SCOTUS ruling and the Pistons

[jumpinmp]

You didn’t do any work here, duplicate account.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Wrong again, but at this point it's not exactly a surprise.

That's all you've got? You're a real heavy hitter, ace. Go back to the sandbox with the kiddies.

This isn't even a baseball forum.

[Manocad]

Wrong again, but at this point it's not exactly a surprise.

That's all you've got? You're a real heavy hitter, ace. Go back to the sandbox with the kiddies.

This isn't even a baseball forum.

Nor is it a sports gambling forum.

You really thought that one through.

[jumpinmp]

That's all you've got? You're a real heavy hitter, ace. Go back to the sandbox with the kiddies.

This isn't even a baseball forum.

Nor is it a sports gambling forum.

You really thought that one through.

At this point any conversation (pretty loose definition here, let's be honest) is moot. Now I'm just enjoying the catch.

[Manocad]

This isn't even a baseball forum.

Nor is it a sports gambling forum.

You really thought that one through.

At this point any conversation (pretty loose definition here, let's be honest) is moot. Now I'm just enjoying the catch.

Ah yes, the old "Ha ha, I've reeled you in" defense after getting batted around like a mouse. You take that catch and put it up the mantle, you big stud, you! Show it off to all your friends!

You funny.

[jumpinmp]

Nor is it a sports gambling forum.

You really thought that one through.

At this point any conversation (pretty loose definition here, let's be honest) is moot. Now I'm just enjoying the catch.

Ah yes, the old "Ha ha, I've reeled you in" defense after getting batted around like a mouse. You take that catch and put it up the mantle, you big stud, you! Show it off to all your friends!

You funny.

Still jumping?

[Manocad]

At this point any conversation (pretty loose definition here, let's be honest) is moot. Now I'm just enjoying the catch.

Ah yes, the old "Ha ha, I've reeled you in" defense after getting batted around like a mouse. You take that catch and put it up the mantle, you big stud, you! Show it off to all your friends!

You funny.

Still jumping?

Your mother? Absolutely. She’s a spry lady and gives 110%.

See, I can actually add humor. Give it a shot.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[flow]

"You can’t sell any drug you want without approval from the feds because the FDA is an established federal regulating authority. There is no Federal Sports Betting Administration that has been given the authority to decide who gets to bet on sports and who doesn’t—THAT’S WHY THE PASPA WAS STRUCK DOWN.'

Not sure why this is confusing to you. The federal government can at any point create a law outlawing sports betting. Just like they passed a law creating the FDA. It has absolutely nothing to do with congress being able to outlaw gambling. There is absolutely zero debate about that power. If congress wants to, they can pass a nationwide ban on sports betting. Seriously, read the ruling.

This case was about anticommandeering. The federal government can pass a law that applies to citizen/residents etc. Ie no citizens can bet on games. The federal government cannot pass laws requiring state action (or inaction). ie keeping states from repealing their own antigambling laws. If the federal government acts, it's laws trump state laws (supremacy). If the feds pass a law saying gambling is allowed everywhere or nowhere, that becomes the law of the land. If the federal government doesn't act, then state laws are applicable. In this case, the feds didn't ban sports betting. The feds banned states from repealing their existing state level bans. (Thats why you can bet in vegas). That is the part that got struck down. If the feds want to ban something, they need to do so outright and incur the cost of enforcing that law. They can't compel the states to have state level laws and enforcement.

Perhaps. But in reality, Congress isn't banning anything at this point. The toothpaste is out of the tube now. The Supreme Court spoke, and the states are reacting. Congress is staying out of it.

[Manocad]

"You can’t sell any drug you want without approval from the feds because the FDA is an established federal regulating authority. There is no Federal Sports Betting Administration that has been given the authority to decide who gets to bet on sports and who doesn’t—THAT’S WHY THE PASPA WAS STRUCK DOWN.'

Not sure why this is confusing to you. The federal government can at any point create a law outlawing sports betting. Just like they passed a law creating the FDA. It has absolutely nothing to do with congress being able to outlaw gambling. There is absolutely zero debate about that power. If congress wants to, they can pass a nationwide ban on sports betting. Seriously, read the ruling.

This case was about anticommandeering. The federal government can pass a law that applies to citizen/residents etc. Ie no citizens can bet on games. The federal government cannot pass laws requiring state action (or inaction). ie keeping states from repealing their own antigambling laws. If the federal government acts, it's laws trump state laws (supremacy). If the feds pass a law saying gambling is allowed everywhere or nowhere, that becomes the law of the land. If the federal government doesn't act, then state laws are applicable. In this case, the feds didn't ban sports betting. The feds banned states from repealing their existing state level bans. (Thats why you can bet in vegas). That is the part that got struck down. If the feds want to ban something, they need to do so outright and incur the cost of enforcing that law. They can't compel the states to have state level laws and enforcement.

Perhaps. But in reality, Congress isn't banning anything at this point. The toothpaste is out of the tube now. The Supreme Court spoke, and the states are reacting. Congress is staying out of it.

Oddly enough, somebody in this thread argued from Day 1 that was going to be the outcome. Go figure.

I guess someone could argue that the states jumping all over legalizing sports betting was just an ancillary effect of the SCOTUS ruling and it was not a consideration of the ruling in any way, being that the real evil here is commandeering. But I think most of us would file that under being intentionally obtuse.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[jumpinmp]

Ah yes, the old "Ha ha, I've reeled you in" defense after getting batted around like a mouse. You take that catch and put it up the mantle, you big stud, you! Show it off to all your friends!

You funny.

Still jumping?

Your mother? Absolutely. She’s a spry lady and gives 110%.

See, I can actually add humor. Give it a shot.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Whoops. You forgot to add the part with humor.

[TPA]

Every time I see this topic, I read SCROTUS. Wtf...

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[Manocad]

Still jumping?

Your mother? Absolutely. She’s a spry lady and gives 110%.

See, I can actually add humor. Give it a shot.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Whoops. You forgot to add the part with humor.

I was depending on you to do that. Just drop your pants and we’ll have all the humor we need.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[jumpinmp]

So.. a quick recap.

Thread was made asking how the SCOTUS ruling would help Pistons. Bill chimed in saying not so fast, as the SCOTUS didn't rule against sports betting, but the way it was enforced; let's not count our chickens yet. Manocad came in and said Bill was wrong about the SCOTUS ruling. I backed up Bill's opinion on what the SCOTUS ruling meant and the fact that the US Congress could simply reban sports betting if they wanted to. Manocad chimed in again with even less facts/ideas and more gut feelings.

So, in honor of your ineptitude, I will donate the rest of my thread space to you. This space shall be used for you to show off your clever small penis jokes and other witticisms. Try to stick to the facts and the arguments, and I'm sure you'll be a much better communicator by the end of 2018. Ciao!

[Manocad]

So.. a quick recap.

Thread was made asking how the SCOTUS ruling would help Pistons. Bill chimed in saying not so fast, as the SCOTUS didn't rule against sports betting, but the way it was enforced; let's not count our chickens yet. Manocad came in and said Bill was wrong about the SCOTUS ruling. I backed up Bill's opinion on what the SCOTUS ruling meant and the fact that the US Congress could simply reban sports betting if they wanted to. Manocad chimed in again with even less facts/ideas and more gut feelings.

So, in honor of your ineptitude, I will donate the rest of my thread space to you. This space shall be used for you to show off your clever small penis jokes and other witticisms. Try to stick to the facts and the arguments, and I'm sure you'll be a much better communicator by the end of 2018. Ciao!

It’s not a gut feeling when it’s right. What happened is exactly what I said would happen; the states have jumped on legalizing sports betting and the federal government hasn’t done jack diddley. You can call that a lucky guess all you’d like; I was still right.

Did you get picked on a lot as a kid? You’re like that keyboard warrior who’s desperately trying to prove his superiority over the internet.

So yeah, you’ll be back. Because you’re inferior to me and you know it; you just don’t want everyone else to see it.

Tell your mom I said hi.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[potatoaim]

Why dont you two get a room...

[Manocad]

Why dont you two get a room...

Do you really want to take on the legend, rook?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app