@OPReport Go lame technicality!
-
-
Replying to @InfiniteEdgeKim
@InfiniteEdgeKim I don't see it that way. If the standard is that companies who violated US law shouldn't be allowed in, then this matters2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @OPReport
@OPReport@InfiniteEdgeKim especially when you consider 12/31/2006 is an arbitrary point, UIGEA didn't change legality3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SteveRuddock
@SteveRuddock@OPReport@InfiniteEdgeKim UIGEA changed legality of poker money processing. A big deal--see Black Friday indictments.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Grange95
@Grange95@OPReport@InfiniteEdgeKim online roulette was illegal on Dec 30 2006 and Jan 1 2007. Dec 31 2006 is arbitrary line2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SteveRuddock
@SteveRuddock@OPReport@InfiniteEdgeKim In law, "arbitrary" means "wholly irrational or unjustified ". Picking 12/31/06 is NOT arbitrary.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Grange95
@Grange95@OPReport@InfiniteEdgeKim it's extremely irrational as date for iGaming legality (payment processing is different story)3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SteveRuddock
@SteveRuddock@OPReport Poker sites willfully violating federal financial law is hardly irrelevant to judging suitability for gaming license3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Grange951 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
Replying to @SteveRuddock
@SteveRuddock 1/2 The argument is whether 12/31/06 (UIGEA) is arbitrary for determining suitability for good/bad actors. Nothing to do with2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@SteveRuddock 2/2 whether particular games were legal. And for suitability, UIGEA compliance can be a rational consideration.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.