60 Minutes features on online gambling tonight 7PM EST...

[uuDevil]

The commercial for St. Jude Children's Hospital after the gambling segment really got to me. Damn. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

I think Full Tilt was briefly pictured too.

[MasterShakes]

This is just another example of an evening news magazine, with an amazing amount of financial resources and time, doing an extraordinarily poor job of researching a relatively easy topic to research. It's also another example of the profession of journalism searching for a hook or headline, rather than actual facts.

[TheHammer24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I love that woman's counter argument... "because it's bad for you." Brilliant.

Seriously, I don't know if I am more pissed off about the moron Senator who was for the illegality of online gambling or the BS government regulations they proposed of it is legalized.

I think it is better that it is illegal personally.

[/ QUOTE ]

The lady was playing devil's advocate, and allowing the other guy an easy rebuttal. Easy rebuttal acrually helping the legalization arguement.

If the government leagalized it they would make so much money. Not only would 11 billion dollars remain in the the US economy helping create jobs and increase annual income, but it would also increase government taxes. They would be easier to track, plus the government would be able to make gambling taxes disproportionantly high on the sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that this is a good thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Legalization of internet gambling is invariably good for all parties involved.

[TheHammer24]

[ QUOTE ]
It was good report. I have always thought 60min does some of the best reporting out there. That congressman they interviewed is a nut. He has this pro-U.S. idealogy. "If we think its wrong, we wont allow our citizens to do it." Now that wasn't the exact word for word, but that was the meaning behind it.

I doubt he could pass a bill to allow all banks to not allow EFT's from international (all) gambling sites. That is govt somewhat trying to strip your rights by saying only certain EFT's are allowed to your bank account.

I did like how they pointed out the UK has all this legal under the law, and they generate their own taxes from these companies and they are traded publicly on the stock exchange.

I mostly saw Party and Paradise. Never saw Stars or UB. Saw plenty of other sites for the non poker games.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a democrat [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Anyway, Congress would not be able to ban EFT's they would more likely be able to encourage banks to choose to not allow them like DOJ did with credit card companies.

[TheHammer24]

[ QUOTE ]
This is just another example of an evening news magazine, with an amazing amount of financial resources and time, doing an extraordinarily poor job of researching a relatively easy topic to research. It's also another example of the profession of journalism searching for a hook or headline, rather than actual facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Expand?

[IggyWH]

Damn 60 Minutes got me to surf on over to bet365 and they have free, flash slots. I'm now addicted to Ocean Princess [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is actually way in favor of gambling legalization in the US. Way in favor. The other guy sounds brilliant saying that people are going to gamble no matter what so the US might as well regulate and tax it.

To note, the kind finally got accepted at Golden Palace, but he'll have to send ID to cashout.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think he claimed the signup bonus?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think we have to worry about it. Seems like he busted out.

Only vaginas play Roulette.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
Legalization without government regulation of internet gambling is invariably good for all parties involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[MasterShakes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is just another example of an evening news magazine, with an amazing amount of financial resources and time, doing an extraordinarily poor job of researching a relatively easy topic to research. It's also another example of the profession of journalism searching for a hook or headline, rather than actual facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Expand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Every single time this story was mentioned today, it was under the headline of something like "it's illegal... so why are so many people doing it?" They did almost nothing to try to describe why it is that the law is ambiguous on this subject. They also did not make it entirely clear that the law is ambiguous on this subject. They just said that it's illegal. They didn't even make it clear that it is illegal to begin with, despite the headline they used to advertise this story.

I think if they would have given this story half of the hour with one commercial break, they could have done a much better job with it. They could have focused more on the foreign regulatory bodies. They could have spent more time showing the different ways that the law can be interpreted.

The story, as it was aired, will leave their viewers at least uninformed, if not misinformed or confused.