“I am basically sympathetic with Mr. Balko on this, and pls don’t take me wrong, but what is the good answer when someone asks: why not channel the gambling impulse into playing stocks?”

I can play a mini-tournament for $5. I can’t even pay the fee for a stock transaction for that.

The mistake, as always, is to think that the Democrats or Republicans are really “about” anything other than opposing each other for nominal power. There’s no solid, fixed ideas or policies to either of them. They’re not even exactly tribal entities – rather they’re ever-shifting confederations of ever-changing tribal loyalties. None of this is to say that people who identify with one side or the other are never motivated by ideas or philosophical scruple (for better or worse), only that the sides themselves, broadly speaking, are not defined by such things. More importantly, which of the two is (rather nominally and very temporarily) in charge is not really a deciding factor in the direction the country moves in.

Repeating once again, Democrats do not support “personal” or “civil” liberties, per se. And Republicans do not support “economic” liberties, per se. For that matter, their policies and goals don’t really fall on either side of other entirely artificial and intellectually futile distinctions libertarians are fond of – be it “individualism” versus “collectivism”, or “positive liberty” versus “negative liberty”, or “capitalism” versus “socialism”, or “public” versus “private” rights and interests, or whatever is being put forward as the Grand Unified Theory of Political Philosophy.

And as long as the government runs lotteries and collects taxes from brick-and-mortar casinos, they can suck it when it comes to arguing about “protecting compulsive gamblers”.

By the way, thanks government. Harrahs doesn’t give me as much bonus money as online casino’s, nor can I buy into micro tournaments. Full Tilt also does not charge $5 every dealer change simply to sit at the table, plus the rake.

The only positive I can see coming from this is that more people will consider anarchism, or at the least, libertarianism.

If I had thousands of dollars in these accounts that are now frozen, or was simply relying on profits from online poker play, I’d likely go postal.

No such guarantee exists with financial markets. True, there are lapdog agencies which in theory will try to protect the markets from certain type of cheaters, but by and large the odds are really not well established, and certain players have distinct advantages which they can use to the detriment of everyone else.

Actually, when the 2006 law passed and most of the sites closed up US operations (including the one I was on), shortly thereafter, I opened an options account with my on-line broker.

I am basically sympathetic with Mr. Balko on this, and pls don’t take me wrong, but what is the good answer when someone asks: why not channel the gambling impulse into playing stocks?

I mean, I get that the abstract answer is: bcs I should gamble in my chosen mode, but, as a practical matter, why not just play stocks?

again, not trying to get anyone angry — just curious.

You mean Obama is in danger of losing your vote???

Would anyone really be surprised to see nebulous accusations of racketeering co-conspirators?

-I think they really just want to seize the cash and eliminate the competition-

(Say, is “account balance seized by the feds” considered a “loss”?)

It has been explained by very serious people that a hard charging investigation into banking practices might have a negative impact on the bottom line of said banks and in America dear that sort of thing just isn’t done.

Millions of people spend the majority of their lives making themselves unhealthy and miserable. This does not make preventing them from doing themselves injury the job of Government, not least because historically Government has been lousy at every part of that job that it had tried to take on.

VERY high priced entertainment.

I can’t agree that Obama and Clinton are essentially similar. Obama is a void; an activist with little to no practical experience as an elected official. He has few ideas, and what ideas he has are impractical.

Clinton was an experienced political hack. His elevations was the consequence of the Democrats romanticizing of JFK. Kennedy, viewed in the cold light of dawn, was a second rate political hack with nice hair, good teeth, and a first rate machine bought for him by his daddy. Driven by their rose colored memories of Kennedy, the Democrats stuck themselves with a THIRD rate political hack with nice hair, good teeth, and a first rate political machine he put together along with his charming barracuda of a wife. Clinton had about two-thirds of Kennedy’s charm, and one half his smarts. But, unlike Obama, Clinton was an experienced Player. He often had a tin ear for public opinion, and he had a tendency to be slightly too obviously motivated by momentary expediency, but he had the political experience to shuck-and-jive, or cut a deal, or otherwise move forward. All Obama knows how to do is sulk.

Clinton was an experienced Political Player. He wasn’t a very good President – certainly not nearly as good as the Liberal Left likes to pretend – but he wasn’t a lump. Obama is a lump. He was chosen because he has no traceable past, and could be made into a Plaster Saint for the campaign. As President he is constantly in over his head. Moreover, perhaps because he believes his own press, he isn’t learning. His arrogance is breathtaking, especially for someone who is doing the job so badly. Clinton was a Player. Obama is a puppet.