Dinner With A Congressman

[jbrent33]

I am having dinner with a 6 term Republican Congressman next week. A good friend married a his daughter, blah blah blah.
This is not a fundraiser type thing, rather dinner at my friend's house with about 6-8 people.

I have known the Congressman for about 5 years and have a fairly casual relationship, as he and I typically get involved is some type of political discussion after a few beers.

He is supports the UIGA and has in the past, compared gambling sites with drug dealers (yes I live in the south).
However, he is a reasonable man and I'm almost certain he has probably never discussed the situation with someone who derives a large portion of his income from online poker.

I would love to hear some well thought out points I should make.

Thanks,
Jb

[Turning Stone Pro]

Perhaps ask him if you can borrow a couple of bucks until you find a new line of work.

TSP

[jbrent33]

Not bad

[BS Yee]

I think you should start with the carve out provisions for horse racing, state lotteries, & fantasy sports and go from there. Then get into the taxation side of things. And about how many Republicans deserted the GOP last November specifically over this. You know the issues.

[Uglyowl]

"nanny state". Regardless of your dinner mates personal view of poker, we enjoy playing and are harming no one.

Further where the government says is "ok" to play where and when, does not work for all of us.

[ollie5050]

[ QUOTE ]
"nanny state". Regardless of your dinner mates personal view of poker, we enjoy playing and are harming no one.

Further where the government says is "ok" to play where and when, does not work for all of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

amen.

[jbrent33]

[ QUOTE ]
"nanny state". Regardless of your dinner mates personal view of poker, we enjoy playing and are harming no one.

Further where the government says is "ok" to play where and when, does not work for all of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the "harming no one" argument will not hold water. Here is a quote from some hearings he chaired on the matter.

[ QUOTE ]

I appreciate your testimony. Mr. Goodlatte mentioned, and I think others have mentioned, that Mrs. Kelly held some extensive hearings on this earlier this month. If you read that testimony, I think, if for no other reason, you see the social and the financial hazards that young people have when they are exposed to internet gambling. They are computer-sophisticated. They normally have access to a credit card. They become addicted at a young age to this form of gambling. And if for no other reason, I think we need to address it. And it is a tremendously growing problem with our young people who become addicted to gambling at such an early age.

[/ QUOTE ]

[slothinator]

But it's OK if they become addicted to cigarettes and alcohol, right senator? It's OK if they max out those credit cards on clothes and furniture, right senator? Do these guys actually believe anything they are saying?

[mpslg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"nanny state". Regardless of your dinner mates personal view of poker, we enjoy playing and are harming no one.

Further where the government says is "ok" to play where and when, does not work for all of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the "harming no one" argument will not hold water. Here is a quote from some hearings he chaired on the matter.

[ QUOTE ]

I appreciate your testimony. Mr. Goodlatte mentioned, and I think others have mentioned, that Mrs. Kelly held some extensive hearings on this earlier this month. If you read that testimony, I think, if for no other reason, you see the social and the financial hazards that young people have when they are exposed to internet gambling. They are computer-sophisticated. They normally have access to a credit card. They become addicted at a young age to this form of gambling. And if for no other reason, I think we need to address it. And it is a tremendously growing problem with our young people who become addicted to gambling at such an early age.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course online poker harms some people. Just like alcohol, lottery tickets, casino gambling, shopping, credit cards, etc. However, all of those things are perfectly legal. It's about personal choice. Adults should be able to choose whether to gamble online. Some will not be able to handle it, but that doesn't mean they should take it away from the many people who can handle it.

[mpslg]

[ QUOTE ]
But it's OK if they become addicted to cigarettes and alcohol, right senator? It's OK if they max out those credit cards on clothes and furniture, right senator? Do these guys actually believe anything they are saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oops. You beat me to it.

[jbrent33]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"nanny state". Regardless of your dinner mates personal view of poker, we enjoy playing and are harming no one.

Further where the government says is "ok" to play where and when, does not work for all of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the "harming no one" argument will not hold water. Here is a quote from some hearings he chaired on the matter.

[ QUOTE ]

I appreciate your testimony. Mr. Goodlatte mentioned, and I think others have mentioned, that Mrs. Kelly held some extensive hearings on this earlier this month. If you read that testimony, I think, if for no other reason, you see the social and the financial hazards that young people have when they are exposed to internet gambling. They are computer-sophisticated. They normally have access to a credit card. They become addicted at a young age to this form of gambling. And if for no other reason, I think we need to address it. And it is a tremendously growing problem with our young people who become addicted to gambling at such an early age.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course online poker harms some people. Just like alcohol, lottery tickets, casino gambling, shopping, credit cards, etc. However, all of those things are perfectly legal. It's about personal choice. Adults should be able to choose whether to gamble online. Some will not be able to handle it, but that doesn't mean they should take it away from the many people who can handle it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't hold water, in fact it doesn't even really address what the Congressman's main problem in the above quote. Do you see why?

[mpslg]

I still think it is comparable to alcohol. Many, if not most, college students start drinking alcohol before it is legal to do so. Many of them develop alcohol problems, but the majority learn how to control themselves.

[slothinator]

Could it be that the senator is one of these "back in my day we didn't have fancy computers" types of people? Because that would certainly cause him to dislike on-line gaming. Or anything else on-line for that matter. But what if he's right? What if progress and technology are bad for us? WFE

[jbrent33]

[ QUOTE ]
I still think it is comparable to alcohol. Many, if not most, college students start drinking alcohol before it is legal to do so. Many of them develop alcohol problems, but the majority learn how to control themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that you have a valid point. However there are safeguards in place that attempt to restict underage drinking.
I think that might be a point that I could make, if the reasoning here is actually concern for the children, then why not take steps to regulate it and protect them.

[rokstedy]

[ QUOTE ]
I am having dinner with a 6 term Republican Congressman next week. A good friend married a his daughter, blah blah blah.
This is not a fundraiser type thing, rather dinner at my friend's house with about 6-8 people.

I have known the Congressman for about 5 years and have a fairly casual relationship, as he and I typically get involved is some type of political discussion after a few beers.

He is supports the UIGA and has in the past, compared gambling sites with drug dealers (yes I live in the south).
However, he is a reasonable man and I'm almost certain he has probably never discussed the situation with someone who derives a large portion of his income from online poker.

I would love to hear some well thought out points I should make.

Thanks,
Jb

[/ QUOTE ]


Poker is no different, no more dangerous to ones own standard of living, than say a part time day trader doing it over the net. Day trading on the net provides the exact same level of exhiliration for an action junkie and one can just as easily lose money as earn it. But trading stocks is a national past time. Your average day trader knows no more about the stocks he's trading (probably less in fact) than your average online poker player knows about how to play a gutshot on the turn.

[DuDot]

Where is the evidence that this is a serious problem among young kids? I haven't seen any facts regarding poker's affect on US citizens.

The only way to make any progress is to address his perception of the online poker world.

[JooWish622]

[ QUOTE ]
I am having dinner with a 6 term Republican Congressman next week. A good friend married a his daughter, blah blah blah.
This is not a fundraiser type thing, rather dinner at my friend's house with about 6-8 people.

I have known the Congressman for about 5 years and have a fairly casual relationship, as he and I typically get involved is some type of political discussion after a few beers.

He is supports the UIGA and has in the past, compared gambling sites with drug dealers (yes I live in the south).
However, he is a reasonable man and I'm almost certain he has probably never discussed the situation with someone who derives a large portion of his income from online poker.

I would love to hear some well thought out points I should make.

Thanks,
Jb

[/ QUOTE ]

here's the thing:

you need to defend poker from the claim that is corrupting america's youth and that it funds terrorism.

there is a clear distinction you can make between poker and prostitution/drug dealing. poker implicit in the game, has no corrupting attributes. unfortunately, people can find themselves, due to fault of their own, dependent or addicted to gambling, although it has no real internal addicting features. he may retort by saying that moneyloss/win is addicting, but then how is gambling different from say day trading, or investing one's money personally. drug dealing and prostitution are implicitly harmful because they they have real physical and mental effects, such as decreased life expectancy, a very subordinate subsistence for unfortunate young women, death via drugs or disease.

allow the congressman to point out vices of gambling that do not relate to the bible or american ethics, which are, obv, not real reasons.

[JooWish622]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"nanny state". Regardless of your dinner mates personal view of poker, we enjoy playing and are harming no one.

Further where the government says is "ok" to play where and when, does not work for all of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the "harming no one" argument will not hold water. Here is a quote from some hearings he chaired on the matter.

[ QUOTE ]

I appreciate your testimony. Mr. Goodlatte mentioned, and I think others have mentioned, that Mrs. Kelly held some extensive hearings on this earlier this month. If you read that testimony, I think, if for no other reason, you see the social and the financial hazards that young people have when they are exposed to internet gambling. They are computer-sophisticated. They normally have access to a credit card. They become addicted at a young age to this form of gambling. And if for no other reason, I think we need to address it. And it is a tremendously growing problem with our young people who become addicted to gambling at such an early age.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course online poker harms some people. Just like alcohol, lottery tickets, casino gambling, shopping, credit cards, etc. However, all of those things are perfectly legal. It's about personal choice. Adults should be able to choose whether to gamble online. Some will not be able to handle it, but that doesn't mean they should take it away from the many people who can handle it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't hold water, in fact it doesn't even really address what the Congressman's main problem in the above quote. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

but why attack gambling and not other things, like video games, or sports? they first need to show why gambling is a greater vice than these

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am having dinner with a 6 term Republican Congressman next week. A good friend married a his daughter, blah blah blah.
This is not a fundraiser type thing, rather dinner at my friend's house with about 6-8 people.

I have known the Congressman for about 5 years and have a fairly casual relationship, as he and I typically get involved is some type of political discussion after a few beers.

He is supports the UIGA and has in the past, compared gambling sites with drug dealers (yes I live in the south).
However, he is a reasonable man and I'm almost certain he has probably never discussed the situation with someone who derives a large portion of his income from online poker.

I would love to hear some well thought out points I should make.

Thanks,
Jb

[/ QUOTE ]


Poker is no different, no more dangerous to ones own standard of living, than say a part time day trader doing it over the net. Day trading on the net provides the exact same level of exhiliration for an action junkie and one can just as easily lose money as earn it. But trading stocks is a national past time. Your average day trader knows no more about the stocks he's trading (probably less in fact) than your average online poker player knows about how to play a gutshot on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a poor comparison. The fact of the matter is there is a growing percentage of young people that have a gambling problem, especially when it comes to online gambling. There is not a significant number of people with a daytime-trading problem.

I'm against the poker legislation, but I do believe there is a fair point that many people are developing gambling problems and that it needs to be addressed. How it needs to be addressed is where I differ from the past Congress.

[rokstedy]

[ QUOTE ]
There is not a significant number of people with a daytime-trading problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

One of the more misguided statements I've heard.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
There is not a significant number of people with a daytime-trading problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally know half a dozen people who have blown a small fortune doing this. (Very smart people in other aspects of life also)

Makes the kid who robbed a bank over $6,000 in poker losses look like he dropped some change on the ground and couldn't find it.

[rokstedy]

Addicted to day trading (http://www.cnn.com/US/9906/18/gambling.sidebar/)

[D.L.M.]

poker is the stock market. there are some sure things and some risks. and on any given day you can lose your shirt.

[zyqwert]

Interest allows money to flow from those who have it to those who want it and compensates for the risk involved. The free flow of capital has economic benefits, but there are cases with bad outcomes (deadbeat + loanshark). Many muslim countries have laws against charging interest (and sham workarounds) because their religon tells them usury is evil.

Gambling is a market for information. The free flow of information has social benefits. When I wanted to know election results, I went to Tradesports, not CNN.

The poker sites did a very fair job of preventing underaged players, far better than you'd find for alcohol, drugs, or porn. Credit cards (the mechanism he mentions) were largely worthless, thanks to charge backs.

Is there any activity he would not be willing to prohibit in the name of protecting the children? Where, exactly, is the victim when I commit the crime of donking off $20 on Stars in an hour?

If he really wants to help me he should ban golf -- that game sucks up my cash far too quickly.

[dlk9s]

1) Ask him when online porn is going to be made illegal, and if it isn't, why it is better for our society than a card game.

2) Be ready to have your socks blown off when he presents the undeniable proof that online poker benefits terrorism.

And not that you don't know this, don't be mean-spirited or confrontational. If this dinner is not set up for you to specifically discuss online poker, respect everyone else's time.

[binions]

The gambling that is business looks with disfavor on the business that is gambling.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is not a significant number of people with a daytime-trading problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

One of the more misguided statements I've heard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you prove your point a bit better than that? I'll accept that it seems to be a bigger problem then I realized, but I haven't found anything saying that it is close to or more than online gambling addictions.

Add to that that young people 15-25 are much more likely to get involved with online gambling than online day trading (I don't have statistics for this, but I think you could generally accept that. I knew many people that played poker in University and knew very few that messed around with stocks). Young people are more likely to develop a gambling problem or not be mature enough to risk money within their means.

Finally, even if Day Trading is a significant problem, it doesn't avoid the Government's responsibility to address the online gambling problem. Again I don't agree with their chosen approach, but I have no problem with extra regulations being added to make it harder for teenagers to gamble online or to make it harder to put money in these sites. The argument that poker shouldn't be illegal because cigarettes, day-trading, alcohol, ... aren't illegal isn't valid to me. Clearly somebody that supports making poker illegal could use the same argument for making alcohol illegal.

[FreakDaddy]

Acknowledge gambling can become a problem. Then explain why poker is different than gambling. I like to start by telling people that you don't see any professional slot players, but there are plenty of professional poker players.

The primary problem in this issue is that people in office lump all gambling with poker. The focus should be on why particular states like California recognize that poker is more than a game of chance. Thus it should be treated and regulated (if neccessary) differently than pure gambling (or games of chance like roulette, craps, etc...)

[jbrent33]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Ask him when online porn is going to be made illegal, and if it isn't, why it is better for our society than a card game.

2) Be ready to have your socks blown off when he presents the undeniable proof that online poker benefits terrorism.

And not that you don't know this, don't be mean-spirited or confrontational. If this dinner is not set up for you to specifically discuss online poker, respect everyone else's time.

[/ QUOTE ]

The porn question did come to mind. The terrorism issue was one I was specificly going to ask him about. In the past there have been certain issues, where he will publicly tow the party line but has privately said, "I would never vote for X or Y but it will never come to that" I think he is too smart of a guy to really believe the terrorism link. He's a Republican not a retard.

The conversation will mainly center around college football because that's about the only thing most people around here care about. From what I understand he enjoys it when I am around because I do have an interest in politics.

[donkeylove]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is not a significant number of people with a daytime-trading problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

One of the more misguided statements I've heard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you prove your point a bit better than that? I'll accept that it seems to be a bigger problem then I realized, but I haven't found anything saying that it is close to or more than online gambling addictions.

Add to that that young people 15-25 are much more likely to get involved with online gambling than online day trading (I don't have statistics for this, but I think you could generally accept that. I knew many people that played poker in University and knew very few that messed around with stocks). Young people are more likely to develop a gambling problem or not be mature enough to risk money within their means.

Finally, even if Day Trading is a significant problem, it doesn't avoid the Government's responsibility to address the online gambling problem. Again I don't agree with their chosen approach, but I have no problem with extra regulations being added to make it harder for teenagers to gamble online or to make it harder to put money in these sites. The argument that poker shouldn't be illegal because cigarettes, day-trading, alcohol, ... aren't illegal isn't valid to me. Clearly somebody that supports making poker illegal could use the same argument for making alcohol illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]


I can remember at least a half dozen stories of daytraders killing half an office and then themselves after the tech market went busto. I haven't heard of 1 poker pro killing himself or anyone else after losing his entire bankroll.

[graarrg]

Ask him why we're so protectionist and hypocritical. Most gambling degenerates I've learned of have lost their entire lives gambling in B&M casinos, not on partypoker. Furthermore, if there is a security concern with money laundering and the sort, why illegalize it in the US and drive the industry underground, where criminals and drug dealers and terrorists control it? Give the good old companies of the USA and their entrepreneurial spirit a chance to give a better gambling product to gambling addicts (lower rake so they can lose less money, for example), tax their profits, and victory all around..

or, just be captured by special interests and limit the freedom of US citizens further.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
Acknowledge gambling can become a problem. Then explain why poker is different than gambling. I like to start by telling people that you don't see any professional slot players, but there are plenty of professional poker players.

The primary problem in this issue is that people in office lump all gambling with poker. The focus should be on why particular states like California recognize that poker is more than a game of chance. Thus it should be treated and regulated (if neccessary) differently than pure gambling (or games of chance like roulette, craps, etc...)


[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that Poker is a game of skill doesn't mean it isn't gambling. There are professional poker players, and there are lots of people that lose money just as easily as they would on slots. The only difference is that with slots the casino gets all the advantage and with poker the casino and good players share the money other players lose.

Just because some people can make money at poker doesn't mean it isn't gambling for the majority of people.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
I like to start by telling people that you don't see any professional slot players, but there are plenty of professional poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

But in theory you could be a professional slot player, though you would need a huge bankroll for the wicked amount of variance. (Hint: progressive jackpots...)

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Addicted to day trading (http://www.cnn.com/US/9906/18/gambling.sidebar/)

[/ QUOTE ]

8 year old article... best you could find????

[judgesmails]

Many Americans are THANKFULL that we have wise, elected officials, to make the very difficult day-to-day choices we face. This online gambling burden is one I am glad I will no longer have to deal with on my own. For I am far to too simple to understand the consequences of my own decisions. Many of us had to settle for state college educations, and could not possibly understand the complexity of such an issue.

My biggest hope is that during your dinner with GOD, is that you can convice him that I will need his help deciding what to do in every aspect of my life.

Some examples:

My latest girlfriend is a w h o r e. Does he think I should marry her and become a swinger?

My corner bar has draft beer for $1.25, but not my favorite beer. I would have to drive another 1.5 miles and pay $1.75 for my favorite. What should I do?

The Mexicans who cut my lawn leave trash in my yard. Will he help me get them deported?

Thanks for your help jbrent33.

I will have more questions for HIM next time you are invited for dinner.

[Sciolist]

[ QUOTE ]
I can remember at least a half dozen stories of daytraders killing half an office and then themselves after the tech market went busto. I haven't heard of 1 poker pro killing himself or anyone else after losing his entire bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1299780

[Sciolist]

I'd just go with "Yes, you can get addicted. You can also get addicted to McDonalds - shall we ban that? You can also get addicted to Cigarettes - shall we ban that, or regulate it? You can also get addicted to alchohol - shall we ban that? Oh, we already tried, look how well that worked. You can also get addicted to betting on horses, shall we ban that? Oh, we specifically allowed it"

[demon102]

One thing I like about poker sites, which is a gambling site lets not kid ourselves, is that with a lot of them u can set a limit to how much u lose. Today I just found on pokerstars that they have a responsible gambling option under requests, where u can set ur limits u want to lose, or u can select exclude me from playing. Im a winnin player so I dont need this option, but there is something that I wish had this option. When I was a smoker I wished that ciggarettes would be made illegal or had an exclude me from this so it would be easier for me to quit. After lots of struggle I have quit smoking but now I wish that alchohol was illeagal now or they would have a no sale to me cuz IM addicted option to help me quit like these poker sites have (just a note Im not addicted to gambling which IM kinda surprised at). Dont know if this will help but hope this might give u an idea to help u out.

[SlapPappy]

ANYONE WHO VOTED FOR THIS BILL IS NOT OPEN MINDED. YOU MIGHT AS WELL TRY TO TURN POOP INTO GOLD. Just enjoy your dinner and don't waste your breath. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[donkeylove]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can remember at least a half dozen stories of daytraders killing half an office and then themselves after the tech market went busto. I haven't heard of 1 poker pro killing himself or anyone else after losing his entire bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1299780

[/ QUOTE ]

OK that's one now. At least he didn't take an office full of brokers with him. Young people kill themselves everyday. Maybe gambling,maybe unbalanced? Good link though,thanks.

[Sciolist]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can remember at least a half dozen stories of daytraders killing half an office and then themselves after the tech market went busto. I haven't heard of 1 poker pro killing himself or anyone else after losing his entire bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1299780

[/ QUOTE ]

OK that's one now. At least he didn't take an office full of brokers with him. Young people kill themselves everyday. Maybe gambling,maybe unbalanced? Good link though,thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeh, there were other factors here too, but then there always are with suicides.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
You can also get addicted to Cigarettes - shall we ban that, or regulate it?

[/ QUOTE ]

To my mind, tobacco is the best example to use. Cigarettes can be addicting and harmful, as gambling/poker can be for some people - to deny that is futile and wrong. However, smoking is being addressed very successfully not by any attempt at prohibition but rather regulations against underage smoking (admittly not perfect but they provide at least some barrier) and especially education. This approach has dramatically reduced smoking while still allowing adults the freedom to make their own choices - why not try this same proven approach to online gambling? The fact that the taxation of gambling, just as tobacco, would be a windfall for the government is yet another reason that he should support a licensed and regulated industry rather than prohibition.

[Poker CPA]

Huge Mistake. You can't win when it comes to vices, not over the dinner table with family members and friends. Invite him to play golf and bring it up. What's worth more, NOT changing his mind, or future insights or favors.

[rokstedy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Addicted to day trading (http://www.cnn.com/US/9906/18/gambling.sidebar/)

[/ QUOTE ]

8 year old article... best you could find????

[/ QUOTE ]


A. It was top of the google search.

B. Does it really matter if it was 8 years ago? Or is everything all better now? The fact that that article is 8 years old suggest to me only that this is an old problem that has been largely ignored for....8 years.

But really, my only point in making the comparison is that there was no major outcry by the public about this. And that's fine with me. The choices we make with what to do with our money is ours. Maybe they're good for us, maybe they're not. But they're ours. If someone wants to risk their money trading stocks, playing poker, investing in real estate or whatever, there will always be inherent risks involved. It's the very nature of capitalism.

If this really is a push by the right to rid us of an evil, to protect us from ourselves, how can they so blind to this? I see them talk and talk and talk about other issues like porn, alcohol and drugs, but they're still around and there doesn't seem to be any chance of them going away either. And for this reason, I feel comfortable that poker will stay as well.

[Poker CPA]

You might try the "Organizied Crime" effect. This ACT generates more capital and power for the "Mob" to continue and expand their evil ways, especially drugs. Don't bring up that you play poker.

[Piece of Cake]

1. Money, money, money. More tax revenue from taxes. More revenue for domestic corporations if they can enter the market, instead of the current situation were nondomestic companies are making a killing off of US consumers.
2. Prohibition doesn't work - see alcohol.
3. Prohibition doesn't solve the problem he is trying to prevent. He doesn't want addicts and underaged playing and doesn't want it to be used for money laundering. Forcing poker underground doesn't stop the abusers, it only stops the law abiding users from playing, domestic companies from profiting, and the US government from effectively taxing and regulating the industry. Legalizing and regulation allows for implentation of means to prevent abuse. The UK sites have done a number of things to this effect.
4. Freedom of discretionary income. If I want to spend $400 on a bottle of wine, or a round of golf, or a game of poker, it's my choice. It's entertainment.
5. Separation of church and state. Gambling is a form of entertainment paid for out of discretionary income. One's religion may prevent them from partaking in the activity, such as it does one from drinking alcohol. But our country was formed on the freedom of religion.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd just go with "Yes, you can get addicted. You can also get addicted to McDonalds - shall we ban that? You can also get addicted to Cigarettes - shall we ban that, or regulate it? You can also get addicted to alchohol - shall we ban that? Oh, we already tried, look how well that worked. You can also get addicted to betting on horses, shall we ban that? Oh, we specifically allowed it"

[/ QUOTE ]

1. As I've said before, this argument doesn't say anything about what should be done with Poker. At best it points out that there is an inconsistency in the law. No surprise. The argument needs to be based on WHY this bill doesn't address the problems with Poker, while creating whole new problems.

2. Everybody that compares this to Alcohol and Tobacco are missing a key point. The government isn't banning poker. They're focused on ONLINE poker.

If you try to buy alcohol over the internet there are laws that require you to be identified as older than X years, and that can be checked on delivery. Another difference is that Alcoholics can't jump online and get a quick drink to keep drinking when they run out. Problem gamblers can go broke, reload, and keep spending money. There's no cool down period in the system.

I don't know the status of buying cigarettes over the internet, but I imagine its the same, that you prove your identity when you receive the product. Online casinos have no way of enforcing age requirements, and I think most of us on here know of people underage gambling.


Anyway, I'm just saying that these arguments are flawed. Getting back to the OP, the arguments I'd use would be based on accepting that there should be some regulation for problem gambling, fraud, taxation, etc. but that it comes down to a matter of personal responsibility and personal choice (something Republicans love to talk about, but rarely allow). If you're an adult you should be able to spend your money how you want and if that includes playing poker then so be it.

The horse racing bit should definitely be brought up though. Its such blatant evidence in the hypocrisy of politicians.

[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
I still think it is comparable to alcohol. Many, if not most, college students start drinking alcohol before it is legal to do so. Many of them develop alcohol problems, but the majority learn how to control themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just silly. Underage drunk driving kills thousands of people a year. Binge drinking kills college students yearly. Gambling problems can certainly lead to other problems, but to compare the two as simliar doesn't do your argument any favors.

If you want to convince your congressman never to vote to allow online poker, just tell him it's like underage drinking.

[rokstedy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still think it is comparable to alcohol. Many, if not most, college students start drinking alcohol before it is legal to do so. Many of them develop alcohol problems, but the majority learn how to control themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just silly. Underage drunk driving kills thousands of people a year. Binge drinking kills college students yearly. Gambling problems can certainly lead to other problems, but to compare the two as simliar doesn't do your argument any favors.

If you want to convince your congressman never to vote to allow online poker, just tell him it's like underage drinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Any comparison to other ILLEGAL activities is just stupid. Why create the association?

[Mondogarage]

You want to know how to get Congress to authorize online poker?

1. Convicne MGM / Harrahs / Station / Isle of Capri / various Indian casinos, etc. to lobby the politicians they are already tight with, and convince them to operate their own sites under regulation. Right now, those that don't own the offshore sites don't have a horse in this race, and the more shortsighted of them have possibly been against online poker, thinking it costs them revenue. Convince them to take a stake, and you'll have a more powerful lobbying group than PPA can ever be. And convince the NFL officials to stay out of the battle.

2. Don't compare online poker to any other activity whose offline version is still illegal (e.g. drugs, underage drinking, prostitution, sports betting, etc.) If you're painting with a brush with any existing stains on it, your canvas will reflect that.

3. Accept that poker is a form of gambling, but also a game of skill. You cannot argue with a straight face to a congressman that, just because a great deal of skill is involved, poker is not gambling. And you cannot teach a congressman what is the +EV play. Besides, you don't want to convince a congressman that, because poker contains a large skill element, a minority of overall poker players can make a lot of money. Why? Becuase you've just convinced him, at the same time, that poker is truly gambling for the majority of poker players. And if there's anything a politician likes to trumpet, it's their record of saving people from themselves.

4. Demonstrate that the sites can be rock solid protected from underage players being able to access it. If you can prove the technology will truly only allow over 21 to play, then you defuse the issue about minors getting into trouble.

I'm sure there's more, but I'm multi-tasking here...

[spidey74]

The fact that there are so many people making a living on poker proves that poker truly is a game of skill in the long run.

Comparing poker to trading stocks is very applicable. We earned our money and no one should be telling us how we should spend it or invest it. How come NASDAQ isn't getting any heat in all this?? People bet that stocks will go up or down all the time and tons of trades are made over the Internet! I treat all my decisions in poker as investments!!

[mhcmarty]

From another thread

"3.3 billion in federal tax revenue and addition 1 billion in state tax revenue could be raised if the federal government were to regulate Internet poker.

from PPA's website"

This could be used as an additional source of revenue to support tax cuts or additional spending and an answer to the democratic proposal for "pay as you go".

It's been suggested that the "pay as you go" ideas of the democrats are an attempt to force the president to make other tough decisions in his attempt to make certain tax cuts permanent.

[mpslg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still think it is comparable to alcohol. Many, if not most, college students start drinking alcohol before it is legal to do so. Many of them develop alcohol problems, but the majority learn how to control themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just silly. Underage drunk driving kills thousands of people a year. Binge drinking kills college students yearly. Gambling problems can certainly lead to other problems, but to compare the two as simliar doesn't do your argument any favors.

If you want to convince your congressman never to vote to allow online poker, just tell him it's like underage drinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Any comparison to other ILLEGAL activities is just stupid. Why create the association?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you guys are missing my point. I'm not comparing it to ILLEGAL activities. It is legal for a person over 21 years of age to drink alcohol in the U.S. The congressman is arguing that all online gambling should be illegal no matter what because of the danger to the children. Using his logic, alcohol should be illegal because of the danger to the children. You don't make something illegal simply because some people can't handle it.

I'm not asking him to say online gambling is like "underage drinking." I agree that is silly. Online gambling is like alcohol. Most can handle it o.k., but there are a number of people who can't.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
Online gambling is like alcohol. Most can handle it o.k., but there are a number of people who can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its NOT the same. Alcohol is easily regulated. Online gambling isn't.

Plus........... ITS A FLAWED [censored]-ING ARGUMENT! It makes no arguments for how we should treat poker.

[faustusmedea]

The one recommendation you can make which he actually can do something about is to support/allow the Judiciary committee to craft a study. Such a proposal was made last year as a counter to the ban and voted down. I believe it was sponsored by John Conyers who is now the committee chair.

The study is supported by the AGA (B&M casinos) and would provide a lot of information which is missing in the current debate. It would be valuable to know with some degree of certainty whether a bunch of teenagers are mortgaging their futures at online poker (though I doubt it).

[braminc]

OP heres what you should do. Bring your laptop and a deck of cards. Log on to pstars or Ft or whatever and play a game with him. show him how much fun it is!! play for like micro micro stakes maybe, just to show him you can play for years without losing more than like 10 bucks.

then pull out a real deck of cards, and play some live poker as well. ask him, whats the difference? the only differences i can see is that online you can play with MORE people whenever you like. and of course you cant SEE the people but thats irrelevant here.

[Eihli]

Whatever you do, don't disagree with him. Compliment and agree with him, then slowly bring up things that support your point. Bring up small things that aren't very important that he'll obviously agree with to get him saying yes. You can then start slowly working your way up to bigger and more important topics. You can't tell him he's wrong for supporting the UIGA. You have to let him think he's been right all along, and he's just been looking at it the wrong way.

[Losing all]

I'm really looking forward to this trip report, please post it.

[doormat]

Barney Frank, a liberal, makes some great points you would expect a conservative to embrace. Whatever happened to the guiding conservative principle of less government and individual rights?

Barney on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-UpI1Ct-dg)

[Misfire]

Ask him where the UIGEA fits in with the whole "ownership society" idea.

[superpokermon]

[ QUOTE ]
show him you can play for years without losing more than like 10 bucks.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a bad idea. I would also point out that the micro stakes tables are the most populated tables at the online cardrooms. Most people playing online poker are just playing by betting a quarter here and there...recreationally. It's ridiculous to outlaw this popular pasttime for everyone when most people are just playing such small limits.

[Richas]

Try talking to him about the UK approach of regulating online gambling. How come the UK can regulate but US can't?

http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/Client/index.asp

[Piece of Cake]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Money, money, money. More tax revenue from taxes. More revenue for domestic corporations if they can enter the market, instead of the current situation were nondomestic companies are making a killing off of US consumers.
2. Prohibition doesn't work - see alcohol.
3. Prohibition doesn't solve the problem he is trying to prevent. He doesn't want addicts and underaged playing and doesn't want it to be used for money laundering. Forcing poker underground doesn't stop the abusers, it only stops the law abiding users from playing, domestic companies from profiting, and the US government from effectively taxing and regulating the industry. Legalizing and regulation allows for implentation of means to prevent abuse. The UK sites have done a number of things to this effect.
4. Freedom of discretionary income. If I want to spend $400 on a bottle of wine, or a round of golf, or a game of poker, it's my choice. It's entertainment.
5. Separation of church and state. Gambling is a form of entertainment paid for out of discretionary income. One's religion may prevent them from partaking in the activity, such as it does one from drinking alcohol. But our country was formed on the freedom of religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Additions/Revision.

Do NOT argue under any circumstances about morality or religion. Because you simply can not sway a personal who takes something for granted on the basis of faith, even in face of the strongest empirical evidence to the contrary. Avoid a religion discussion at all costs. If at all you should use the separation of church and state and freedom of religion as excuses not to evaluate based on that. If online poker is truly bad for the masses, he should be able to come up with non-religious reasons for it.

6. Mention the ridiculous conflicts this bill presents. Live poker is legal but online is not? Online horse betting is legal but online poker is not? Seek an understanding as to why this is so. If he proposes that he thinks all should be illegal, ask him if he thinks outlawing those is a winnable fight. If yes, ask him why his focus is online then? If no, then ask him how he possibly hopes to succeed here.

WRT the conversation on not being able to stop excessive deposits and underage use. I believe these devices are in place in the UK. I know there are deposit limits, and there are certainly age verification technology standards out there. Pushing poker underground eliminates these safeguards that would be standard in a regulated poker community.

[jbrent33]

Thanks for all of your thoughts, I think a few people have brought up some valid points.

No one else needs to remind me to act civil at dinner with my friend and his in-laws.

[Uglyowl]

Current government wants to cut gasoline consumption. No gas is used walking to your computer /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[blutarski]

I'm sorry if this was already stated, but here's my two cents:

I would stick with the alcohol and say this: "Since alcohol is such a risk to some people, using UIGEA logic, none of us should have the right to drink."

If he responds by saying: "Well, alchohol is regulated and heavily taxed, etc., to protect people."

You respond by saying: "Exactly, as poker should be."

[NoTalent]

Trip report? What did Bachus say? If this hasn't happened yet ask him if you should buy gold.

[whodatdare]

[ QUOTE ]
Trip report? What did Bachus say? If this hasn't happened yet ask him if you should buy gold.

[/ QUOTE ]


Are you talking about Spenser Bachus?

[Black_Angler]

JBrent,

You are our lobbyist! Go get em! I will donate a dollar to the "Buy a Congressman" foundation /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Losing all]

well, wha happen

[blutarski]

Did you act all civil-like?

[jrjunior31]

noone has mentioned this... inquire if there is rock solid proof of ANY poker sites run by terror organizations? if so, which ones, how many, and why have they not been made public?

then when he starts trying to mumble his way around that one jokingly ask how many more times the current administration plans on playing the terrorist card to pass legislation?

perhaps the joke is not appropriate, I dont know how well you know him, but the first question is totally legit...

meanwhile, its fairly safe to say theres about as many terrorists running poker sites as there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...

[KentuckyWildcats]

[ QUOTE ]
well, wha happen

[/ QUOTE ]