Quote:
Originally Posted by LirvA
Yes and the federal government wants money too. It's like 80 trillion dollars in debt.
With federal legislation, you have federal regulations blanketed across the entire nation, and states that opt out cannot legislate their own intrastate regulations. Therefor, if someone doesn't like the regulations, the only thing they can do is move to a different country.
But with state legislation, what one government does in one state has no affect on another state, so if you don't like the regulations you can just move to a different state.
Easier to move to a different state than a different country.
That doesn't excuse statism at the state level.
I'm not sure why you are so accepting of state-level statism, but none of these state bills are better for players than the Barton bill.
Additionally, it may be possible to pass legislation in NJ, CA, and NV, but many of us live in states that will require constitutional amendments to authorize intrastate online poker (or would require them to be run through that state's lottery...would that be statist enough for you?), while that limitation is not a factor with federal legislation.
PPA does not oppose the NJ bill, of course. PPA may very well endorse it once we complete reviewing the new filing, but your posts seem to be limited to "the federal government is evil...keep them out at all costs," when the reality of our situation is that it's the states (aside from NV) that treat gaming as something to be permitted solely for revenue -- and the maximum revenue at that.
Last edited by Rich Muny; 08-31-2011 at 01:10 AM.
Reason: typo