's off topic.

 

[Reptar7]

That bartender would be found negligent only by government involvement. But I agree with what you are getting at here.

Well, yeah. In my scenario if the poker site let the addict blow all of his money, or if the bartender let the drunk continue drinking and then he did something dumb, both the poker site and the bartender could be prosecuted by the government for negligence. The government is still in charge of laws, just not regulating the behavior of people at a micro level. It is the bartender and the poker site's obligation to look over their tenants.

 

[Reptar7]

Do not fool yourself! Look, New York tried to ban large soda's, and it was just stupid; People will simply buy 2 smaller ones. Or go someplace else.

You just cannot control the people who abuse things, and by trying you instead abuse those of us who do not have a problem!

You really think limiting deposits will have an affect? It will not. They will then just deposit on more locations, or go and blow it elsewhere.

I realize the tragedies that occur, but you simply cannot regulate bad behavior. IT NEVER WORKS. Go to any small casino and you will see folks who run in with the family paycheck, every dime to their name, ASAP. You close it down, they go someplace else. What about the good old state lottery? It's for a good cause, our schools, right? Bull hockey!! You know how many do the same thing...blow half or more of their weekly pay hoping to hit odds that are in the millions-to-one?!? How many spend every dime buying those tickets? Is education of a child more important than a roof over his head or food in his stomach? Yet, lets face it - you close down the lotto, they will just find another place to spend it. What then? Take their money from them and dole it out? Force them to do the right thing?

At that point, welcome to communism. Be careful where this line of thinking takes you. Who will decide who has a problem and needs to be controlled? Who will decide what constitutes a problem in the first place? Not you, Not me. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.

Sadly, the only thing that can ever possibly help an addict of any kind is the addict him or her self. It's never a program or restrictions, ITS THEM! Just because they follow a ten step program, that does not mean that it "worked". The abuser has to want it to work. With gambling, It's (sadly) just never going to happen until they are out on the curb, family and all opportunity lost, and sick of what has happened more than they are happy when betting. You just hope to God it doesn't get that far before they wake up. I think Eric Lindgren has a problem with sports betting or horses, and he woke up before it was too late. I wish him all the luck in the world, but I will not support limiting my freedoms to accommodate his bad behavior, nor do I think he would either.

We just have to accept the fact that some people will always have weaknesses, and they are the only ones who can cure it. Help them, support them, yes, yes. But do not control them. Put up a fence, they will climb over it, under it, around it; They must simply no longer want what is being fenced in.

1. In a government regulated environment, players accounts should be linked to their persons, therefore making it possible to track balances/deposits/profits both to prevent abuses and for tax purposes.
2. Your points about the lottery and people blowing money in casinos is perfectly valid. I think if the government is going to put restrictions on online poker, they should also apply them to other gambling scenarios. It would be unfair to put them on one thing but not the other. As mentioned, I think it should be the poker sites that are responsible for trying to help gambling addicts, not the government.
3. I don't have that big of problem with communism. It is a perfect ideal that hasn't worked out in most applications as power has fallen to a select few that have abused it (ie USSR and China) although limited communistic policies have been very successful in countries like sweden and norway. In the US, we recently had a huge shift in the distribution of wealth. The Wal-Mart heirs now possess more wealth than the bottom 30% of the population. 1% of the population controls more wealth than the other 99%. 50% of the working population is living paycheck to paycheck with no reserves. For these reasons and more, I think some redistribution of wealth and protecting of the poor is needed.
4. Wasn't Lindgren one of the players that stole from Full Tilt or didn't pay back his loan?

 

[Michael Paler]

Oh yes, let us control them!!

1. In a government regulated environment, players accounts should be linked to their persons, therefore making it possible to track balances/deposits/profits both to prevent abuses and for tax purposes.
2. Your points about the lottery and people blowing money in casinos is perfectly valid. I think if the government is going to put restrictions on online poker, they should also apply them to other gambling scenarios. It would be unfair to put them on one thing but not the other. As mentioned, I think it should be the poker sites that are responsible for trying to help gambling addicts, not the government.
3. I don't have that big of problem with communism. It is a perfect ideal that hasn't worked out in most applications as power has fallen to a select few that have abused it (ie USSR and China) although limited communistic policies have been very successful in countries like Sweden and Norway. In the US, we recently had a huge shift in the distribution of wealth. The Wal-Mart heirs now possess more wealth than the bottom 30% of the population. 1% of the population controls more wealth than the other 99%. 50% of the working population is living paycheck to paycheck with no reserves. For these reasons and more, I think some redistribution of wealth and protecting of the poor is needed.
4. Wasn't Lindgren one of the players that stole from Full Tilt or didn't pay back his loan?

OMG. A "perfect" ideal that hasn't worked out in most applications... NO KIDDING.

Ok, mike, calm down....ARE YOU SERIOUS? "A perfect ideal that hasn't worked out in most applications"; If the "applications" were the 60 million PLUS (humans) Russians that Stalin killed, no I guess you are correct!

Well, lets not count Sweden and Norway shall we, since they only have "Limited communistic policies" - whatever that means. Instead tell me one, ONE!! JUST ONE successful full-communist state. JUST ONE. In the ENTIRE history of mankind. One. Any one. Please. Which Communist State has allowed any of it's people to surpass the wealth of the lowest paid American worker? NONE.

And where on earth are you getting your figures from? 1% of the population is controlling more wealth than the other 99%. Have you ever used, I don't know, A CALCULATOR?

As far as those "Wal Mart Heirs", which ones? Do you mean the millions of bottom to top income earners who have Wal Mart stock in their retirement portfolios and depend on them continuing to make profits so they can have more when they retire? Or, do you mean the thousands of "Wal Mart Heirs"; workers, who are able to put food on their tables because they get a paycheck from Walmart every week? Or, are those "Wal Mart Heirs" the millions of Americans able to buy things they would not otherwise be able to afford, because they buy in bulk and pass the Democracy on to us? HA!

You really need to watch something other than MSNBC and Al-jazeera.

But you are correct about one thing! We have had a recent shift in the wealth of America! Right into the pockets of the Federal Government!

Heres something they don't like to talk about in the Communist Party of America; Did you know, it was actually tried right here in America? Yep. The first pilgrims decided to set themselves up like that. It didn't matter what you grew, what you made, it all went to "the people". And guess what happened? Can you guess? No?

THEY ALMOST STARVED TO DEATH.

Yes, it seems when people are handed everything they need by someone else, several funny, wild and wacky things happen!

First: Everything will be given to me. Really? Alright! Well, then I don't have to do anything, now do I? Of course not, It will all be given to me no matter if I contribute or not! I choose...not to! Now, gimme my turkey and corn!

Second: Since you cannot control or own what you grow or make, well, there just wasn't much interest in growing or making anything! Why should you? Why work hard if you cannot have any benefit from your hard work? It's just going to be taken from you and given to others. Let someone else do it! (see number one)

After one miserable winter, low on food, half starved, chock full of unhappy pilgrims with no motive to lift so much as a finger, wondering where all the free turkeys and bushels of corn they were promised went, someone had an idea: Why not let the people control their own destinies? Own what they grow and make, as well as profit from it?

"How will that work? They can charge the moon for one ear of corn!" One pilgrim, in favor of trying what clearly did not work once more, asked (rumor has it, he was one who saw no point in doing anything, instead preferring to have it all given to him for free; I think his name was Charles Ogden MUNISM)

"Yes," Answered another pilgrim "but if Farner A does this, then Farmer B will step in, charge less, make lots of beads and cow milk, and Framer A will be picking shit with the chickens, all while sitting on two tons of rotten corn he now can not give away. Think he will let that happen?" (rumor has it this pilgrim was sick of giving away his crop to lazy pilgrims not contributing to the cause, and wanted to put an end to that; I think his name was Charles Alvin Parker ITALISM)

Want proof it worked? If you live in America, LOOK OUT YOUR WINDOW. Or, look at scenic America on your iphone.

Clearly, my friend, the reason you would not mind communism is because you never have had to see it up close, never had to be forced to work for free, never had family taken in the dead of night for daring to ask "WTF is going on here?" in daylight to the ones with all the money, all the power. You have probably never seen what communism can do to a once thriving country, it's people, it's culture. You see crack heads living in the gutter instead of in a McMansion, and think that is just soooo unfair!! Poor little crack heads. Won't someone give them a Bentley?

But hey, if you don't have that much of a problem with communism, if Bad Old America has you feed up, go to Sweden, go to Denmark, go find that one shining, golden example of "successful" communism you are so sure exists. Try it out. See for yourself.

And call me screaming when you cannot escape it, realize what a horrible mistake you have made, and someone like me will come to your rescue. It won't be the first time, nor the last.

Have a nice day! :beer:

 

[S3mper]

Well, yeah. In my scenario if the poker site let the addict blow all of his money, or if the bartender let the drunk continue drinking and then he did something dumb, both the poker site and the bartender could be prosecuted by the government for negligence. The government is still in charge of laws, just not regulating the behavior of people at a micro level. It is the bartender and the poker site's obligation to look over their tenants.

I don't think its the poker sites obligation to what happens after they play on there sites... Poker sites have "responsible gambling" things on there sites but I think the bartender is responsible,

To ban online poker because some one could go broke is is so idiotic, why not ban the stock market? or Ban online shopping?

Its my money, how I choose to spend my money is my responsibility, if I choose to buy a car I can't afford, or a house, or a poker game online. It should be my call.

On top of that I think online poker is safer then live financial wise because of lower stakes and free rolls.

 

[Reptar7]

I don't think its the poker sites obligation to what happens after they play on there sites... Poker sites have "responsible gambling" things on there sites but I think the bartender is responsible,

To ban online poker because some one could go broke is is so idiotic, why not ban the stock market? or Ban online shopping?

Its my money, how I choose to spend my money is my responsibility, if I choose to buy a car I can't afford, or a house, or a poker game online. It should be my call.

On top of that I think online poker is safer then live financial wise because of lower stakes and free rolls.

Clearly you didn't read my other posts in this thread. Obv I am very much for legal poker and have sent probably 200 or so emails to my reps about it. Have you done your part?

 

[S3mper]

Clearly you didn't read my other posts in this thread. Obv I am very much for legal poker and have sent probably 200 or so emails to my reps about it. Have you done your part?

lol y r u attacking me I only quoted you about the bartender thing and that I don't think that poker sites are at all responsible for their tenants. (with the exception of taking care of the funds and payouts)

Don't be so quick to question some one on if they've done their part or not. I sent 1 email to a rep, I don't feel like spamming 200 emails will get the job done.

 

[Reptar7]

OMG. A "perfect" ideal that hasn't worked out in most applications... NO KIDDING.

Ok, mike, calm down....ARE YOU SERIOUS? "A perfect ideal that hasn't worked out in most applications"; If the "applications" were the 60 million PLUS (humans) Russians that Stalin killed, no I guess you are correct!

Well, lets not count Sweden and Norway shall we, since they only have "Limited communistic policies" - whatever that means. Instead tell me one, ONE!! JUST ONE successful full-communist state. JUST ONE. In the ENTIRE history of mankind. One. Any one. Please. Which Communist State has allowed any of it's people to surpass the wealth of the lowest paid American worker? NONE.

And where on earth are you getting your figures from? 1% of the population is controlling more wealth than the other 99%. Have you ever used, I don't know, A CALCULATOR?

As far as those "Wal Mart Heirs", which ones? Do you mean the millions of bottom to top income earners who have Wal Mart stock in their retirement portfolios and depend on them continuing to make profits so they can have more when they retire? Or, do you mean the thousands of "Wal Mart Heirs"; workers, who are able to put food on their tables because they get a paycheck from Walmart every week? Or, are those "Wal Mart Heirs" the millions of Americans able to buy things they would not otherwise be able to afford, because they buy in bulk and pass the Democracy on to us? HA!

You really need to watch something other than MSNBC and Al-jazeera.

But you are correct about one thing! We have had a recent shift in the wealth of America! Right into the pockets of the Federal Government!

Heres something they don't like to talk about in the Communist Party of America; Did you know, it was actually tried right here in America? Yep. The first pilgrims decided to set themselves up like that. It didn't matter what you grew, what you made, it all went to "the people". And guess what happened? Can you guess? No?

THEY ALMOST STARVED TO DEATH.

Yes, it seems when people are handed everything they need by someone else, several funny, wild and wacky things happen!

First: Everything will be given to me. Really? Alright! Well, then I don't have to do anything, now do I? Of course not, It will all be given to me no matter if I contribute or not! I choose...not to! Now, gimme my turkey and corn!

Second: Since you cannot control or own what you grow or make, well, there just wasn't much interest in growing or making anything! Why should you? Why work hard if you cannot have any benefit from your hard work? It's just going to be taken from you and given to others. Let someone else do it! (see number one)

After one miserable winter, low on food, half starved, chock full of unhappy pilgrims with no motive to lift so much as a finger, wondering where all the free turkeys and bushels of corn they were promised went, someone had an idea: Why not let the people control their own destinies? Own what they grow and make, as well as profit from it?

"How will that work? They can charge the moon for one ear of corn!" One pilgrim, in favor of trying what clearly did not work once more, asked (rumor has it, he was one who saw no point in doing anything, instead preferring to have it all given to him for free; I think his name was Charles Ogden MUNISM)

"Yes," Answered another pilgrim "but if Farner A does this, then Farmer B will step in, charge less, make lots of beads and cow milk, and Framer A will be picking shit with the chickens, all while sitting on two tons of rotten corn he now can not give away. Think he will let that happen?" (rumor has it this pilgrim was sick of giving away his crop to lazy pilgrims not contributing to the cause, and wanted to put an end to that; I think his name was Charles Alvin Parker ITALISM)

Want proof it worked? If you live in America, LOOK OUT YOUR WINDOW. Or, look at scenic America on your Iphone.

Clearly, my friend, the reason you would not mind communism is because you never have had to see it up close, never had to be forced to work for free, never had family taken in the dead of night for daring to ask "WTF is going on here?" in daylight to the ones with all the money, all the power. You have probably never seen what communism can do to a once thriving country, it's people, it's culture. You see crack heads living in the gutter instead of in a McMansion, and think that is just soooo unfair!! Poor little crack heads. Won't someone give them a Bentley?

But hey, if you don't have that much of a problem with communism, if Bad Old America has you feed up, go to Sweden, go to Denmark, go find that one shining, golden example of "successful" communism you are so sure exists. Try it out. See for yourself.

And call me screaming when you cannot escape it, realize what a horrible mistake you have made, and someone like me will come to your rescue. It won't be the first time, nor the last.

Have a nice day! :beer:

I shouldn't have even mentioned the communism ideal thing at all. I guess as a person who has read a lot on the subject, I just couldn't help myself. A lot of people don't view any difference between that term, communism, and socialism and stalinism. Your post is completely valid if I weren't distinquishing between the terms.

Academically, to me Communism is a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order (copied from wikipedia). So basically it is equality for everyone. Doesn't sound that bad right? Unfortunately, it really is unobtainable. People can never be exactly equal, there is always something to covet, the elimination of competition is bad (as noted in your example), and the biggest problem is dividing the wealth and bringing some sort of communism to fruition. Socialism is the attempt to turn communism into reality by essentially having a strong government that controls everything. We've seen a lot of socialist states and none of them have ever come remotely close to implementing true communism. The whole Stalin thing was really neither communism nor socialism (although it did lead to the latter in the USSR), it was Stalinism and it was terrible. There has never been a true communist state, and I don't think there ever will be. It is an idea that can never be truly be implemented.

I had actually heard about the American communist experiment before in my US History book in high school. I think it was also there that I first heard about The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, a book that really spurred on the progressive movement and led to the passage of a few laws. That book was okay but if you want to read a great Sinclair book, I'd suggest Oil! which the movie There Will Be Blood was based on.

I have been to Europe and do covet a lot of the things they have in Norway, like paying people NOT to work, mandatory vacations, both the man and woman getting a year off to have a kid, etc. However, their health system could be better (a problem with a lot of National Health Systems), they make less adjusted wealth than the avg American, and they don't seem to have as vast a food network as the US. I don't like having daylight last that long either.

About the figures, I just listed those off the top of my head from what I could remember. I looked it up now and the top 1% is typically only mentioned as having 40-50% of the nations wealth (not more than the other 99%, I think I heard that from those 99% movement rallies). However, the bottom 90% has 73% of the debt, which is primarily owned by the top 10% through large corporations. You can find numbers similar to that all across the web.

The Walton Family possess more wealth than the bottom 41.5% of Americans (I said only 30%) primarily through 9 main heirs. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/18/business/la-fi-mo-walmart-heirs-20120718

Another common Wal Mart figure is that for every 2 Wal Mart jobs created, 2.8 REAL jobs are lost. Wal Mart jobs start at $21k per year. Wal Mart employees cost the US taxpayers $1.5b per year in health care expenses because employees are paid too little to pay for their own care. sumofus.org/walmart-at-50/

Anyways, I'm not an advocate for Communism and am very proud to be an American. I hope I didn't strike a nerve with you because you escaped from a Socialist country or anything like that, as that would be awful, although it kind of sounds like you might be an American from you're name, the way you write, and a Republican possibly from your MSNBC comment. I don't typically watch that or Fox News. I prefer my news unbiased, although that is difficult to come by now days. Anyways, good luck at the tables! :beer:

 

[Reptar7]

lol y r u attacking me I only quoted you about the bartender thing and that I don't think that poker sites are at all responsible for their tenants. (with the exception of taking care of the funds and payouts)

Don't be so quick to question some one on if they've done their part or not. I sent 1 email to a rep, I don't feel like spamming 200 emails will get the job done.

Didn't mean to attack you or anything. Sorry if you read it that way. Your line about "banning poker would be idiotic" led me to believe that is what you thought my position was. It is not. And the 200 emails thing wasn't to one rep all at once, it was to several reps once a month after black friday.

 

[S3mper]

Didn't mean to attack you or anything. Sorry if you read it that way. Your line about "banning poker would be idiotic" led me to believe that is what you thought my position was. It is not. And the 200 emails thing wasn't to one rep all at once, it was to several reps once a month after black friday.

It's all good and that makes a lot more sense lol, and I was talking about the OP CEO when I was talking about banning online poker, I just quoted you for the bartender thing lol. Lets just chalk that one up to a misunderstanding on both ends =) =P