Any internet sites that may have to shut down soon?
 

in last 3 years have pretty much stuck to the established site PP, PP, stars, and UB, and a small try at truepoker.

thought about giving another one of the newer sites some business, but i am worried about them closing shop along with my BR.

So, have any of these sites have problems getting consistant traffic, or have they not grown much in the last several months?

Absolute
Pacific
Bugsys
intercasino

Re: Any internet sites that may have to shut down soon?
 

I dont think you'd have to worry about intercasino shutting down AND not giving you money in your account because of their highly profitable and established casino. They'd be good for any money you put in their basically.

Re: Any internet sites that may have to shut down soon?
 

No way that Pacific and Absolute will close their doors either. I've never played at Bugsys so I can't say much about them.

Re: Any internet sites that may have to shut down soon?
 

Intercasino and Pacific are both backed by large, established internet casinos. I don't think your money is at any greater risk with them then at the sites you already listed.

I have no idea who is behind Absolute, but they've always been prompt with payment, and have grown quite a bit in the past months. Whether the growth is due to increase of loyal customers or merely due to generous monthly bonuses is to be seen though.

Don't know a thing about Bugsy.

Re: Any internet sites that may have to shut down soon?
 

Though Pacific has been listed as being safe from having them run away with your $, it has also been pointed out by several posters here that they have a possible collusion detection/enforcement problem.

They tend to be lax in their investigations, or at the very least apathetic to their players whom have been cheated.

I personally have never played there. Though some of the evidence that I have seen on this forum, leads me to believe you would be better (and safer) playing on some of the other sites mentioned.

Just my thoughts,

Husker

Re: Any internet sites that may have to shut down soon?
 

Bugsys is tied in with PokerPages.com and the PokerSchool Online, so they not going anywhere either, granted they dont have many ring games going, but they basically for tournaments anyway.

Re: Any internet sites that may have to shut down soon?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Intercasino and Pacific are both backed by large, established internet casinos.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF does this even mean? You might as well say, that they are backed by criminals, same thing.

No online gambling site is secure. Legislation could come tommorow that would put a large majority of these companies out of buisness. Also what happens if the government where these casinos are located team up with the U.S and decide to raid these places?

Look at choice poker. When I came on here telling all of you not to deposit there, you called me a moron. Some of you idiots like HUSKER, and FLUFF need to get back into reality. No one is there to protect you, and the world is not all flowers and goodness.

So stop fooling yourselves, you are taking a bigger gamble depositing funds, then when you are playing.

Re: Any internet sites that may have to shut down soon?
 

Gabby you are right in one sense, wrong in another. While legislation COULD conceivably come down against online poker sites it would not close the sites down but rather make it illegal for US players to play there, the sites would remain active as they are all based off US soil. Therefore, one could still get their money most likely from these casinos after any legislation was completed, or head it off at the pass in a sense and pull out their money before the legislation is completed.

Re: Any internet sites that may have to shut down soon?
 

we're also talking about calculated risk here. Intercasino, Pacific, and Absolute are just as safe as say Party Poker. You may think that the whole gambling online thing is in risk, but relatively, the sites mentioned are no more risky than the major ones.

Re: Any internet sites that may have to shut down soon?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Intercasino and Pacific are both backed by large, established internet casinos.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF does this even mean? You might as well say, that they are backed by criminals, same thing.

No online gambling site is secure. Legislation could come tommorow that would put a large majority of these companies out of buisness. Also what happens if the government where these casinos are located team up with the U.S and decide to raid these places?

Look at choice poker. When I came on here telling all of you not to deposit there, you called me a moron. Some of you idiots like HUSKER, and FLUFF need to get back into reality. No one is there to protect you, and the world is not all flowers and goodness.

So stop fooling yourselves, you are taking a bigger gamble depositing funds, then when you are playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

When will you learn, whose going to pass legislation to put them out of business? Costa Rica, among others actually gives tax incentives to internet gaming companies to cultivate their economy.

The US cannot extradite or raid these companies, they operate outside US jurisdiction.

Regarding the opinion some of those have of you, it can obviously be justified by statements you make similar to those in this post where you have no clue what you are talking about.

Just b/c you were right about Choice doesn't mean you are always right. As far as Choice goes, the same warning should be heeded for Nuttzzz, do not ever deposit money into a site promoted by someone within US borders, as the US goverment does have jurisdiction in that area.

Finally, what the hell are you saying here, "So stop fooling yourselves, you are taking a bigger gamble depositing funds, then when you are playing."

Re: Any internet sites that may have to shut down soon?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Intercasino, Pacific, and Absolute are just as safe as say Party Poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely not Pacific. Stay away from it!

Re: Any internet sites that may have to shut down soon?
 

[ QUOTE ]
As far as Choice goes, the same warning should be heeded for Nuttzzz, do not ever deposit money into a site promoted by someone within US borders

[/ QUOTE ]

Choice poker was registered to an american with a US Address(They Changed the domain information shortly after the warning was posted). That among other things, is why I posted the warning. Nutzpoker is not registered in the U.S

Re: Any internet sites that may have to shut down soon?
 

BC is solid I think.

I have been playing alot at Bugsy's Club of late.Their cash games selection is really very poor but they have good tournies.They rarely have more than one or two ring games running that have over a $40 pot average.

They just sent me a new bonus offer for 20% $100 MAX!

They have great structure to their MTT's-you start w/10,000 in chip and the blinds rise very slowly.Problem is these tournies take a long time to play but it's worth it!

BC also has really improved on their software-you can use a larger version or a smaller version which I use.Their customer service is surprisingly good-fast and friendly.

Re: Any internet sites that may have to shut down soon?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As far as Choice goes, the same warning should be heeded for Nuttzzz, do not ever deposit money into a site promoted by someone within US borders

[/ QUOTE ]

Choice poker was registered to an american with a US Address(They Changed the domain information shortly after the warning was posted). That among other things, is why I posted the warning. Nutzpoker is not registered in the U.S

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but TheNutzzGuy that posts here lives in the US.

Re: gabbbyyyyyyy
 

[ QUOTE ]
No online gambling site is secure. Legislation could come tommorow that would put a large majority of these companies out of buisness. Also what happens if the government where these casinos are located team up with the U.S and decide to raid these places?

[/ QUOTE ]

This almost tops the list of the many, many asinine statements that you have made since you first came to haunt these boards.


I'm going to paraphrase from several things that I've read over the last year in regards to the legality and future of internet poker, so bear with me or turn the page. I'll try to speak slowly and use small words so you'll be able to follow along.(according to you I'm an "idiot"-but at least I'm considerate)


As far as internet poker is concerned, it's astounding how far it's come in such a short time.There really weren't any online sites in existence before 1998. There were some sites where you could play for free by then, and some primitive precursors like irc.poker.net. But the whole thing really didn't get rolling until 1999.

The question is how long will it last? Will we be looking back 10 years from now asking ourselves, "whatever became of that whole internet poker thing?" Will the forces of repression/legislation have their way and poker online die out of existence?

Doubtful.

History has proven that the battle between social engineers and technical engineers has been overwhelminly won by the "techies".Governments or societies efforts to stem the tide of technology amount to trying to stuff the theoritical genie back in the bottle.
Today, we look around and see all sorts of objectionable (to some)activities taking place, thanks to the technology of the internet, which happens to span the globe across city,state,and national bounderies; and as you have stated (too many times to count)seems to mock the laws of local jurisdictions.

When I was much, much younger getting a copy of a modest (by todays standards) copy of oh...lets say Playboy was a major accomplishment. Now I seemed to get spammed 30 times a day with emails that are more graphic than I could have ever imagined as a child.

Along those same lines, riding the same wave of technology is internet poker. It will continue to grow and expand and develop and morph, and United States laws will be powerless to stop it.

Just so we're clear here gabbbyyyy on my last statement, we ain't the only ones on this planet.....comprende?

We do agree on one thing. There have been sites that have gone the way of the dinosaur. While owning a site would seem to be a license to print money, the fact is running an online site is not a no brainer. The site has to attract players, and harder yet hold on to said players and keep the game going.

Along those thoughts, online poker may go the way of betamax tapes or the ol floppy disk. But if that happens, if online poker vanishes forever, it won't be for legal reasons. (which you keep screaming out about like chicken little by the way)

The best legal minds on the planet can't come to agreement on the legality of poker, so what makes you soooooo much better?Their grappling with the fact that though it is deemed "illegal" in city "x" where your sitting playing in a game with player "y" from Wagga Wagga (not illegal there) "illegal" in Great Britain, which just so happens to be the home for your online cash transfer bank, and yet legal again in Costa Rica...the home of your server.

Which jurisdiction applies?!?!?!?

I don't fear the police busting down my door anytime soon to put real hancuffs on my "virtual" world. If this was the case, they would be very, very busy....busting the retired guy down the street, or my buddys grandmother.

It's not as if the government is trying to protect us. They are just livid at the fact that they can't figure out a way to get some of their hands on the money via taxation/regulation.

There is a small minority that feel that online gambling (poker included) is the "crack cocaine" of the millenium. I don't believe this to be true, and I appear to have company........fifty million people in the US alone and countless others worldwide.


[ QUOTE ]
Some of you idiots like HUSKER, and FLUFF need to get back into reality

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm here (in the real world, where are you?)

Husker

Re: gabbbyyyyyyy
 

[ QUOTE ]
This almost tops the list of the many, many asinine statements

[/ QUOTE ]

Was it asinine when I posted the warning about Choice poker? Was it even more asinine when you called me a moron and told everyone else there was nothing to worry about, when indeed their deposits were at risk?

Just because you keep posting the same rhetoric over and over again does not mean that it becomes factual.

Re: gabbbyyyyyyy
 

Was it asinine when I posted the warning about Choice poker?

A blind squirrel get the nuts every now and then gabbbyyy.You were spouting your usual "the sky is falling" rhetoric....this one time out of countless accusations happen to come true.

For that, I give you credit.

Was it even more asinine when you called me a moron

I honestly don't remember calling you a moron.


....told everyone else there was nothing to worry about, when indeed their deposits were at risk?

If I remember correctly, I told them something to the effect of because of your previous actions on this forum (remember the whole rant over $50 free dollars, and the non stop bashing that followed?)that I would have no remorse or sleepless nights, and would in fact sign up with a small amount and play there when they initially opened.I did,and accumulated a little over twice my initial deposit, I had two seperate cash out's with no problems, but stopped playing there because of lack of traffic.

I have not in the past nor will I in the future recommend that anyone make a substantial deposit to any new site. To me this would be common sense. I also would not leave a large amount "parked" online, regardless of which site it is.

Just because you keep posting the same rhetoric over and over again does not mean that it becomes factual.

When have I posted the same rhetric "over and over again?" You seem to be the one whom says the same things repeatedly.

gabbyyyy, as always, your just a little confused....no, correction......make that A LOT.

Husker

Re: gabbbyyyyyyy
 

[ QUOTE ]
Was it asinine when I posted the warning about Choice poker?

A blind squirrel get the nuts every now and then gabbbyyy.You were spouting your usual "the sky is falling" rhetoric....this one time out of countless accusations happen to come true.

For that, I give you credit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it warned that the US government would close down Choice Poker because it was owned by someone with a US address. Mind you, it made this claim about numerous other sites too.

What actually happened was that Choice Poker went out of business. Completely different thing.

How it can claim credit for "warning" the Zoo is yet another amazing leap of logic, similar to its observation that the odds of a gutshot straight is 2000-1 against.

Re: Any internet sites that may have to shut down soon?
 

actually, i heard that pacifics parent casino-on-net has been hitting upon some harder times lately.

Not sure how accurate that statement was, but from personal experience i remember how their banners were popping up all over the internet, seemed they had the huge bucks to spend for that enourmous marketing campaigns.

Now, i can't even remember the last time i saw one...

Re: Any internet sites that may have to shut down soon?
 

Thats because they're spending their money on REAL banners in the UK. Everywhere I look there's an 888 billboard.

Re: Any internet sites that may have to shut down soon?
 

BOTTOM LINE Gabby: The US cannot close down that which it doesnt have jurisdiction over, as much as we seem to want to sometimes. So every site out there, barring a few newbies, such as nutz poker, cannot be shut down but the US, and WILL NOT be shut down by their respective governments. So no worries everyone, now lets play nice!

Re: gabbbyyyyyyy
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This almost tops the list of the many, many asinine statements

[/ QUOTE ]

Was it asinine when I posted the warning about Choice poker? Was it even more asinine when you called me a moron and told everyone else there was nothing to worry about, when indeed their deposits were at risk?

Just because you keep posting the same rhetoric over and over again does not mean that it becomes factual.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to assume that just b/c you made the correct prediction regarding Choice that you are now the omnipotent clairvoyant one and that everyone's money is in jeopardy everywhere. Your continual paranoid rants about online poker only slightly amuse me, while still leaving me highly annoyed.

OK, for the last time, you got Choice right, well done. That, however, has not increaed your credibility. Especially, when you continually make posts that are factually inaccurate and ring of conspiracy theories, from the US government putting a complete end to online gambling on this planet to the game being rigged...yet you still play online (allegedly) and you still have your money (allegedly) deposited into online gaming sites, despite your own self-admitted skpeticism and fears.

Give a rest, you got Choice right, good for you. Please refrain from posting unless you have some factual information to back-up your statements (as you did with Choice).

Thanks!

Gabyyy - W.T.O Rules Against U.S.A. Gambling Policies
 

The World Trade Organization has ruled that the US policy prohibiting online gambling violates its obligations under international trade law.

This is the WTO’s first decision on an Internet-related dispute, and has prompted outrage from the Bush administration, which has vowed to appeal the decision.

"It's appalling," said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. "It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue."

The ruling by a WTO panel Wednesday is being hailed by online casinos operators overseas as a major victory that could force the United States to liberalize its laws.

The decision stems from a case taken to the WTO in June by the island nation of Antigua and Barbuda, which licenses 19 companies that offer sports betting and casino games such as blackjack over the Internet.

Antigua and Barbuda argued that U.S. trade policy does not prohibit cross-border gambling operations and that the United States would be hypocritical to do otherwise because it wants to allow American casino operations to operate land-based and Internet-based subsidiaries overseas.

Ronald Sanders, the island’s chief foreign affairs representative, said he believes the United States must liberalize its online gambling regulations or risk being hypocritical about its stance on free trade. "The U.S. says it wants open competition," he said. "But it only wants free trade when it suits the U.S."

Millions of Americans gamble over the Internet, using credit cards or online payment services to wager on sports or at games such as poker and blackjack.

Re: Gabyyy - W.T.O Rules Against U.S.A. Gambling Policies
 

[ QUOTE ]
The World Trade Organization has ruled that the US policy prohibiting online gambling violates its obligations under international trade law.


[/ QUOTE ]

This means nothing to our government. You really think that we are going to allow another country to tell us what laws we can and cannot make?

Re: Gabyyy - W.T.O Rules Against U.S.A. Gambling Policies
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The World Trade Organization has ruled that the US policy prohibiting online gambling violates its obligations under international trade law.


[/ QUOTE ]

This means nothing to our government. You really think that we are going to allow another country to tell us what laws we can and cannot make?

[/ QUOTE ]

The WTO isn't a country, duh.

Re: gabbbyyyyyyy
 

[ QUOTE ]
Especially, when you continually make posts that are factually inaccurate and ring of conspiracy theories, from the US government putting a complete end to online gambling on this planet

[/ QUOTE ]

How am I completely wrong? Perhaps you have missed the recent "Internet Funding Prohibition act" legislation that passed the house my a huge margin.

[ QUOTE ]
and you still have your money (allegedly) deposited into online gaming sites,

[/ QUOTE ]

So a person who plays on the internet, is not allowed to voice legitimate concerns about the future of online gambling?

Almost every senator and representative would disagree with your stance Stew. Almost all United States congress members feel internet gambling should be made illegal in the U.S.

Unfortunately, the opinion of U.S congress members means slightly more then anything you have to say.

Re: Gabyyy - W.T.O Rules Against U.S.A. Gambling Policies
 

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The World Trade Organization has ruled that the US policy prohibiting online gambling violates its obligations under international trade law.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This means nothing to our government. You really think that we are going to allow another country to tell us what laws we can and cannot make?


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The WTO isn't a country, duh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, they represent the planet Mars.

Re: Gabyyy - W.T.O Rules Against U.S.A. Gambling Policies
 

For starters the WTO is not a country. Allow me educate...

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the world’s trading nations and ratified in their parliaments. The goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers conduct their business.

Do I think the US will listen to the WTO? It seems for now they have no choice.

Damn your paranoid.

Re: gabbbyyyyyyy
 

[/ QUOTE ] How am I completely wrong? Perhaps you have missed the recent "Internet Funding Prohibition act" legislation that passed the house my a huge margin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you talking about this: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index...amp;sequence=0

If so, that never passed and killed in committee. Just what bill are you talking aobut?

Re: gabbbyyyyyyy
 

[ QUOTE ]
So a person who plays on the internet, is not allowed to voice legitimate concerns about the future of online gambling?

Almost every senator and representative would disagree with your stance Stew. Almost all United States congress members feel internet gambling should be made illegal in the U.S.

Unfortunately, the opinion of U.S congress members means slightly more then anything you have to say.


[/ QUOTE ]

You certainly have a right to voice your opinion about it. but, why do you participate in something where you don't feel your money is safe and teh games are rigged, that behavior is inconsistent and irrational.

As far as our Congressman disagreeing, I don't think that's so true and it certainly is not true with one particular Senator that I personally know, who feels it should legalized and tax to high heaven. Do you know any congressmen personally?

Furthermore, the US Supreme Court has already ruled that our government cannot ban internet gambling (by prohibiting someone from placing a bet via the internet) that is a right reserved to individual states.

Again, find some facts before you speak.

Re: Gabyyy - W.T.O Rules Against U.S.A. Gambling Policies
 

[/ QUOTE ] Right, they represent the planet Mars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, I'm not the one that said the WTO was a country, that was you, I'm pretty sure I know what the WTO is, but it was obvious from your comment that you felt they were a country.

Re: gabbbyyyyyyy
 

[ QUOTE ]
How am I completely wrong? Perhaps you have missed the recent "Internet Funding Prohibition act" legislation that passed the house my a huge margin.



[/ QUOTE ]

Stew, you beat me to it.



gabbyyyy, this was never passed into LAW



Get your facts straight........1 out of a 700 + (in regards to your posts) aren't good odds....almost as bad as that 2000/1 scenario that you ranted about some time back.


Husker

Re: gabbbyyyyyyy
 

[ QUOTE ]
How am I completely wrong? Perhaps you have missed the recent "Internet Funding Prohibition act" legislation that passed the house my a huge margin.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Stew, you beat me to it.



gabbyyyy, this was never passed into LAW





[/ QUOTE ]

Listen you stupid FUKS, I never said it was passed into law. I said it was passed in the house, learn how to read. You see here in the U.S we have two branches of congress. One is called the SENATE. Can you say Senate? And the other is called the House of Representatives. For a bill to become law it must pass both branches and get approved by the president.

For Stew, who seems to have all the WORTHLESS info backing his stand, here is the link.

BILL PASSED 319-104 CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO

Jesus Christ, you assholes have a way of getting under people's skin.

Re: gabbbyyyyyyy
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How am I completely wrong? Perhaps you have missed the recent "Internet Funding Prohibition act" legislation that passed the house my a huge margin.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Stew, you beat me to it.



gabbyyyy, this was never passed into LAW





[/ QUOTE ]

Listen you stupid FUKS, I never said it was passed into law. I said it was passed in the house, learn how to read. You see here in the U.S we have two branches of congress. One is called the SENATE. Can you say Senate? And the other is called the House of Representatives. For a bill to become law it must pass both branches and get approved by the president.

For Stew, who seems to have all the WORTHLESS info backing his stand, here is the link.

BILL PASSED 319-104 CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO

Jesus Christ, you assholes have a way of getting under people's skin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gabbbyyy, you're right, I misread your statement, but the bill still has no control over actually gambling on the internet, which you allude that it does. It was stalled in Senate Committee, as I stated.

19. H.R.2143 : To prevent the use of certain bank instruments for unlawful Internet gambling, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] (introduced 5/19/2003) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: House Financial Services; Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 6/11/2003 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.



http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdqu...Senate+Banking,+Housing,+and+Urban+Affairs)

Re: gabbbyyyyyyy
 

Jesus Christ, you assholes have a way of getting under people's skin.



Good, mission accomplished.


[ QUOTE ]
How am I completely wrong? Perhaps you have missed the recent "Internet Funding Prohibition act" legislation that passed the house my a huge margin.



[/ QUOTE ]


You mispelled "by".



[ QUOTE ]
Listen you stupid FUKS,

[/ QUOTE ]

You mispelled F**cks.( it has a "c" just so you know)



[ QUOTE ]
...I never said it was passed into law. I said it was passed in the house, learn how to read.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, but you implied it.I know how to read, you on the other hand have a problem composing your words into logical answers.


[ QUOTE ]
You see here in the U.S we have two branches of congress. One is called the SENATE. Can you say Senate? And the other is called the House of Representatives. For a bill to become law it must pass both branches and get approved by the president.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the refresher course. I understand the stages an act has to take in order to become a law,do you?If not, find an old replay of the,"conjunction junction, what's your function?" on PBS....this explains in childlike terms the steps that an act (there's that damn word again)has to go through before becoming a law.This is leading me to believe that you don't have the legislative process knowledge of a preschooler.


[ QUOTE ]
For Stew, who seems to have all the WORTHLESS info backing his stand, here is the link.



[/ QUOTE ]

Can't speak for Stew, but if I remember correctly when all the "hype" was happening Stew and I were two that followed the act very closely.I'm sure you can find the thread in the archives.

Husker

Re: gabbbyyyyyyy
 

[ QUOTE ]
I understand the stages an act has to take in order to become a law,do you?If not, find an old replay of the,"conjunction junction, what's your function?" on PBS....this explains in childlike terms the steps that an act (there's that damn word again)has to go through before becoming a law.This is leading me to believe that you don't have the legislative process knowledge of a preschooler.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is not called an ACT, it is called a BILL!. Like "I'm Just a Bill sitting on Capital Hill"

Come on man I am sure you are a nice enough guy, but can you please stop trying to make it like you know everything under the sun. Is there a slim chance that I know something you don't?

My real gripe is with Stew, I could post that the Sky is Blue and he would post a 3 page essay with works cited telling me how I am an idiot.

Hey Stew go back to your bottom of the barrel job at social security. I am sure they love jerkoffs like you over there.

Note to self: Never work for any branch of the government, unless you want to end up like Stew.

Re: gabbbyyyyyyy
 

[ QUOTE ]
Come on man I am sure you are a nice enough guy, but can you please stop trying to make it like you know everything under the sun. Is there a slim chance that I know something you don't?


[/ QUOTE ]


I do not not know everything under the sun....you've got me there, so i'll try and play nice. It's just that I can't help myself sometimes, you make it so easy. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]


I guess I'm still venting over being called an idiot.( I still don't recall calling you a moron)

Truce......for the time being.

Husker

Re: gabbbyyyyyyy
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand the stages an act has to take in order to become a law,do you?If not, find an old replay of the,"conjunction junction, what's your function?" on PBS....this explains in childlike terms the steps that an act (there's that damn word again)has to go through before becoming a law.This is leading me to believe that you don't have the legislative process knowledge of a preschooler.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is not called an ACT, it is called a BILL!. Like "I'm Just a Bill sitting on Capital Hill"

Come on man I am sure you are a nice enough guy, but can you please stop trying to make it like you know everything under the sun. Is there a slim chance that I know something you don't?

My real gripe is with Stew, I could post that the Sky is Blue and he would post a 3 page essay with works cited telling me how I am an idiot.

Hey Stew go back to your bottom of the barrel job at social security. I am sure they love jerkoffs like you over there.

Note to self: Never work for any branch of the government, unless you want to end up like Stew.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note to Gabbbyyy, you are right it is a bill, not an act, but the difference is miniscule. A Bill is a group of Federal Laws, when passed by the both Houses of Congrss and either signed by the President or passed over the President's Veto become law. An Act is the same thing pertaining to only one law. Get over it!

Now that you have decided to go personal and demean me personally, I will put an end to this and will not respond to you anymore. I never called you an idiot, moron or anything else of the nature. I certainly disputed and continue to dispute and disagree with your comments. You are the one calling me and other's names. I.E. fucks and assholes. You are once again factually inaccurate. Look at my posts in this thread, there is not one personally demeaning comment. It is unfortunate you have to stoop to such a level.

I apologize that you are jealous that I have a job with the United States Government and I have been personally responsibile for training over 200 people in carrying out the laws of the Social Security Act. I'm sorry that my job pays very well and I enjoy my job and that you do not have the same luxuries. Do you even have a job?


Finally, I'm sorry that you cannot make posts without erroneous information, spelling and grammatical errors.

Re: Gabyyy - W.T.O Rules Against U.S.A. Gambling Policies
 

Yes. Our govt will bow down to the WTO every time. They will condemn the UN, but not the WTO.

You might as well come to terms with the fact that since we have allowed are economy to become so dependent on foreign goods, we are no longer in control of our own destiny.

What I find the most amusing is that the Republican party touts the "Personal freedom and responsibilty at all costs" line, but wants to stop people from playing poker for money online.

And yes I know, the dems are probably no different, but they aren't the ones calling the shots at the moment.

Re: gabbbyyyyyyy
 

[ QUOTE ]
Was it asinine when I posted the warning about Choice poker?

A blind squirrel get the nuts every now and then gabbbyyy.You were spouting your usual "the sky is falling" rhetoric....this one time out of countless accusations happen to come true.


[/ QUOTE ]


So you say countless accusations? What do you mean by countless? There was ChoicePoker, NightorDay, and Erik123. It doesn't seem countless to me.

Erik123 played mostly headsup and shorthanded and there were allegations that his brother Olle played on the same table as him and that they were helping each other. I don't have personal knowledge of this so I won't pass judgement on him.

But gabyyyy was right about the dumb criminal Mary and now NightorDay is gone.

Gabyyyy was also right about ChoicePoker. She tried to warn people, but some boneheads wouldn't listen. They were blinded by greed and they chased the 30% rakeback program and their money went down the drain. Those people who flamed gabyyy were the real morons.

Gabyyyy is a nice person who tries to help people. People should show more respect even if they don't agree with her.