Daniel Negreanu's response [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

Hans Gruber

10-02-2006, 12:29 AM

Daniel posted this on his site's message board. Is there any merit to what he is saying?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guys, I woudn't sweat it, seriously. Clearly we are dealing with a bunch of bafoons (the gov't), but there is only so much they can do. They aren't going to put an end to online gaming. They simply don't have the resources to enforce a law like this.

The only thing they may accomplish is putting some pressure on banks to not fund online poker accounts. Whoopy. They tried to crack down on credit card companies before this and it hasn't hurt online poker all that much thanks to Neteller and other such companies.

If a new banking company, let's call it "Booga Booga" opens up in the U.K. and takes funds from U.S. customers they'd be doing nothing illegal since the U.S. doesn't have a say.

The bank sending funds to Booga Booga wouldn't be doing anything illegal since they aren't funding online poker accounts- Booga Booga is.

Lastly, I don't endorse www.fullcontactpoker.com (http://www.fullcontactpoker.com) on television. I endorse www.fullcontactpoker.NET (http://www.fullcontactpoker.NET) on television which is a very different story. It's akin to be advertising for yahoo games since they can't legally prove that I'm endorsing any illegal activity.

It's all more political blah, blah, blah, that's been thrown at us by a moronic and conservative administration that just needs to go. After this, I can't imagine I'd vote Republican regardless of who runs. This issue hits too close to home and I believe the Democrats would be more likely to legalize and tax online gaming.

jimmytrick

10-02-2006, 12:33 AM

Pretty meaningless I think.

schroedy

10-02-2006, 12:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Daniel posted . . . After this, I can't imagine I'd vote Republican regardless of who runs. This issue hits too close to home and I believe the Democrats would be more likely to legalize and tax online gaming.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is indeed a silver lining within even the darkest cloud.

The current Administration is . . . I cannot think of a word other than evil. The world has not seen this kind of divide and conquer strategy for 60 years. But what we are seeing now is eerily parallel.

I would hope that ALL persons who EVER play poker go out and VOTE them out in NOVEMBER. THIS NOVEMBER. Let your voice be heard, up and down the slate.

pineapple888

10-02-2006, 12:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty meaningless I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

He clearly understands far less about the situation than many of the respected posters on this board.

He clearly has personal incentives to downplay the impact of this legislation.

Slappz

10-02-2006, 12:36 AM

I thought Daniel was Canadian?

DrewOnTilt

10-02-2006, 12:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
bafoons

[/ QUOTE ]

He can't even spell "buffoon." Aside from that, his post stinks of head-in-the-sandedness. In all seriousness, I hope that he is right, but how many more gaming executives are going to have to get arrested before people wake up?

In any case, let's see what happens tomorrow.

Insp. Clue!So?

10-02-2006, 12:37 AM

Trust me, if they get around to attacking Iran like they desperately, desperately want to do, even this issue will seem minor by comparison and we will all rue the day...

SoftcoreRevolt

10-02-2006, 12:38 AM

Well, at least FCP doesn't sound like it'll be banning US players!

inspectorgadget

10-02-2006, 12:40 AM

I'm not really worried, honestly. When the government oversteps its boundaries like this there is always public backlash. They might succeed for a year, tops - but people will fight it. And if they start trying to arrest the Avg Joe American for playing poker online there will be a [censored] storm...

I really don't know of a single person that believes Poker should be illegal. All we have to do is protest, guys - why the [censored] are you so afraid of your government?

Organize and protest. That's what we need to do. Maybe we can even get Bush to veto the bill /images/graemlins/wink.gif - unlikely, sure - but we have 270 days afterwards to organize on this...

Jooka

10-02-2006, 12:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, at least FCP doesn't sound like it'll be banning US players!

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt that. the quote your reading is from a thread asking if he could be charged for sponsoring FCP.

breaktwister

10-02-2006, 12:40 AM

I hope you Americans are going to get some new leaders. What idiots you have in charge. I cant believe their arrogance. Is there nothing in the Constitution about protecting personal liberties?

Lawman007

10-02-2006, 12:43 AM

It sounds like he would fit in very well with the denial crowd here. He's out of his mind if he really believes that the government can't prove that he endorses an illegal online poker site.

BlackAndRed

10-02-2006, 12:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not really worried, honestly. When the government oversteps its boundaries like this there is always public backlash.

[/ QUOTE ]

The War on Drugs, among dozens of other such abuses, is grounds for pessimism on that count.

Think of the children.

SoftcoreRevolt

10-02-2006, 12:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you Americans are going to get some new leaders. What idiots you have in charge. I cant believe their arrogance. Is there nothing in the Constitution about protecting personal liberties?

[/ QUOTE ]

George Jefferson and Andrew Lincoln forgot to staple the Article 11: "US Residents shall have the right to gamble on the internet" to the main part of the Constitution.

dibbs

10-02-2006, 12:45 AM

Thanks for posting this obviously, but taking his thoughts here as an authoritative viewpoint is way off IMO.

Of course I hope hes right, but whatever. Im already having anxiety attacks about how crazy tomorrow might be.

Lawman007

10-02-2006, 12:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
George Jefferson and Andrew Lincoln forgot to staple the Article 11: "US Residents shall have the right to gamble on the internet" to the main part of the Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

George Jefferson and Andrew Lincoln?! /images/graemlins/shocked.gif Please tell me you aren't an American.

peritonlogon

10-02-2006, 12:49 AM

I think he is just as much in the dark as the rest of us... only time will tell what it means, I'd give it a couple weeks till we know what the short term effects will be and another month past the 270 day period to have a an idea what the longer term effects will be.

Will there be some sort of legal action or bank refusal which takes the teeth out of the bill? Would that actually matter to the justice department (they don't seem to care about case law)? Will the justice department take any action?

We can speculate about the possibilities of some things pretty well (the chance that online gambling will become specifically legal and then regulated I think is very slim) but not things where there are a half dozen uncertain aspects (what will the sites do? what will the govt actually do? what will the WTO do? could a mass exodus of fish happen? would that effect be long term or medium term? might any other laws appear or disappear before the 270 days? could there be a case law decision affecting the law?).

I think this is the type of situation where a wise gambler declines to wager. We just have no friggin clue.

I am going to play while the getting is still good, and come up with some contingency plans (new business, perhaps a lucrative website, more school, a job [gasp] maybe realestate)

OHFreak

10-02-2006, 12:50 AM

Don't forget about Weezy.

ybother

10-02-2006, 12:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
George Jefferson and Andrew Lincoln forgot to staple the Article 11: "US Residents shall have the right to gamble on the internet" to the main part of the Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

George Jefferson and Andrew Lincoln?! /images/graemlins/shocked.gif Please tell me you aren't an American.

[/ QUOTE ]

George Jefferson, cuz we're moving on up!

Claunchy

10-02-2006, 12:50 AM

BlackAndRed

10-02-2006, 12:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you Americans are going to get some new leaders. What idiots you have in charge. I cant believe their arrogance. Is there nothing in the Constitution about protecting personal liberties?

[/ QUOTE ]

We gutted most of that a long time ago. Interestingly enough, most of the gutting was originally done by progressives, in order to expand the government's enumerated power to regulate commerce into a blanket ability to do nearly anything, and justifying it by saying that it might vaguely relate to commerce.

But that's for another forum.

Lawman007

10-02-2006, 12:52 AM

If I'm not mistaken, Archie Bunker was George Jefferson's secretary of defense.

OHFreak

10-02-2006, 12:52 AM

FCP is just a skin for Pokerroom. I'm curious what their response will be. Haven't some of their other skins not accepted US business for some time now (Eurobet, maybe?)

dibbs

10-02-2006, 12:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
FCP is just a skin for Pokerroom. I'm curious what their response will be. Haven't some of their other skins not accepted US business for some time now (Eurobet, maybe?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea I think Eurobet was the first to bail, and that was a while ago too, way before people started really thinking this could actually happen.

Vern

10-02-2006, 12:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm not mistaken, Archie Bunker was George Jefferson's secretary of defense.

[/ QUOTE ]
But he used Edith as his intern.

Jooka

10-02-2006, 12:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
George Jefferson and Andrew Lincoln forgot to staple the Article 11: "US Residents shall have the right to gamble on the internet" to the main part of the Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

George Jefferson and Andrew Lincoln?! /images/graemlins/shocked.gif Please tell me you aren't an American.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your retarted.

[/ QUOTE ]

best [censored] post here.

SoftcoreRevolt

10-02-2006, 01:02 AM

danny_nguyen

10-02-2006, 01:02 AM

guys I tried boogabooga.com and it was a dead site.

Can someone please direct me to booga booga's website. thanks.

Is it boogabooga.uk.com?

Vern

10-02-2006, 01:05 AM

boogabooga is a registered domain with suffixes .com, .net, .org & .info but bafoons .com, .net, .org & .info are all available.

cowboy.up

10-02-2006, 01:06 AM

no .com just .uk

MannyIsGod

10-02-2006, 01:12 AM

Personally, I couldn't care less about what Daniel says. He's a good poker player, but he probably has as much insight as the rest of the poker players in this forum.

And after reading most of our posts, I'd have to say that none of us know just WTF is going on.

dibbs

10-02-2006, 01:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
guys I tried boogabooga.com and it was a dead site.

Can someone please direct me to booga booga's website. thanks.

Is it boogabooga.uk.com?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Booga Booga was a country.

Tofu_boy

10-02-2006, 01:33 AM

let's call it "Booga Booga" opens up in the U.K. and takes funds from U.S
it doesn't exist.
guys I tried boogabooga.com and it was a dead site.

Can someone please direct me to booga booga's website. thanks.

Is it boogabooga.uk.com?

XxGeneralxX

10-02-2006, 01:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If a new banking company, let's call it "Booga Booga" opens up in the U.K. and takes funds from U.S. customers they'd be doing nothing illegal since the U.S. doesn't have a say.

The bank sending funds to Booga Booga wouldn't be doing anything illegal since they aren't funding online poker accounts- Booga Booga is.

[/ QUOTE ]

1.you send money to booga booga ....booga booga sends money to "ILLEGAL" online poker site.

2.you grind it out and make 5k profit on the "ILLEGAL" online poker site.

3.You transfer profit onto booga booga and then back to your US bank account.

isnt this called Money Laundering?

jimmytrick

10-02-2006, 01:38 AM

yes

Vern

10-02-2006, 01:39 AM

Boogabooga.com is not a dead site, it is owned by MelbourneIT, controlled by the owner in UT, although the business is registered in CO. Simple whois told me that.

blueodum

10-02-2006, 01:40 AM

Your retarted.

This is when you put your Pop Tarts in the toaster for a second time.

Anders

10-02-2006, 01:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Your retarted.

This is when you put your Pop Tarts in the toaster for a second time.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's delicious, it's like twice-baked potatoes, but for breakfast and also not potatoes.

Python49

10-02-2006, 02:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Your retarted.

This is when you put your Pop Tarts in the toaster for a second time.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've been laughing 5 minutes straight at this, literally. Classic imo.

ubercuber

10-02-2006, 02:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a new banking company, let's call it "Booga Booga" opens up in the U.K. and takes funds from U.S. customers they'd be doing nothing illegal since the U.S. doesn't have a say.

The bank sending funds to Booga Booga wouldn't be doing anything illegal since they aren't funding online poker accounts- Booga Booga is.

[/ QUOTE ]

1.you send money to booga booga ....booga booga sends money to "ILLEGAL" online poker site.

2.you grind it out and make 5k profit on the "ILLEGAL" online poker site.

3.You transfer profit onto booga booga and then back to your US bank account.

isnt this called Money Laundering?

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW (probably zero):
I don't think so, I think money laundering is if you cashed your Party account to your UK pizza shop, cooked the books to make it look like pizza income and then transferred. That is IF poker sites were illegal.

You might be guilty of some "trying to circumvent bank regulations" law?? (not sure if it's even illegal for players to transfer, might just be illegal for banks to allow the transfer).

THE HOBO

10-02-2006, 04:10 AM

Post deleted by Ryan Beal

Lawman007

10-02-2006, 04:11 AM

If I'm not mistaken, he's also a high school dropout.

jimmytrick

10-02-2006, 04:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm not mistaken, he's also a high school dropout.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm not mistaken, you're a jerk.

db9db9db9

10-02-2006, 04:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm not mistaken, he's also a high school dropout.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's good at playing poker, but he's not much of a legal analyst. This seems to be a misread on his part.

SkandarAkbar

10-02-2006, 04:26 AM

agreed daniel isn't the guy I'm looking to get advice from, he should stick to video games and golf and try not to sound intelligent.

Jive Dadson

10-02-2006, 04:35 AM

pig4bill

10-02-2006, 05:20 AM

Daniel is a naive kid. He's never had to live in the real world. The government doesn't have the resources to enforce this law? It won't take much. Plus, they have resources that are enforcing other laws who can probably take on one more law.

Oh, and way to show those pesky Republicans by not voting for them. Oops, Canadians can't vote for them anyway. But he can root for those Dems. They would never vote to stop online poker. Oops, looks like 115 Democrats did vote for the House version in July.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/house/2/votes/363/

chicagoY

10-02-2006, 05:37 AM

That's true but if the sites quit on us it makes no difference.

chicagoY

10-02-2006, 05:38 AM

He's just like a rock star: good at one thing but talking about everything else. Other than hair care products, I wouldn't take his advice on anything.

MasterLJ

10-02-2006, 05:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you Americans are going to get some new leaders. What idiots you have in charge. I cant believe their arrogance. Is there nothing in the Constitution about protecting personal liberties?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not when it hurts the children man.

Nevermind that a child with access to monetary sources can not only gamble online but they could also:

1. Buy a crate of pink dildos
2. Buy a case of viagra
3. Buy alcohol
4. Buy illicit narcotics
5. View porn
6. Join in online lotteries
7. Bet on horses
8. Purchase weapons
9. Solicit/Be solicited for sex
10. Engage in a webcam sex show involving a donkey, a migit and produce

BUT GOD FORBID THEY GAMBLE! WE MUST LEGISLATE!

mackthefork

10-02-2006, 05:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope you Americans are going to get some new leaders. What idiots you have in charge. I cant believe their arrogance. Is there nothing in the Constitution about protecting personal liberties?

[/ QUOTE ]

George Jefferson and Andrew Lincoln forgot to staple the Article 11: "US Residents shall have the right to gamble on the internet" to the main part of the Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is protectionism plain and simple, a UK company which operates fairly and legitimately, has had it's interests hurt by protectionism. We should move to ban UK coustomers from using Ebay, Amazon, Google, Yahoo, and all other scumbag US companies, ban Ford, ban everything, lets have a worldwide trade embargo on the US they suck bad.

Mack