Handicapped People's Civil Rights To Play Poker

[dj11]

For all practical purposes the game is already legal. Exceptions for Washington State, and perhaps one other state. So we don't need/want anybody changing that.

What is at issue here is the government telling us we can spend money according to what they want us to buy, and can not spend it buying stuff we want to buy. While they might make a case that they can make buying a hit man to solve our problems a legal no no, where do WE LET THEM (?) draw the line?

What is good for any sub group in America, has shown to be good for the whole group of Americans. I am thinking here of the simple example of wheelchair ramps at intersections, benefiting all. Not the once rife practice of whites only which seemed to benefit.....whites only.

While churches may be tax-exempt (by law), should donations to the church be tax exempt? Without much effort I would guess a decent group of lawyers could show that particular movement of money could oh so easily be considered money laundering. Not to mention that many might consider it funding a terrorist organization.

While the basic freedoms we all feel where violated are emotional responses, and we should look for more concrete foundations to base our objections on, the issue seems to revert to a nanny state notion.

I dislike the Teabaggers for their outlandish assumptions, but if ever we needed a group to stop the bs, they may be it.

Any Teabagger who supports the DOJ actions, should be dumped in Boston Harbor, tarred and feathered........ Same with less radical Republicans who promote themselves as champions of individual rights, as in guns...... Democrats should be wider open about most all subjects, but I think they fear the online poker issues on some undefined moral basis. I know both the California Senators are uncommitted with statements that tend to make me think they will oppose any legislation to regulate online poker. While neither might go so far as to make it illegal, they don't look to be supporters. Same with the majority of Ca Representatives.

 

[Charade You Are]

While churches may be tax-exempt, should donations to the church be tax exempt? Without much effort I would guess a decent group of lawyers could show that that movement of money could oh so easily be considered money laundering. Not to mention that many might consider it funding a terrorist organization.

LOL

And I don't think churches should be tax exempt, nor should donations to them be deductible. And I think the property they own (and plenty of churches own a lot more than just the church building) should be exempt from property tax.

 

[dj11]

LOL

And I don't think churches should be tax exempt, nor should donations to them be deductible. And I think the property they own (and plenty of churches own a lot more than just the church building) should be exempt from property tax.

Nevertheless, by and large all church money is tax exempt. Has something to do with that freedom of religion thing.....

 

[Stu_Ungar]

LOL

And I don't think churches should be tax exempt, nor should donations to them be deductible. And I think the property they own (and plenty of churches own a lot more than just the church building) should be exempt from property tax.

A church is a non-profit organisation.

When donations are given, the church acts as a charity.

Non-profit organisations and charities are tax exempt (but have submit accounts and show that the money was used legally in the context of a non-profit or charitable organisation).

 

[dj11]

IANAL, but here close to me, many short lived churches start up, last a year, then fold. They are usually in storefront, used to be, retail spaces.

I do not understand them at all. I walk by and 3 people will be sitting listening to some dude spouting bible shit... I doubt donations for these places is $20 / week. Easy no tax situation.

However, down the road are mega churches, which own lots of land, and buildings and a favorite is to own apartment buildings. My understanding is that those are church biz, and thus un-taxed, at any level!.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

IANAL, but here close to me, many short lived churches start up, last a year, then fold. They are usually in storefront, used to be, retail spaces.

I do not understand them at all. I walk by and 3 people will be sitting listening to some dude spouting bible shit... I doubt donations for these places is $20 / week. Easy no tax situation.

However, down the road are mega churches, which own lots of land, and buildings and a favorite is to own apartment buildings. My understanding is that those are church biz, and thus un-taxed, at any level!.

TBH we dont really get this problem in the UK.

Most churches in the UK are part of the church of England, of which the Queen is supreme head and because of that, you get a top down hierarchical structure where by wages etc are set at a national level.

We dont get things like the mega churches in the UK they are more of a US phenomena.

We dont have a constitutional right to religions freedom as in the US.. which means people cant just start up fly-by-night churches in shop fronts etc. Its probably the reason Scientology has such a hard time getting a foothold in most European nations.

Although we dont have a constitutional right to religious freedom, the laws arent preventing religious freedom, they just help to stop silly tax scams.

 

[dj11]

A church is a non-profit organization.

When donations are given, the church acts as a charity. Too often the perception here is that the Church IS the recipient of the charity. My gut feeling is this is not what was originally intended.

Non-profit organizations and charities are tax exempt (but have submit accounts and show that the money was used legally in the context of a non-profit or charitable organization). In my years I can remember only 1 local church that was seriously investigated.

The Jim and Tammy Fay Bakker church empire might account for a second investigation.

From Wikipedia;

The Charlotte Observer reported that the Internal Revenue Service still holds Bakker and Roe Messner, Tammy Faye's husband from 1993 until her death in 2007, liable for personal income taxes owed from the 1980s when they were building the PTL empire, taxes assessed after the IRS revoked the PTL ministry's nonprofit status. Tammy Faye Messner's new husband said that the original tax amount was about $500,000, with penalties and interest accounting for the rest. Notices stating the IRS liens list still identify "James O. and Tamara F. Bakker" as owing $6,000,000, liens on which Jim Bakker still pays.

 

[jimeurchipss]

The walking guy should also learn,he answered his own reason why hes a loser..he steals and he has no bankroll managment.He should read a book on bank managment and he might not be such a losing player.I mean people play the stock market and the ones that lose are the ones that have no clue what there doing with ther money or how to manage it..

 

[Maid Marian]

The walking guy should also learn,he answered his own reason why hes a loser..he steals and he has no bankroll managment.He should read a book on bank managment and he might not be such a losing player.I mean people play the stock market and the ones that lose are the ones that have no clue what there doing with ther money or how to manage it..

The Stock Market losses can also occur after tragedies such as the Japan tsunami & 911...sometimes you can't prepare for those overwhelming losses!

 

[Charade You Are]

A church is a non-profit organisation.
When donations are given, the church acts as a charity.
Non-profit organisations and charities are tax exempt (but have submit accounts and show that the money was used legally in the context of a non-profit or charitable organisation).

So? Doesn't change anything I said. Churches buy up taxable property, take it off the tax rolls which causes everyone's else's property taxes to go up thereby making me an unwilling donator to the churches.
And the Vatican doesn't exactly look like a charity case to me.

 

[Charade You Are]

I apologize for contributing to the hijacking of this thread.

So back to the topic:

At 14 months old, Josh Cranfill was diagnosed with Werdnig-Hoffman Disease - a form of Spinal Muscular Atrophy. It is a degenerative muscle disease that weakens the muscles in the body until they eventually die. Poker is, unquestionably, Cranfill’s favorite hobby, but since the U.S Department of Justice shut down online poker, it’s become extremely difficult for him to play.​

Cranfill is confined to an electric wheelchair, which limits his mobility, and lives in Burlington, North Carolina, which is a long way from any brick-and-mortar casino. He can play in home games, but the houses or buildings must be handicap-accessible and he needs an assistant to get him there and help him play.​

Read more: http://www.pokernews.com/news/2011/04/pokernews-interview-josh-cranfill-10291.htm​

 

[Stu_Ungar]

So? Doesn't change anything I said. Churches buy up taxable property, take it off the tax rolls which causes everyone's else's property taxes to go up thereby making me an unwilling donator to the churches.
And the Vatican doesn't exactly look like a charity case to me.

I know what you are saying.

It is worth bearing in mind that the Vatican wasnt really built off church donations.

Up until the mid 1850s the Holy See directly ruled (and taxed) the Papal States (which were a large portion of what is now Italy).

So that wasnt really built from passing the collection plate around, its the last remains of an empire. It was funded in much the same way as the building of the Whitehouse (taxation of the people over whom the Pope ruled at the time.. and probably some donations from Kings seeking redemption!)

 

[OzExorcist]

Little Johnny's dad is a problem gambler. He lost the family's life savings playing online poker and got himself into massive debt. Now the family has to live on charity handouts. Little Johnny has to wear second hand clothes to school, he doesn't get to have any new toys and he's embarrassed to have his friends come over to play because of the squalid conditions his family have to live in.

Little Johnny's welfare beats Josh's hobby every single time - can people really not see that? It's like you know for a fact that your opponent has flopped top set and you're deciding to shove an underpair despite it praying that they'll have a brainfart and fold.

Are there some sad stories out there on our side? Absolutely. But they're never going to convince anyone to change their mind on the issue. Seriously. Never.

 

[bubbasbestbabe]

If you are disabled and earned an income from online poker then you should be able to start a lawsuit to overturn the original law, (Unlawful Internet gambling Enforcement Act, UIGIEA). The basis of the lawsuit is the ADA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990#Major_life_activities
This is a suit that will be taken to the Supreme Court. The PPA should look for someone who they can back in that suit.

 

[PurgatoryD]

The PPA should look for someone who they can back in that suit.

Yep. They would have to start with a real life victim who has suffered real life losses due to enforcement of the law. It would be a difficult case to prove, no doubt.

But we currently have cases working their way through the courts asking prisons to pay for inmates' sex change operations, so people have asked for much stranger "rights"!

 

[Charade You Are]

Little Johnny's dad is a problem DRINKER. He lost the family's life savings WHEN HE WAS SUED AFTER KILLING A CHILD WHILE DRIVING DRUNK, LOST HIS JOB and got himself into massive debt. Now the family has to live on charity handouts. Little Johnny has to wear second hand clothes to school, he doesn't get to have any new toys and he's embarrassed to have his friends come over to play because of the squalid conditions his family have to live in.

Editted your post.

Are there some sad stories out there on our side? Absolutely. But they're never going to convince anyone to change their mind on the issue. Seriously. Never.

So you believe no one can ever change their mind on anything? Or just the moralizing religious right and the politicians that pander to them?

 

[Charade You Are]

If you are disabled and earned an income from online poker then you should be able to start a lawsuit to overturn the original law, (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, UIGIEA). The basis of the lawsuit is the ADA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990#Major_life_activities
This is a suit that will be taken to the Supreme Court. The PPA should look for someone who they can back in that suit.

LOL@Opposition from religious groups

"The debate over the Americans with Disabilities Act led some religious groups to take opposite positions.Some religious groups, such as the Association of Christian Schools International, opposed the ADA in its original form. ACSI opposed the Act primarily because the ADA labeled religious institutions “public accommodations,” and thus would have required churches to make costly structural changes to ensure access for all. Ultimately, the cost argument advanced by ACSI and others prevailed in keeping religious institutions from being labeled as “public accommodations,” and thus churches were permitted to remain inaccessible if they choose."

 

[OzExorcist]

Editted your post.

So you believe no one can ever change their mind on anything? Or just the moralizing religious right and the politicians that pander to them?

Cute edit. One big difference though - anyone who wants to change the regulatory environment with relation to alcohol is fighting against the status quo. It's always easier to leave things how they are and there's already a massive regulatory and enforcement system built around alcohol. We're on the wrong side of the status quo with poker.

While in general I believe that people can and do change their minds on issues you've hit the nail on the head - the opposition on this issue is largely made up of the kind of people you've described. Their position is a moral and emotional one which is why I've been saying all along that you'll never change their minds with emotional arguments because the ones on our side simply aren't strong enough.

What about the undecided, I hear you ask? Sure you'll convince some with an emotional argument about handicapped people that don't get to engage in their favourite hobby any more. But for every one you convince you'll lose dozens more when the opposition counters with their own emotional arguments which, as we've discussed before, are a slam dunk. Hungry kid beats a hobby every day of the week.

Give those same people an alternative though, something that acknowledges the opposition's views but then presents a different set of positives and maybe you've got a chance. Suddenly undecided people are weighing hungry kid against jobs for Americans, revenue in a time of massive national debt and a safer, more supportive environment for those that happen to be problem gamblers. Hungry kid still wins for some people but a lot more will take our side than if you had've just taken the emotional line.

 

[chole]

It still comes down to my right as a supposedly free person to make my own decisions, not the government or anyone else making them for me.

Can anyone explain how another human being has the right to tell me I can't play poker on the internet...

 

[dj11]

It still comes down to my right as a supposedly free person to make my own decisions, not the government or anyone else making them for me.

Can anyone explain how another human being has the right to tell me I can't play poker on the internet...

They think it is their internet????????? Even weirder is that they are supposed to be us. So they become your next door neighbor, the merchant down the street, and anyone else who votes.

And just to keep things clear, they are not (as yet) telling you you CAN"T play poker on the internet, they are only saying you can't fund a real money account using any normal method of moving the money, and if you try un-normal methods of moving money they will nail you with laundering charges.

Oh yeah, learn to forget anyone ever told you you were a free person. Every single one of them lied to you.

 

[OzExorcist]

It still comes down to my right as a supposedly free person to make my own decisions, not the government or anyone else making them for me.

Can anyone explain how another human being has the right to tell me I can't play poker on the internet...

Well... every few years the grown ups have these things called elections. Integral to the election process is the idea that the people who get the most votes get given the right to make decisions on behalf of the country that are supposed to be in the best interests of its citizens as whole. Obviously your government has decided that your so-called "right" to play poker on the internet is in conflict with various other people's rights to various things and they think sacrificing internet poker is the right thing to do for the greater good.

If you don't like it you can always move to another country where you might be given the freedom to play poker on the internet - though they might infringe upon some of your other "freedoms" instead. The reality is that every government makes decisions about the rights and freedoms that its citizens are allowed to have. I can't believe your so surprised about this.

Seriously, go back through your posts about your rights but replace the words "play online poker" with "shoot herion into my veins". Does your argument still hold water?