CONGRESS VOTES TO BAN ONLINE POKER

[Lawman007]

The House voted to ban internet gambling, including online poker, yesterday by a vote of 317-93. If this bill becomes law, it will prohibit banks from transferring customers' funds to online poker sites and companies like Neteller and will force banks to work with law-enforcement agencies to stop money from being transferred to online poker sites and companies like Neteller.

The Senate will vote on this bill next. If the Senate passes it, the bill will become law because President Bush supports it and will sign it. This will effectively prohibit Americans from playing at online poker sites.

Cardplayer.com and several other sites have been warning about this for months and encouraging poker players to contact their Representatives and Senators and voice your opposition to this bill. It's too late to contact your Representative now, since the House has already passed the bill. However, you better contact your Senators soon to voice your opposition to this bill or it's going to become law. It's already halfway there.

If you don't do something, one day you're going to wake up and find that you can't play poker online anymore. You better do something before it's too late. Here's a link to the Cardplayer.com story on the passage of this bill by the House yesterday:

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news/news_story/1153?class=PokerNews

To the moderators - Please do not move this thread to the Legislation Forum where only a few people will see it. This is very important to everyone who posts in this forum, so please leave it here so that everyone here will see it and we can try to stop this bill from becoming law. The reason that the bill was able to pass the House is because not enough poker players knew about it and voiced their opposition to it. Thank you.

*

Edit/MH: There have been a dozen posts in the Zoo about this important matter in the last day or two. Some are still here. There will probably be a dozen more. I would doubt if any Twoplustwoer hasn't read a few of them and doesn't know exactly what they should do.

[heater]

Quit spamming all the forums with this crap you [censored] idiot. This is a POKER site. We are all well aware of what happened yesterday. If you don't have something less vague than "YOU BETTER DO SOMETHING BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!" or "THE SKY IS FALLING!!!" to say then please just STFU. There are already a million threads on this. You're not breaking any news to anybody.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
Quit spamming all the forums with this crap you [censored] idiot. This is a POKER site. We are all well aware of what happened yesterday. If you don't have something less vague than "YOU BETTER DO SOMETHING BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!" or "THE SKY IS FALLING!!!" to say then please just STFU. There are already a million threads on this. You're not breaking any news to anybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're the idiot, because the sky IS falling. The bill is halfway to becoming law because not enough online poker players knew about it.

All these threads keep getting moved to this forum where the same 25 people keep reading the same posts. There are lots of 2+2ers who know nothing about this because these threads keep getting moved to this forum that nobody comes to. Check out the NVG forum if you don't believe me.

[wiggs73]

Ban pls.

[NeedsMoreNuts]

[ QUOTE ]
Ban pls.

[/ QUOTE ]

[heater]

[ QUOTE ]
There are lots of 2+2ers who know nothing about this because these threads keep getting moved to this forum that nobody comes to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Find one. Just one.

[Kevmath]

Kind of ironic that Lawman would turn into Chicken Little. I'm sure Oliver Tse would get a chuckle out of that.

[frommagio]

Until I read the Slate article about that self-professed "professional poker player" who gambled away his entire bankroll and then went through nearly all of the family's untouchable rainy day reserves, I would have been 100% dead set against this bill - couldn't see the other side. Now, I must admit that I find myself thinking about the damage that is done to families by problem gamblers. I'm no longer so sure that my position is as well-founded as I once believed it to be.

There are definitely real innocent victims out there, but I still feel that the greater good is served by the US government staying out of it. But I feel for innocent victims such as the family in the Slate article.

I'm still a regular internet player, but I don't feel very good about it right now.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Until I read the Slate article about that self-professed "professional poker player" who gambled away his entire bankroll and then went through nearly all of the family's untouchable rainy day reserves, I would have been 100% dead set against this bill - couldn't see the other side. Now, I must admit that I find myself thinking about the damage that is done to families by problem gamblers. I'm no longer so sure that my position is as well-founded as I once believed it to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy who was the subject of the Slate article is a 2+2er (handle: cero_z) with 1500 posts who many in the high stakes forums respect. Both he and his wife (who authored the article) posted here and admitted her article made the situation sound worse than it truly was.

The thread is here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=6413249&an=&page=&vc=1

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Until I read the Slate article about that self-professed "professional poker player" who gambled away his entire bankroll and then went through nearly all of the family's untouchable rainy day reserves, I would have been 100% dead set against this bill - couldn't see the other side. Now, I must admit that I find myself thinking about the damage that is done to families by problem gamblers. I'm no longer so sure that my position is as well-founded as I once believed it to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy who was the subject of the Slate article is a 2+2er (handle: cero_z)with 1500 posts who many in the high stakes forums respect. Both he and his wife (who authored the article) posted here and admitted her article made the situation sound worse than it truly was.

The thread is here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=6413249&an=&page=&vc=1

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I read that thread completely. In my opinion, the subject of that article has some very well-developed table skills, but has a serious tilt problem and no money management skills. Right now, he's far from a professional - in my opinion.

And I do feel very sorry for his wife and kids (and for him), and for many unknown others who didn't have a miracle comeback once they lost $73.5k out of their $65k bankroll and $10k rainy day fund.

We all love poker, but we need to be honest and admit that the other side has a few pretty solid arguments to make. There are real victims here.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
We all love poker, but we need to be honest and admit that the other side has a few pretty solid arguments to make. There are real victims here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let's see, cigarettes don't just break you, they kill you, so let's outlaw those, too. So does alcohol to excess, so let's go back to prohibition. And while we're at it, let's outlaw casino gambling, too, since it's just as bad as internet gambling, and shut down Las Vegas, Tunica, and Atlantic City, to protect people from themselves.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We all love poker, but we need to be honest and admit that the other side has a few pretty solid arguments to make. There are real victims here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let's see, cigarettes don't just break you, they kill you, so let's outlaw those, too. So does alcohol to excess, so let's go back to prohibition. And while we're at it, let's outlaw casino gambling, too, since it's just as bad as internet gambling, and shut down Las Vegas, Tunica, and Atlantic City, to protect people from themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear you, and my position is still that gambling should be legal. (Did you notice that I'm in agreement with you?) But there are families and young children suffering from (typically) their fathers' problem, and it just makes me feel very sad.

Can't have freedom without accepting responsibility, but it's a real kick in the teeth for the spouse and little kids who did nothing wrong. So I understand why there's momentum behind a bill like this.

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quit spamming all the forums with this crap you [censored] idiot. This is a POKER site. We are all well aware of what happened yesterday. If you don't have something less vague than "YOU BETTER DO SOMETHING BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!" or "THE SKY IS FALLING!!!" to say then please just STFU. There are already a million threads on this. You're not breaking any news to anybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're the idiot, because the sky IS falling. The bill is halfway to becoming law because not enough online poker players knew about it.

All these threads keep getting moved to this forum where the same 25 people keep reading the same posts. There are lots of 2+2ers who know nothing about this because these threads keep getting moved to this forum that nobody comes to. Check out the NVG forum if you don't believe me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This type of anti-internet gambling law has been this far before, it failed.

[frommagio]

Where can I find out how my representative voted?

[Hince]

[ QUOTE ]
Until I read the Slate article about that self-professed "professional poker player" who gambled away his entire bankroll and then went through nearly all of the family's untouchable rainy day reserves, I would have been 100% dead set against this bill - couldn't see the other side. Now, I must admit that I find myself thinking about the damage that is done to families by problem gamblers. I'm no longer so sure that my position is as well-founded as I once believed it to be.

There are definitely real innocent victims out there, but I still feel that the greater good is served by the US government staying out of it. But I feel for innocent victims such as the family in the Slate article.

I'm still a regular internet player, but I don't feel very good about it right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I think you are entitled to your opinion, I don't think it is well thought out.

Let's just examine the cero's case or any professional for that matter. Cero considered himself a professional. The article even said he paid taxes. I'm assuming he files his taxes as a business. ANY entrepenuer of ANY industry knows there is some level of risk involed. To say that Cero is a victim is totally absurd.

Is a restaurant owner who takes a morgage on his house to pay his business expenses a victim? Should we ban all people from starting businesses or investing in a business because there is some level of risk involved?

[NapoleonDolemite]

Please: Never ever say that anyone is a "victim" of gambling. You have free will. Exercise it wisely or poorly and suffer the consequences or reap the rewards. A victim is someone who has something imposed on them through no fault of their own.

[McBusto]

[ QUOTE ]
Please: Never ever say that anyone is a "victim" of gambling. You have free will. Exercise it wisely or poorly and suffer the consequences or reap the rewards. A victim is someone who has something imposed on them through no fault of their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Family members of compulsive gamblers could be victims or gambling. This in no way however makes banning online poker justfiable. People are shopahaulics, and I don't see them banning online shopping.

[Chippmunstr]

My two non-american cents:

Are you sure this law is really about protecting gamblers with a problem?

I'd say it's more about capital leaving the country (in the shape of rake) and not being taxable in the US, plus other reasons of a character more connected to business than the wellbeing of problem gamblers and their families.

[PE101]

You're probably right. That's why the US should legalize it (the hosting of poker within the US), regulate it and tax it...

[PE101]

By the way, this is the same Congress that still subsidizes US farmers for growing tobacco... /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[infinite_loop]

Just because some jackasses are irresponsible with their own lives, it doesn't mean someone else is responsible. Let them fall through the cracks. There has to be some incentive to be a rational individual. The easiest way to teach someone a lesson is to let them fail. People have an inherant need for survival. Remove the safety net and people really start learning how to live.

Fortunately, such a bill would be impossible to enforce without turning this country into Communist China and will ultimately fail. You can't police every aspect of people's lives. While immoral it is to put forth such an infringement, fortunately reality has a way of throwing a wrench in things when it comes to that business concept that politicians are too busy not having real jobs to learn: logistics.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
Please: Never ever say that anyone is a "victim" of gambling. You have free will. Exercise it wisely or poorly and suffer the consequences or reap the rewards. A victim is someone who has something imposed on them through no fault of their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you read my post, you'll see that I was referring to the family - especially the little kids. That bingoboy in the Slate article had one or two little kids who did nothing wrong. Is it their fault they picked a daddy who gambled away the family savings?

[Hince]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please: Never ever say that anyone is a "victim" of gambling. You have free will. Exercise it wisely or poorly and suffer the consequences or reap the rewards. A victim is someone who has something imposed on them through no fault of their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you read my post, you'll see that I was referring to the family - especially the little kids. That bingoboy in the Slate article had one or two little kids who did nothing wrong. Is it their fault they picked a daddy who gambled away the family savings?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an ignorant opinion. "Bingoboy" in the Slate article was a self-employed professional. Would you have the same perspective if Cero were a failing business owner?

Owning a business or investing is a gamble, some businesses are +EV and some are -EV. Even solid investments can fail. Should ALL businesses be outlawed because there is a chance they will not succeed? Or do you think that it would be better that people with families are not allowed to run a business in order to protect the innocent children?


How can we protect the children from people investing THEIR OWN money when they have a family???? Please won't someone think of the children!