H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 200

[Maulik]

Frank Introduces Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007



Washington, DC - Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) today introduced H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 that would create an exemption to the ban on online gambling for properly licensed operators, allowing Americans to lawfully bet online.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press042607.shtml

[1p0kerboy]

Awesome. Anybody want to start a third thread on this?

[WhiteWolf]

I just wrote my representative (Mike Honda, Campbell CA), urging him to support this. I will let everyone know his stance if he replies.

[Bilgefisher]

[ QUOTE ]
Awesome. Anybody want to start a third thread on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I don't think starting this thread was bad. The title of the bill was buried somewhere in the previous 16 page thread.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
I just wrote my representative (Mike Honda, Campbell CA), urging him to support this. I will let everyone know his stance if he replies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Call his office.

[RainFall]

Anyone know when this will be on cspan 1/2? After this iraq bit or?

[ImsaKidd]

Is it still possible some states will be blocked if this bill passes? Places like Illinois have some laws already, which would really suck..

[PJo336]

better not be, IL is my home

[HSB]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it still possible some states will be blocked if this bill passes? Places like Illinois have some laws already, which would really suck..

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. There is a provision for states and indian tribes to prohibit online gaming within their borders.

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it still possible some states will be blocked if this bill passes? Places like Illinois have some laws already, which would really suck..

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. There is a provision for states and indian tribes to prohibit online gaming within their borders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any bets on how long the state laws would last with serious tax dollars coming in?

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it still possible some states will be blocked if this bill passes? Places like Illinois have some laws already, which would really suck..

[/ QUOTE ]

Vote with your feet.

[Bilgefisher]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it still possible some states will be blocked if this bill passes? Places like Illinois have some laws already, which would really suck..

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, states could still block internet gambling. I still say we need to throw our weight behind this. 39 states with legalized gambling is far better then 0. Also once the hold out states see the revenue that other states are generating, I can't see them holding out long.

The biggest thing about this bill, it affectively tells your average online, non forum reading, ill informed poker player that it is now perfectly legal to deposit and play.

When the discussion comes up anytime anywhere, there will be no more grey area. It will be plain and simple legal, no room for argument.

[jschaud]

cross posting this:

Write your representative:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

call your representative:
http://www.theorator.com/government/house.html

[jschaud]

is it worthwhile to go down to his office in my area and start nagging the crap out of this guy's staff?

[jschaud]

also, has anyone written up an intelligent, well worded 'form' letter for us to spam the crap out of these guys with?

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
is it worthwhile to go down to his office in my area and start nagging the crap out of this guy's staff?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't nag. Check out TheEngineer's threads and use many of the points there to intelligently state your point of view.

[stoli]

Anybody else wonder the implications of this line of the bill:

It was listed under requirements for site to attain license:

Mechanisms to ensure all appropriate taxes and fees are collected from individuals and the licensees

If this just means the site has to report players' deposits/withdrawals that's ok I guess. But it makes it sound as if the site would be responsible for collecting the tax from the player's winnings or something.

[Grasshopp3r]

There is much to be clarified in this bill, but this is the first step in a long march. If I were to guess about reporting and paying taxes, it would be similar to what Vegas does with wins over $600. Online is so much easier to establish tracking over player wins/losses.

[Tofu_boy]

[ QUOTE ]
better not be, IL is my home

[/ QUOTE ]

Even though it's still better to move to another state and play rather than move oversea.

God please let the miracle happen.
/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[PBJaxx]

[ QUOTE ]
also, has anyone written up an intelligent, well worded 'form' letter for us to spam the crap out of these guys with?

[/ QUOTE ]

KotOD did and posted it in the other thread. KotOD, can you place that in this thread too, please?

Edit: He had a paragraphed that "personalized" it, but he had the basic idea for a form letter.

[KDawg]

edit: didn't notice the state opt-out portion

[mark_foley]

This is a list of members on the House Financial Services Committee.

Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski, PA
Rep. Maxine Waters, CA
Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, NY
Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, IL
Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez, NY
Rep. Melvin L. Watt, NC
Rep. Gary L. Ackerman, NY
Rep. Julia Carson, IN
Rep. Brad Sherman, CA
Rep. Gregory W. Meeks, NY
Rep. Dennis Moore, KS
Rep. Michael E. Capuano, MA
Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, TX
Rep. William Lacy Clay, MO
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, NY
Rep. Joe Baca, CA
Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, MA
Rep. Brad Miller, NC
Rep. David Scott, GA
Rep. Al Green, TX
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, MO
Rep. Melissa L. Bean, IL
Rep. Gwen Moore, WI
Rep. Lincoln Davis, TN
Rep. Albio Sires, NJ
Rep. Paul W. Hodes, NH
Rep. Keith Ellison, MN
Rep. Ron Klein, FL
Rep. Tim Mahoney, FL
Rep. Charles Wilson, OH
Rep. Ed Perlmutter, CO
Rep. Christopher S. Murphy, CT
Rep. Joe Donnelly, IN
Rep. Robert Wexler, (FL)
Rep. Jim Marshall, GA
Rep. Dan Boren, OK

Republican Members

Rep. Spencer Bachus, AL
Rep. Richard H. Baker, LA
Rep. Deborah Pryce, OH
Rep. Michael N. Castle, DE
Rep. Peter King, NY
Rep. Edward R. Royce, CA
Rep. Frank D. Lucas, OK
Rep. Ron Paul, TX
Rep. Paul E. Gillmor, OH
Rep. Steven C. LaTourette, OH
Rep. Donald A. Manzullo, IL
Rep. Walter B. Jones , NC
Rep. Judy Biggert, IL
Rep. Christopher Shays, CT
Rep. Gary G. Miller, CA
Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, WV
Rep. Tom Feeney, FL
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, TX
Rep. Scott Garrett, NJ
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, FL
Rep. J. Gresham Barrett, SC
Rep. Rick Renzi, AZ
Rep. Jim Gerlach, PA
Rep. Stevan Pearce, NM
Rep. Randy Neugebauer, TX
Rep. Tom Price, GA
Rep. Geoff Davis, KY
Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, NC
Rep. John Campbell, CA
Rep. Adam Putnam, FL
Rep. Michele Bachmann, MN
Rep. Peter J. Roskam, IL
Rep. Kenny Marchant, TX

I am assuming the bill will have to get through committee before getting a full vote. If so try contacting the above would have the most impact.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also, has anyone written up an intelligent, well worded 'form' letter for us to spam the crap out of these guys with?

[/ QUOTE ]

KotOD did and posted it in the other thread. KotOD, can you place that in this thread too, please?

Edit: He had a paragraphed that "personalized" it, but he had the basic idea for a form letter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dear Representative xxxxxx,

Today, Representative Frank of Massachusetts introduced H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007. This act would legalize and regulate internet gambling at the Federal level. I urge you to not only support, but co-sponsor this resolution as Rep. Frank introduces this to committee.

I'm a Software Services Manager with a leading software company and after a long day at work, I enjoy playing a little poker on occasion. I prefer playing in the comfort of my own home with my wife at my side rather than driving long hours to Buffalo, Detroit or Atlantic City to play in a smoky casino. Poker is an enjoyable game of skill, much as golfing or fishing. In fact, poker is one of the great American pastimes. Presidents, generals, Supreme Court Justices, members of Congress and average Americans have enjoyed the game for more than 150 years. It’s an honorable game.

Co-sponsoring Rep. Frank's resolution would help to bring Poker out from a murky legal stance and bring clarity to the government's position on the game - a game which most members of Congress play regularly! It would also allow the government to regulate providing sites to protect U. S. players and collect tax revenues from the operators, tax revenues that can go a long way in funding necessary programs like Veteran's benefits and Walter Reed Hospital.

This resolution would show the current administration that Congress is first and foremost tasked with protecting the rights of the people of the United States, something that the administration is seemingly directly opposed to.

I hope that you will take the time to consider H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007, and hope that you will help Rep. Frank make this a reality by co-sponsoring the bill.

Thank you for your time,


xxxxxxxxxx

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a list of members on the House Financial Services Committee.

http://financialservices.house.gov/who.html

I am assuming the bill will have to get through committee before getting a full vote. If so try contacting the above would have the most impact.

[/ QUOTE ]

The link takes you to each Rep's page.

[fees]

Edited

[poorolrich]

I would concentrate on contacting the members of the committee first!!! If it isn't passed by the committee--out of luck--Once out then call/write your local reps. A lot, if not all, of the reps do not know whats in the bill since it hasn't come out of committee yet. They have way to much stuff on their plate to worry about about a bill that might/might not come out for a vote.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
I would concentrate on contacting the members of the committee first!!! If it isn't passed by the committee--out of luck--Once out then call/write your local reps. A lot, if not all, of the reps do not know whats in the bill since it hasn't come out of committee yet. They have way to much stuff on their plate to worry about about a bill that might/might not come out for a vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you would bother to click the link, you'll notice that it's a full listing of the committee members.

[Tofu_boy]

Edited

[PBJaxx]

I started a thread in SSNL and one of the mods was kind enough to sticky it. If others who spend time in other forums could start similar threads it would be great.

See the SSNL thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...=0#Post10136209 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=10136209&an=0&page=0#Pos t10136209)

[poorolrich]

If your talking to me I did click on the link. Thats why I said to contact the committee members first. I even made a copy of all members so I could contact them. Don't understand your post if its to/re. me.

[Obfuscation]

I just called Rep. Maloney (NY 14th for my section of NYC) and they didn't even have it in their computer systems yet.

In any event, I left comments urging her to support the bill and to explicitly legalize and regulate online gambling in the United States.

It took approximately 3 minutes of my life.

[BluffTHIS!]

All,

I would like to urge all here when contacting their representatives, to KEEP THE FOCUS ON POKER. As I said in my post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=10136849&an=&page=0& vc=1) in the other thread, we cannot allow poker to be seen to be tied to the fate of non-poker forms of gambling, including sports betting. So tell your reps that you are a POKER PLAYER so that they know it is POKER PLAYERS who are most concerned here, and not other types of gamblers.

Cliff notes: KEEP THE FOCUS ON POKER AND POKER PLAYERS!

[KotOD]

ALL:

Please ignore Bluffthis. Do not confuse the issue. When you call your reps, specifically support H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 and ask your rep to co-sponsor it. There is no need to take the discussion anywhere else other than support of 2046.

Bluff - create a new thread if you have a problem with the existing resolution.

[BluffTHIS!]

Kot,

I am not suggesting asking for any modifications to the bill at all. I am just saying that we should make it clear that we are poker players calling to support the bill, so we don't get lumped in with players from other forms of gambling. Thus I only suggest saying something like "I'm a poker player and a voter and I support HR 2046".

[EGO]

I called and talked to one of my Reps' staff members. He said that he'd give me a call after the weekend, when the bill was in his computer. I also sent an e-mail. 15 minutes total.

[Kodfish]

I don't see any problem with BluffTHIS's stance that we should mention we are poker players when demanding our reps support 2046. Of all gamblers, poker players are the most respected (we are all over the TV).

But, regardless of how you put it, as long as we call, write and bombard our reps, they'll eventually have to listen. We have to be more motivated than other groups of people contacting their reps.

[Steam Iron]

Rep. Paul E. Gillmor, OH (member of House Financial Services)is my rep. Sent him an e-mail urging his support. 3 mins.

[TheMetetron]

[ QUOTE ]
I just wrote my representative (Mike Honda, Campbell CA), urging him to support this. I will let everyone know his stance if he replies.

[/ QUOTE ]\

I know Mike Honda and many other California reps personally. I'll find out his stance on this.

[Klaben]

Emailed my Rep. Tammy Baldwin, WI along with Rep. Gwen Moore, WI (House Financial Services Committee).

It also won't hurt if you email your favorite web news site the link to H.R 2046.

I had several people who I never knew played poker online (play money)ask me about last years legislation after they read it on the Drudge Report.

[daedalus]

Frank releases this news on the day that the Senate picks the Iraq veto fight with Bush and the Democratic Debate. Sure looks like he's trying to do this under the radar, I trust he knows best how to navigate those halls for success here. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[RiverHebrew2]

ship it bill frist

[bossplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
All,

I would like to urge all here when contacting their representatives, to KEEP THE FOCUS ON POKER. As I said in my post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=10136849&an=&page=0& vc=1) in the other thread, we cannot allow poker to be seen to be tied to the fate of non-poker forms of gambling, including sports betting. So tell your reps that you are a POKER PLAYER so that they know it is POKER PLAYERS who are most concerned here, and not other types of gamblers.

Cliff notes: KEEP THE FOCUS ON POKER AND POKER PLAYERS!

[/ QUOTE ]

They won't be separating the two. At this point in time it is about a freedom, not about a niche within a freedom.

[Nathan_2]

H.R. 2046 voice vote
Speaker: All members in favor say aye those opposed say no.
Speaker: Members in favor?
Floor: aye
Speaker: Members opposed?
Floor: NOOOOOOOOOO
Speaker: In the opinion of the chair the no's have it, H.R. 2046 is not agreed to.

THE END

Alternate Ending
Speaker: In the opinion of the chair the no's have it, H.R. 2046 is not agreed to.
Barney Frank: Mr. Speaker I ask for a recorded vote.
Speaker: The member asks for a recorded vote, voting will be by electronic means, members will have 15 minutes to record their votes.

15 minutes later
Aye: 41
No: 340
Present: 2
No Vote: 52

Speaker: H.R. 2046 is not agreed to.

THE END

[daedalus]

[ QUOTE ]
H.R. 2046 voice vote
Speaker: All members in favor say aye those opposed say no.
Speaker: Members in favor?
Floor: aye
Speaker: Members opposed?
Floor: NOOOOOOOOOO
Speaker: In the opinion of the chair the no's have it, H.R. 2046 is not agreed to.

THE END

Alternate Ending
Speaker: In the opinion of the chair the no's have it, H.R. 2046 is not agreed to.
Barney Frank: Mr. Speaker I ask for a recorded vote.
Speaker: The member asks for a recorded vote, voting will be by electronic means, members will have 15 minutes to record their votes.

15 minutes later
Aye: 41
No: 340
Present: 2
No Vote: 52

Speaker: H.R. 2046 is not agreed to.

THE END

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you think Barnie Frank has thought about this? Come on people, he may be gay but he's not an idiot. I bet this gets amended to some finance bill that's green-lighted. Ship it Frist /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
H.R. 2046 voice vote
Speaker: All members in favor say aye those opposed say no.
Speaker: Members in favor?
Floor: aye
Speaker: Members opposed?
Floor: NOOOOOOOOOO
Speaker: In the opinion of the chair the no's have it, H.R. 2046 is not agreed to.

THE END



Alternate Ending
Speaker: In the opinion of the chair the no's have it, H.R. 2046 is not agreed to.
Barney Frank: Mr. Speaker I ask for a recorded vote.
Speaker: The member asks for a recorded vote, voting will be by electronic means, members will have 15 minutes to record their votes.

15 minutes later
Aye: 41
No: 340
Present: 2
No Vote: 52

Speaker: H.R. 2046 is not agreed to.

THE END

[/ QUOTE ]

The good thing about being a committee chair is the scenario you described won't happen. If Frank's bill clears his committee, it will be attached to some other important bill that has to come through his committee. Also, I think he did a very good job of addressing the stated concerns of the opponents of Internet gambling, so that will help.

[TheEngineer]

[censored] Kyl comes out against HR 2046.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 26, 2007


CONTACT:
Andrew Wilder or Ryan Patmintra (202) 224-4521

Kyl Will Oppose Efforts to Remove Restrictions on Illegal Internet Gambling



WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) today issued the following statement regarding legislation expected to be introduced by U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) that would remove restrictions on illegal Internet gambling:

“I was privileged last year to join with my colleagues in passing legislation that provides federal and state authorities with the power to enforce existing laws prohibiting Internet gambling. For far too long, illegal gambling outlets have circumvented our laws by moving their operations overseas and capitalizing on the anonymity, reach, and unregulated environment the Internet offers.

“The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act was signed into law on October 13, 2006, to enhance law enforcement tools for curtailing online gambling activities that violate federal and state gambling laws. Principally, the new law requires financial systems to block fund transfers associated with illegal Internet gambling, which is the most effective way to halt the illegal activities of offshore websites beyond the reach of traditional law enforcement.

“I will strongly oppose any efforts to ease or remove the mechanisms that our state and federal authorities have long sought to help enforce existing laws prohibiting online gaming.”

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] Kyl comes out against HR 2046.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 26, 2007


CONTACT:
Andrew Wilder or Ryan Patmintra (202) 224-4521

Kyl Will Oppose Efforts to Remove Restrictions on Illegal Internet Gambling



WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) today issued the following statement regarding legislation expected to be introduced by U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) that would remove restrictions on illegal Internet gambling:

“I was privileged last year to join with my colleagues in passing legislation that provides federal and state authorities with the power to enforce existing laws prohibiting Internet gambling. For far too long, illegal gambling outlets have circumvented our laws by moving their operations overseas and capitalizing on the anonymity, reach, and unregulated environment the Internet offers.

“The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act was signed into law on October 13, 2006, to enhance law enforcement tools for curtailing online gambling activities that violate federal and state gambling laws. Principally, the new law requires financial systems to block fund transfers associated with illegal Internet gambling, which is the most effective way to halt the illegal activities of offshore websites beyond the reach of traditional law enforcement.

“I will strongly oppose any efforts to ease or remove the mechanisms that our state and federal authorities have long sought to help enforce existing laws prohibiting online gaming.”

[/ QUOTE ]

What a [censored] [censored]!

[Jack Bando]

Kyl saying that's a good thing IMO.

First, he talks about all the illegal gambling that was stopped and how illegal=bad. That's why it's trying to be legal and legit. If his main argument is "Illegal=bad." "We stopped it, we should keep it up.", he's running out of ideas.

Second, he responded WAY too fast. He releases this the same day 2046 is formed smacks of overdefensiveness.

Of course, he's still the biggest enemy online gaming has besides inertia, but he's not as strong as he could be.

[mmbt0ne]

I'm all for this, but all that matters are two nasty words. "Signing Statement."

[ahmngrn30]

How easy is it to attach a bill like Frist did? Does it have to get past a certain point in the process before it can be attached? Frank couldn't attach 2046 to some bill say tomorrow, could he?

[Jack Bando]

mmbt0ne, those mean nothing

ahmngrn, part of our side's argument is attaching is dirty, so doing the same thing might look bad. But to answer your questions as best I can, easy if you have enough power, no, and he could if he has the ability to.

[DrewOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] Kyl comes out against HR 2046.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 26, 2007


CONTACT:
Andrew Wilder or Ryan Patmintra (202) 224-4521

Kyl Will Oppose Efforts to Remove Restrictions on Illegal Internet Gambling



WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) today issued the following statement regarding legislation expected to be introduced by U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) that would remove restrictions on illegal Internet gambling:

“I was privileged last year to join with my colleagues in passing legislation that provides federal and state authorities with the power to enforce existing laws prohibiting Internet gambling. For far too long, illegal gambling outlets have circumvented our laws by moving their operations overseas and capitalizing on the anonymity, reach, and unregulated environment the Internet offers.

“The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act was signed into law on October 13, 2006, to enhance law enforcement tools for curtailing online gambling activities that violate federal and state gambling laws. Principally, the new law requires financial systems to block fund transfers associated with illegal Internet gambling, which is the most effective way to halt the illegal activities of offshore websites beyond the reach of traditional law enforcement.

“I will strongly oppose any efforts to ease or remove the mechanisms that our state and federal authorities have long sought to help enforce existing laws prohibiting online gaming.”

[/ QUOTE ]

I rarely wish ill will against anyone, but can't this jackass just go die of ass cancer somewhere?

In all seriousness, I have seen Kyl interviewed on this matter on numerous occasions. He speaks his mind well, and seems to really believe that he is doing something good. I just wish he would direct his congressional efforts towards resolving a problem that actually IS a problem, rather than focusing on his apparent pet project/hobby horse.

[DrewOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
mmbt0ne, those mean nothing

ahmngrn, part of our side's argument is attaching is dirty, so doing the same thing might look bad. But to answer your questions as best I can, easy if you have enough power, no, and he could if he has the ability to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. A good part of the disillusionment regarding the UIGEA came from the fact that Frist slipped us a mickey, so to speak. It would be quite hypocritical for Frank to introduce his bill in similar fashion (though I would not protest vociferously were he to choose to do so).

[Jack Bando]

Of course Drew, if we were given a chance to slip it would lead to permentant regulation and a new poker boom making the old one look like online poker levels in 1998, I'm all for it.

[ligastar]

[ QUOTE ]
Frank Introduces Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007



Washington, DC - Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) today introduced H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 that would create an exemption to the ban on online gambling for properly licensed operators, allowing Americans to lawfully bet online.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press042607.shtml

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank goodness for Democrats from Mass.

[pokerpunchout]

I wrote an email to my congressional rep, who has stated in the past he was for legalized online gaming. Unfortunately AZ senators are Kyl and McCain so ... bad beat there.

[DrewOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
I wrote an email to my congressional rep, who has stated in the past he was for legalized online gaming. Unfortunately AZ senators are Kyl and McCain so ... bad beat there.

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL then make good use of that Sun Devil's pitch fork and make us a Kyl popsicle.

[ybother]

fwiw, i emailed Kyle anyway since I live in AZ..

Dear Senator Kyl,

I am relieved to know that war efforts overseas have gone well enough for you to focus in inordinate amount of your time restricting the freedoms of U.S. Citizens who find poker playing via the internet to be an entertaining hobby. As someone who voted for you in the past, it is difficult for me to accept that a party so quick to trumpet freedom's virtues, would stoop to serve as nothing more than a facist theocracy which pre-supposes that it knows what is best for me. Mr. Kyl, I do not need you to save me from myelf, the internet, or online gaming.

As to the merits of Mr. Franks' bill, it does contain many basic safeguards against fraud, underage gaming, and proper taxation that have been cited as the cause of last falls legislation. The reasonable poker playing citizenry support regulation and simply ask for personal liberties to be exercised.

[TheProdigy]

[ QUOTE ]
fwiw, i emailed Kyle anyway since I live in AZ..

Dear Senator Kyl,

I am relieved to know that war efforts overseas have gone well enough for you to focus in inordinate amount of your time restricting the freedoms of U.S. Citizens who find poker playing via the internet to be an entertaining hobby. As someone who voted for you in the past, it is difficult for me to accept that a party so quick to trumpet freedom's virtues, would stoop to serve as nothing more than a facist theocracy which pre-supposes that it knows what is best for me. Mr. Kyl, I do not need you to save me from myelf, the internet, or online gaming.

As to the merits of Mr. Franks' bill, it does contain many basic safeguards against fraud, underage gaming, and proper taxation that have been cited as the cause of last falls legislation. The reasonable poker playing citizenry support regulation and simply ask for personal liberties to be exercised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dear Senator Kyl,

I agree with that guy ^^...and please die.

[KAT21]

There are states that have passed on the revenue that gambling could produce already. Why wouldn't they pass on this as well?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I wrote an email to my congressional rep, who has stated in the past he was for legalized online gaming. Unfortunately AZ senators are Kyl and McCain so ... bad beat there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please write to both senators, often. I wouldn't spend a lot of time composing each letter, though, as you're not trying to change their minds. Rather, we want them to know there is a lot of support out there for Frank's bill.

Our next action item will likely be to write to our supporters to encourage them to cosponsor the legislation, and to write to our most vociferous opponents to convince them that a substantial portion of the electorate supports legalization. While they'll still be against it, they need to know they don't enjoy the unanimous support of their constituents.

[cowboy.up]

I called my congressman - Tim Murphy (R-PA) and they asked for my name and address. How often should I call and tell him to support the bill if they want my information every time I call?

And because this has been introduced in the House - should we hold off on calling Senators until this (fingers crossed) passes? Or just say the hell with it and call everyone.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I called my congressman - Tim Murphy (R-PA) and they asked for my name and address. How often should I call and tell him to support the bill if they want my information every time I call?

And because this has been introduced in the House - should we hold off on calling Senators until this (fingers crossed) passes? Or just say the hell with it and call everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they take down your name each time, I'd probably call each office one time for this specific item. You can call again if there's any change in status, of course. You can also email and then snail-mail the email with (or without) minor changes.

At best, it will be a while before this bill gets to the Senate. If you call your senators now, plenty of time will elapse before they get the bill, so you'll be able to call them again.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
I called my congressman - Tim Murphy (R-PA) and they asked for my name and address. How often should I call and tell him to support the bill if they want my information every time I call?

And because this has been introduced in the House - should we hold off on calling Senators until this (fingers crossed) passes? Or just say the hell with it and call everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Call both his district office and his washington office. Different staff man the offices. Make sure all of your friends call as well.

[Piece of Cake]

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody else wonder the implications of this line of the bill:

It was listed under requirements for site to attain license:

Mechanisms to ensure all appropriate taxes and fees are collected from individuals and the licensees

If this just means the site has to report players' deposits/withdrawals that's ok I guess. But it makes it sound as if the site would be responsible for collecting the tax from the player's winnings or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder why this doesn't exist already. I imagine it would be fairly easy for sites to generate tax form dsiplaying how much we owe due to our play just like brokers prepare statements for what we owe on our investments, and our banks for savings and mortgage interest, etc, etc. Instead of me having to export and calculate it myself in excel, etc.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

Just realized the bill is 2046, one of the best movies ever. This is a good sign.

[DMoogle]

Everyone - we all want this bill to get passed, so don't just call your reps and Frank's office and be done with it, PLEASE tell everyone you know to call as well! Friends, family, strangers, everyone!

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone - we all want this bill to get passed, so don't just call your reps and Frank's office and be done with it, PLEASE tell everyone you know to call as well! Friends, family, strangers, everyone!

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[cowboy.up]

And as a follow-up to Murphy taking down my information - is that looked at as a "good" thing? I mean, do they take me more seriously if I give them my full name and address instead of just being Joe Shmo calling in?

She might of asked for my info because I said I did not know his stance and that I urge him to fully support the bill...maybe I'll get a letter letting me know his stance?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
And as a follow-up to Murphy taking down my information - is that looked at as a "good" thing? I mean, do they take me more seriously if I give them my full name and address instead of just being Joe Shmo calling in?

She might of asked for my info because I said I did not know his stance and that I urge him to fully support the bill...maybe I'll get a letter letting me know his stance?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a good thing when they ask for your name and address. It means they're keeping a tally.

[sonofstev]

Contacted my rep, Dan Burton.

From one website:

John Domi, a former gambling lobbyist, is quoted as saying, "Every time Burton would go on one of my junkets [to Las Vegas], he’d have a different gal."

Is that +EV?

Edit: Perhaps not:

Voted YES on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
Contacted my rep, Dan Burton.

From one website:

John Domi, a former gambling lobbyist, is quoted as saying, "Every time Burton would go on one of my junkets [to Las Vegas], he’d have a different gal."

Is that +EV?

Edit: Perhaps not:

Voted YES on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)

[/ QUOTE ]

The obvious solution is to send him the Bodog girls.

[Sniper]

Consolidation time, links to HR2046 related threads...

Isn't Frank supposed to have a bill out today? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=10007897)

HR 2046 Debate on Closing Bell today on CNBC (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=10138195)

Can we donate campaign funds to Barney Frank on the internet? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=10152697)

Frank to introduce Bill... (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=10116012)

Barney Frank needs our help (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=10150352)

Has anyone read the bill by Barney Frank? (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=10152775)

HR 2046 Help (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=10151167)

Reality of passing HR 2046 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=10146756)

[Sniper]

Related thread in the zoo...

Barney Frank introduces the Internet Gambling Regulation Act (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=10131263)

[Sniper]

PPA speak up support Barney Frank (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=10190188)

Frank's Bill has reached ears @ PCMag (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=10194468)

[Sniper]

MSN Article finally WTO mentioned! (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=10196505)

[Dave D]

Just thought I'd mention that I called both of my congressmen (my parents house and where I live now temporarily) and neither staffer had any idea about this bill. I was a little surprised. They didn't even know about UGIEA. Bottom line is, don't assume that they know/already have a position on this, you might have a chance to create a first impression and 1 call saying "support this" might actually be the only call they get on the issue.

edit to add: I called both the rep from Boston and one that's been there since the early 80s from my hometown (Lynch and Ed Markey). Ed Markey incidently was huge on breaking up the Bells back in the day. I was surprised that neither of the staffers knew, considering that Frank is literally the next door congressman. I also called Frank's office just to say thanks for doing this.

[Fadook]

What would this bill actually mean for poker sites if passed? I still don't fully understand why so many sites felt compelled to ban US players after the UIGEA while others have remained open to them.

[Suigin406]

thx for the links sniper as i can catch up now...

[EGO]

[ QUOTE ]
I called and talked to one of my Reps' staff members. He said that he'd give me a call after the weekend, when the bill was in his computer. I also sent an e-mail. 15 minutes total.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got a call back yesterday, and apparently my Rep is a co-sponsor of the bill.

[straightflush]

woooo ho!!!!!!! Go senators!!!

[Parlay Slow]

So uh what happened to this bill being introduced on Thursday?

[Sniper]

So much for appeasing the Sports Leagues, they still oppose Frank's Bill (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=10198067)

ps... Suigin, your welcome.

[LeapFrog]

The progress of the bill can be tracked here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2046

[Sniper]

HR2046 Support Auto Letter thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=10317795)

[Sniper]

Barney Frank Interview thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=10323201)

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
What would this bill actually mean for poker sites if passed? I still don't fully understand why so many sites felt compelled to ban US players after the UIGEA while others have remained open to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently that is a not a question that anyone wants to discuss. I have attempted to on many occasions and have mentioned dozens of reasons why this bill is NOT good for poker. But when I do I get personally flamed for daring to mention that the Emperor might not have any clothes on.

Here is a name you should know: James H. Freis, Jr. He is the current Director of the Financial Crimes Network, that is a subsidiary of the department of the treasury put together to enforce the Bank Secrecy Act which despite its name is actually an Act to eliminate and secrecy in banking.

That guy will have the power to enact any regulation at all that he feels like over the entire poker industry. However, don't get too comfortable with him, it turns out that this position has a lot of turnover.

So you are putting your entire industry's future into someone's hands... we just don't know who.

To that person who asked about taxes. Read the bill. It says that the sites will have to "collect" taxes from each payout. I assume that means collect not report. But then again, I have been flamed for assuming that.

In a recent interview Barney Frank suggested that perhaps this bill could be used to make money off poker players so the feds can have more money to do things. He suggested that perhaps the feds could take a piece of every pot just like the house does. That might increase the cost of playing.

With the new reporting requirements all players will have to pay taxes on each cashout. That might make the fish uneasy, especially when their local casino doesn't have the same cost associated with it.

Bottom line, this bill give the feds a lot of power over the poker industry. But no one wants to talk about that. No one is worried about how they might use that power. A lot of trusting souls out here. People are just happy that they have a bill. So they are supporting it.

I see it this way. The government wants to chop off ten of my fingers. This bill says, no, don't do that, that is not fair, let's compromise on four. People are cheering.

I want all ten of my fingers. But I am an outcast. A naysayer. I am the one throwing over the wet blanket over the party. Yeah, only four fingers! Hurry, let's get this passed.

I know the games are in trouble. A lot of trouble. I want them to continue. But of course there is a limit. If it costs 75% of my winnings to play then I won't play. If it costs 1% then I might. Still not sure I like the idea of the feds looking over my shoulder every time I play. So I may just quit anyway.

I like my privacy. But that is me. Most people don't mind giving up privacy these days. If it costs them their privacy to keep playing they think it is worth it. We all have different ideas of what is acceptable.

I am also afraid of what this bill will do to the Internet as a whole. It seems that it opens the door for the US to regulate any market it likes and if so, there goes the neighborhood. So I am looking to the future after this bill and I don't like what I see.

But then, there are cameras on nearly every street corner in my neighborhood and I don't like those either.

Perhaps it is better to just shrug like Atlas. Maybe John Galt has the right idea. Maybe we need total ruin before things can ever get better.

P.S. Didn't you find it strange that your question was not even discussed?

[TheEngineer]

Jeffiner99,

Status quo sucks, okay. I give you credit for perseverance, but we're in this for the money, not for general principle. I really don't see how we're better off if Frank's bill crashes and burns with zero support. Don't you see how we need to make a good showing, for political reasons? It's not like there are several legalization bills lined up ready to go, especially ones championed by committee chairs.

Do you really think this is likely to pass? Even Frank doesn't. I really don't get your obsession with stopping us from making a good showing.

I believe we need to make a good showing here so that we're where we wish to be next year when the Berkley study completes, IMO. If no one calls or writes in support of IGREA, Congress will assume there's no public support for it. Then, we'll see HR 4777 again, as promised.

Also, we're not flaming you. You think anyone who disagrees with you is flaming you.

We've done very little to demonstrate political muscle over the past few years, and it's gotten us nowhere. Now we have the PPA, Al D'Amato, this bill, the Berkley study, and a few other things going our way. It's hard to see how insisting on an all-or-nothing gets us anything.

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

Everyone,

If you haven't yet, please make sure to go to the PPA website to send a letter to your congressman, at http://activate.pokerplayersalliance.org/start.php?rindex=1 . Thanks.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I want all ten of my fingers. But I am an outcast. A naysayer. I am the one throwing over the wet blanket over the party. Yeah, only four fingers! Hurry, let's get this passed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're upset because we won't change our minds, I guess. Sorry, but disagreeing with you isn't "flaming you". Sorry that we won't give up so easily.

Your EXACT approach FAILED in the HR 4411 vote, you know. The House voted on unregulated Intnernet gambling and crushed us. You're asking us to repeat the same mistake twice. You can write 100 more pages on the minutae of this IGREA, or even 1000.....it won't matter. It would be stupid for us to sit this out and we know it. It's really that simple.

You have no plan. You have no achievable goal. You have a dream, that's all. Sorry if I sound harsh, but your nightly obsession with spending hours here trying to talk us out of fighting back with your exaggerations and spin is, frankly, getting a little old. We can talk about the bill, but why join here just to get us to not fight back? I don't get it.

Can't you at least ask people somewhere in your 10,000 word essays to do SOMETHING against UIGEA???? Please???

[Coy_Roy]

This well thought out bill is near perfect for poker players and I hope it passes as quickly as possible.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
This well thought out bill is near perfect for poker players and I hope it passes as quickly as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[zaah1]

[ QUOTE ]

With the new reporting requirements all players will have to pay taxes on each cashout. That might make the fish uneasy, especially when their local casino doesn't have the same cost associated with it.


[/ QUOTE ]
Except that right now you ARE required to pay tax on every cashout, both online and B&M. Moreover, B&M casinos are required to collect and report taxes on winning over a certain amount (varies by state). I don't see how this law would be any different (other than being federal and not state).

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

With the new reporting requirements all players will have to pay taxes on each cashout. That might make the fish uneasy, especially when their local casino doesn't have the same cost associated with it.


[/ QUOTE ]
Except that right now you ARE required to pay tax on every cashout, both online and B&M. Moreover, B&M casinos are required to collect and report taxes on winning over a certain amount (varies by state). I don't see how this law would be any different (other than being federal and not state).

[/ QUOTE ]

The phrase in the bill says all taxes "are collected at the time of any payment of any proceeds" to the player. Paying taxes and having them "collected at the time" are different.

Having someone collect in that manner is completely different than at my local B&M's. I often carry off decent winnings from there, never had any money "collected", and I later declared those winnings at tax time.

I am sure that you get a refund on Barney's "collected" monies if you file and if you didn't really owe tax. But in the meantime, Barney has part of your bankroll. And if you think about it for a minute, you start to see it could be a large part of your bankroll. Your state likely has some also.

And he has a lot of info on where you play, how often, how much you win, etc. I don't need this boondoggle.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't need this boondoggle.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose you think we should all just sit back, shut up, and let the feds pass what they will?

Our opponents are noisy. That's why they get heard. They've learned to be happy with EVERY lesiglative victory they get. Did you notice the anti-abortion types are thrilled with victories for small things like parental notification? Our opponents know how to build upon victories and how to develop movements.

If that were us, a bunch of people would oppose it, saying "but it doesn't ban all abortion, so I oppose it". We have ZERO legislative victories, okay. These government-issued reports (and I've read several) don't even mention that gambling is a voluntary activity. They are worded as if "gambling is wrong" is assumed.

So, I've asked you several times for your plan. We're all waiting. It seems that your plan is to oppose anything that doesn't represent 100% of the final goal. You want to win the marathon on the first step.

[Sniper]

Eng, he is entitled to his opinion, no?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Eng, he is entitled to his opinion, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt. I've defended his right to his opinion here before. I was merely commenting on his post and asking him what he'd like to do.

My comments are partially a continuation of posts from http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0&fpart=7 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=law&Number=10116012&page= 0&fpart=7) .

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't need this boondoggle.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose you think we should all just sit back, shut up, and let the feds pass what they will?

Our opponents are noisy. That's why they get heard. They've learned to be happy with EVERY lesiglative victory they get. Did you notice the anti-abortion types are thrilled with victories for small things like parental notification? Our opponents know how to build upon victories and how to develop movements.

If that were us, a bunch of people would oppose it, saying "but it doesn't ban all abortion, so I oppose it". We have ZERO legislative victories, okay. These government-issued reports (and I've read several) don't even mention that gambling is a voluntary activity. They are worded as if "gambling is wrong" is assumed.

So, I've asked you several times for your plan. We're all waiting. It seems that your plan is to oppose anything that doesn't represent 100% of the final goal. You want to win the marathon on the first step.

[/ QUOTE ]

My response to your request for a plan included me saying something like "I can't make it any plainer". It still went over your head, so I see no need to retry.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
My response to your request for a plan included me saying something like "I can't make it any plainer". It still went over your head, so I see no need to retry.


[/ QUOTE ]

I read your "plan" and no, it didn't go over my head. You basically decided everyone but you is wrong. Your "plan" is to let the feds pass whatever legislation they want on the belief that it doesn't really matter while encouraging us to do nothing besides hope to win court cases where we can prove poker is a game of skill. The problem with this strategy is that we'd simply sit around and do nothing while federal law after federal law gets passed against us.

Perhaps your arguments went over your head. The "lottery groups" are state governments, so it's not hard to see how they have rights. Horses have the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978 (congressional approval of this interstate commerce, as I mentioned earlier) that authorized their play.

However, you admit the feds have to be involved somewhere for interstate and international play to occur. So, why shouldn't we back this bill and start on the national advocacy plan we need eventually?

[ QUOTE ]
There is a lot of confusion here about your “gambling rights”. Barney, PPA, blogs, you, magazines, all claim your rights and freedoms were removed by UIGEA. That is a myth. It made penalties stronger for unlawful businesses by using your state laws. It did nothing to your “rights”. It changed availability.

Your “gambling rights” come from your state. It has strong police powers over gambling. It may make certain gambling legal; it can stop what is illegal. And it is very against unlawful gambling businesses and unhappy with players using them. Your state has had this stance for a long, long time. The UIGEA is not a “ban”, state laws are the “ban”.

Concentrating at the Fed level might seem like fighting the “rights” problem head-on. Barney’s Fed scheme, if miraculously passed, leads to a low probability that 1 or 2 states allow online poker. Barney and crew can’t dictate that your state legalize an online poker business, Fed license or not. The business is still unlawful in your state, and all others, until they make it lawful. Now you are still facing a battle with 48 to 50 states to legalize online poker. Do you seriouly think the majority of states are ready to give up any contol of gambling to the Feds? Not likely.

Knowing those state laws need to be changed under any strategy I know of, why not skip spending time and energy trying to add another level of government restriction? Again, cut out the middle man, you are not getting legality or “rights” from Barney.

I do not have a special plan to change those state laws. I do know it will be hard, frustrating, and is obviously unpopular (but that could change once UIGEA regulations come out and are enforced).

The skill argument is good. Tax and regulate “because we cannot stop it” is good (although the supply is so scarce, that could be a bluff). Talk to the horse and lottery groups that have gained state legalization. The PPA could be helpful. If the majority of your state citizens want online poker, legalize and license the businesses.

Get your “rights” from the government that controls your “gambling rights”, your state.

I can’t make it much plainer.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Sniper]

Boston Herald Column thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=10368129)

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I want all ten of my fingers. But I am an outcast. A naysayer. I am the one throwing over the wet blanket over the party. Yeah, only four fingers! Hurry, let's get this passed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're upset because we won't change our minds, I guess. Sorry, but disagreeing with you isn't "flaming you". Sorry that we won't give up so easily.

Your EXACT approach FAILED in the HR 4411 vote, you know. The House voted on unregulated Intnernet gambling and crushed us. You're asking us to repeat the same mistake twice. You can write 100 more pages on the minutae of this IGREA, or even 1000.....it won't matter. It would be stupid for us to sit this out and we know it. It's really that simple.

You have no plan. You have no achievable goal. You have a dream, that's all. Sorry if I sound harsh, but your nightly obsession with spending hours here trying to talk us out of fighting back with your exaggerations and spin is, frankly, getting a little old. We can talk about the bill, but why join here just to get us to not fight back? I don't get it.

Can't you at least ask people somewhere in your 10,000 word essays to do SOMETHING against UIGEA???? Please???

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop telling me what I am upset about. You don't have a clue. I only mentioned the fact that no one on this thread had even discussed whether or not this bill was worth voting for or supporting.

I am sick of this. What you are promoting is ignorance. All I try to do is discuss the MERITS of the bill and you attack. Each and every time. This is getting ridiculous. This guy asked a question. I answered him. You jump in. This is not between you and I. This man wants some information. That is not a crime. At least we used to have a free country here where it was a good thing to discuss things before we rushed into them. We also used to have a country where that kind of discussion was valued not attacked.

You think I exaggerate when I bring up issues. You completely miss the point. When I say that this bill gives the Director the right to include any regulation at all including say, a 75% tax on all gaming winnings, I am not exaggerating. I am making a point. I am explaining how that power could be used and why it bad to give that much power to one guy. It is the same as saying that if your write a blank check a person could fill it in for the entire amount in your account. That is not an exaggeration. That is a fact. I did not say that if you write a blank check that will happen. It is an merely an explanation of how this power can be used. Since the bill is filled with power but almost no limitations I am pointing out just a few of the ways that it COULD be used. I am discussing the dangers of the amount of POWER that we are giving away by voting for this. So while this bill may look good if the power is used wisely it could also look crippling if the power is not. Since you don't know how the power will be used about all you can do is look at the past actions of the government and try to figure out how it will behave in the future. So far, things like alcohol and cigarettes have HUGE taxes on them because the politicians can tax those items in relative safety. No one gets mad. At least not the majority. Those items are considered sinning so any taxes on them are fine with the high and mighty. I submit that perhaps gambling falls into the same category. Again, as an example of what COULD happen because this bill gives the power to do so, the government could take 2 bucks out of every pot for a tax on education. If so, that would end most of the profitability of playing online. Because that is just one of the very real possibilities with this bill I think we should look at all of the possible ramifications.

To date I have not found a reason to be optimistic when the US Government takes over an industry. Therefore, I am not optimistic that the power in this bill will not be used to make a lot of money off of all of us, that equals expenses.

What good is fighting for something if, when you get it, you can't use it anymore?

Engineer, you are not the only one on this site. Just because a few people have made up their mind doesn't mean that everyone has. Others are here too. Some of them might want to look before they leap. You have made up your mind. Fine. Let others have the information so they can make an informed decision instead of trying to stifle any discussion of the CONSEQUENCES of this bill.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I am sick of this. What you are promoting is ignorance. All I try to do is discuss the MERITS of the bill and you attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, disagreeing with you isn't attacking you.

I guess you've decided to filibuster the board. I wish you the best.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am sick of this. What you are promoting is ignorance. All I try to do is discuss the MERITS of the bill and you attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, disagreeing with you isn't attacking you.

I guess you've decided to filibuster the board. I wish you the best.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you don't disagree with me. You disagree that I even discuss the matter. You never reply to the merits of the argument merely the fact of it. You do the same to Permafrost or anyone who wants to talk about this bill. Then you use hyperbole and ad hominem attacks to bolster your argument, and must must must have the last word always about the person, never about the argument.

It is as if you are terrified of anyone actually talking about this bill because you want it passed so much. If it is a good bill for us then it will survive any discussion and people will still be for it, if it is not then people may not support it and you would be safer. So don't worry, either way you benefit.

[Dunkman]

[ QUOTE ]

Engineer, you are not the only one on this site. Just because a few people have made up their mind doesn't mean that everyone has. Others are here too. Some of them might want to look before they leap. You have made up your mind. Fine. Let others have the information so they can make an informed decision instead of trying to stifle any discussion of the CONSEQUENCES of this bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps one of the greatest examples of the pot calling the kettle black I've ever seen. You think that when you discuss the bill it's "information" and when engineer discusses the bill he's "flaming you" and "promoting ignorence." You are both discussing your OPINIONS, that's it, nothing more. Just opinions. Try to be a little more respectful to the others here...I promise you're not any more intelligent than we are. If you really want to have a civil discussion, I'd suggest stop calling your opinion "information" and ours " promoting ignorence."

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
No, you don't disagree with me. You disagree that I even discuss the matter. You never reply to the merits of the argument merely the fact of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever.

I've posted page after page of analysis in response to your queries. I've answered all 10,000 of your questions (8,000 of them being the a previously answered question asked slightly differently). You just didn't like the answers.

YOU assumed we didn't know what we were doing when you joined here a couple of weeks ago; you informed us that you went to Harvard, then told us we must not have read the bill if we support it.

We all understand that YOU don't like the bill. You oppose all regulation. We get it. Regulation is evil.

Have at the board. It's all yours. Spend every night posting essay after essay.

Cheers.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Engineer, you are not the only one on this site. Just because a few people have made up their mind doesn't mean that everyone has. Others are here too. Some of them might want to look before they leap. You have made up your mind. Fine. Let others have the information so they can make an informed decision instead of trying to stifle any discussion of the CONSEQUENCES of this bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps one of the greatest examples of the pot calling the kettle black I've ever seen. You think that when you discuss the bill it's "information" and when engineer discusses the bill he's "flaming you" and "promoting ignorence." You are both discussing your OPINIONS, that's it, nothing more. Just opinions. Try to be a little more respectful to the others here...I promise you're not any more intelligent than we are. If you really want to have a civil discussion, I'd suggest stop calling your opinion "information" and ours " promoting ignorence."

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT!

I've got a couple of fish on, so I'll open a couple of extra tables and leave the boards to y'all. Please check out my Action Item thread. Thx.

[Dunkman]

Also, well many of the arguments you make are just being against government regulation...I am too. However, I just don't believe that is feasible in the current environment (country has been steadily moving towards socialism for a long time.) I am willing to compromise on my anti-regulation stance to save some form of online gambling, you are not. Not much else to discuss there.

I have discussed merits of having truly legal online gambling in the U.S. (i.e. more fish.) That topic has never gotten anymore discussion.

I think we agree that there's a lot of problem areas in the bill. I don't think that they're enough to make me not support it. Quite a few people do think they're enough for them to not support it. That's fine. I understand where they're coming from, since I share many of their concerns. Intelligent people can make very different conclusions when confronted with a complicated issue like this, and none them have to be wrong. I don't pretend they're not there, or promise that online gambling under the UIGEA is going to be better than ever. I'm not even 100% sure that this bill is good for us. It is my educated opinion that despite the shortcomings, this bill is good for us, and we should support it. I encourage everyone to read the bill from themselves, participate in some discussion about it, and form their own opinion, as I have.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Engineer, you are not the only one on this site. Just because a few people have made up their mind doesn't mean that everyone has. Others are here too. Some of them might want to look before they leap. You have made up your mind. Fine. Let others have the information so they can make an informed decision instead of trying to stifle any discussion of the CONSEQUENCES of this bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps one of the greatest examples of the pot calling the kettle black I've ever seen. You think that when you discuss the bill it's "information" and when engineer discusses the bill he's "flaming you" and "promoting ignorence." You are both discussing your OPINIONS, that's it, nothing more. Just opinions. Try to be a little more respectful to the others here...I promise you're not any more intelligent than we are. If you really want to have a civil discussion, I'd suggest stop calling your opinion "information" and ours " promoting ignorence."

[/ QUOTE ]

You promise? You know my IQ? Dunkman, I don't see anything in this post discussing any issues, so what opinions are you promoting? Unless they are the typical whiny complaints about the poster. Since every sentence of your post included the word "you" it seems very clear that you are only interested in discussing me. If so, then do so in an IM. Seems you are quick to jump in when posters are fighting and must add your two cents worth. Got a jones for fights? Or are you just happy to attack me whenever you get the chance. This is what, the third or is the fourth time now?

I will say it again. This kind of childish whining doesn't help this site, anyone on it, or the thread. I have had enough of you and Skall and the Engineer attacking me. Why don't you all get together and have tea and discuss how much you hate me? But you three are not the only ones on this board no matter how much you like to think so. It is this kind of third grade nonsense that kills the integrity of this site.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, well many of the arguments you make are just being against government regulation...I am too. However, I just don't believe that is feasible in the current environment (country has been steadily moving towards socialism for a long time.) I am willing to compromise on my anti-regulation stance to save some form of online gambling, you are not. Not much else to discuss there.

I have discussed merits of having truly legal online gambling in the U.S. (i.e. more fish.) That topic has never gotten anymore discussion.

I think we agree that there's a lot of problem areas in the bill. I don't think that they're enough to make me not support it. Quite a few people do think they're enough for them to not support it. That's fine. I understand where they're coming from, since I share many of their concerns. Intelligent people can make very different conclusions when confronted with a complicated issue like this, and none them have to be wrong. I don't pretend they're not there, or promise that online gambling under the UIGEA is going to be better than ever. I'm not even 100% sure that this bill is good for us. It is my educated opinion that despite the shortcomings, this bill is good for us, and we should support it. I encourage everyone to read the bill from themselves, participate in some discussion about it, and form their own opinion, as I have.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not that I am not willing to compromise. But I am not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some compromises are not compromises, they are concessions.

I have discussed the issue of the fish. Perhaps you missed it. First of all, it won't matter if there are any fish if it costs pros too much to play. But I see the typical online player, make that person, as a person who likes their privacy and likes their actions to remain anonymous. Under the new regime they won't have either.

That may hurt the fish. Although I have been playing for ten years to some I am also a fish, to some I am a shark. Different levels of skill and all. I can promise you, I will not play if I have to give up my SS# to anyone. So there is one person gone.

I have spoken to ten of my friends who play online. They have all read the bill. None of them will play online anymore under the new regs either.

As we all know a high rake always kills games and kills off the fish. Their bankrolls can't take it. How many times have you played on a table for ten hours with the same people only to look around and everyone has lost? If the feds end up taking money out of each pot, as Barney Frank suggested as a possibility during his interview, then how can the fish survive?

Do you agree?

I suppose it is also possible that the turnover of fish will be higher but there will still be fish. More fish because they will be happy it is legal.

Again though, if the regs hurt the pros so that it becomes unprofitable to play what will it matter?

What do you think the regs will end up doing to us?

I apologize for my last post to you. I was just sick of you attacking me. But I am glad to engage in a real discussion with you about this.

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]
I have had enough of you and Skall and the Engineer attacking me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you and Engineer got into it a bit, but where has Skall 'attacked' you? I haven't read every thread/post so maybe I am missing something...

[Dunkman]

I believe that the sites know how much rake gives them an optimal profit margin. I think that if the feds take a piece then the sites will realize it benefits them the most if it comes out of their earnings. They know if pros can't make money and fish can't play more than a few hands then they're going bankrupt. No reasonable company is going to cannibalize itself for 1 quarter of good profits. The big increase in players will help this a lot...I know you and your friends dare not give your SS# out, but cmon, there's billions of dollars stolen every year because American's give their SS#s out to people calling on the phone and spam emails...I'm not all the concerned. Plus, for some crazy reason, people in this country trust the government for the most part, at least as an institution.

Those are my answers to the constructive questions in your second post.

As to the rest of it, well, I can't even believe what I'm reading, even for this back and forth. You obviously feel that our [censored] is causing this, and I can assure you that sentiment works both ways. Either way, this crap is dragging down the forum (and a couple others for that matter.) I think it's best if we just refrain from responding to each other from now on. I won't respond to any more of your posts and I'd appreciate it if you'd extend me the same courtesy.

[Skallagrim]

OK now this truly made me LOL:

"I will say it again. This kind of childish whining doesn't help this site, anyone on it, or the thread. I have had enough of you and Skall and the Engineer attacking me. Why don't you all get together and have tea and discuss how much you hate me? But you three are not the only ones on this board no matter how much you like to think so. It is this kind of third grade nonsense that kills the integrity of this site."

Jeffiner, if you think we have been attacking you, you should try posting more often in the Zoo or NVG /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

For all the other viewers, yes Jeff is right , it is theoretically possible that this bill is just a subterfuge to screw us (because we are so politically poweful); what Jeff refuses to admit, however, is that it is just as theoretically likely that this bill begins a process of intelligent and beneficial regulation of legal online poker.

But Engineer is right that the only way to make sure this bill is our friend is to generate some political muscle BEHIND THE GENERAL CONCEPT, and when that succeeds, then concentrate on getting the details right.

At least thats my opinion, made without any personal attacks.

Skallagrim

PS - permafrost is a very frustrating debate opponent because he mostly just reasserts his position or responds to an argument about the proverbial forest by pointing out that one of the trees is out of place /images/graemlins/wink.gif . But I think permafrost would agree that none of your named three believes his opinion is not deserving of respect.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My response to your request for a plan included me saying something like "I can't make it any plainer". It still went over your head, so I see no need to retry.


[/ QUOTE ]

I read your "plan" and no, it didn't go over my head. You basically decided everyone but you is wrong. Your "plan" is to let the feds pass whatever legislation they want on the belief that it doesn't really matter while encouraging us to do nothing besides hope to win court cases where we can prove poker is a game of skill. The problem with this strategy is that we'd simply sit around and do nothing while federal law after federal law gets passed against us.

Perhaps your arguments went over your head. The "lottery groups" are state governments, so it's not hard to see how they have rights. Horses have the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978 (congressional approval of this interstate commerce, as I mentioned earlier) that authorized their play.

However, you admit the feds have to be involved somewhere for interstate and international play to occur. So, why shouldn't we back this bill and start on the national advocacy plan we need eventually?

[ QUOTE ]
There is a lot of confusion here about your “gambling rights”. Barney, PPA, blogs, you, magazines, all claim your rights and freedoms were removed by UIGEA. That is a myth. It made penalties stronger for unlawful businesses by using your state laws. It did nothing to your “rights”. It changed availability.

Your “gambling rights” come from your state. It has strong police powers over gambling. It may make certain gambling legal; it can stop what is illegal. And it is very against unlawful gambling businesses and unhappy with players using them. Your state has had this stance for a long, long time. The UIGEA is not a “ban”, state laws are the “ban”.

Concentrating at the Fed level might seem like fighting the “rights” problem head-on. Barney’s Fed scheme, if miraculously passed, leads to a low probability that 1 or 2 states allow online poker. Barney and crew can’t dictate that your state legalize an online poker business, Fed license or not. The business is still unlawful in your state, and all others, until they make it lawful. Now you are still facing a battle with 48 to 50 states to legalize online poker. Do you seriouly think the majority of states are ready to give up any contol of gambling to the Feds? Not likely.

Knowing those state laws need to be changed under any strategy I know of, why not skip spending time and energy trying to add another level of government restriction? Again, cut out the middle man, you are not getting legality or “rights” from Barney.

I do not have a special plan to change those state laws. I do know it will be hard, frustrating, and is obviously unpopular (but that could change once UIGEA regulations come out and are enforced).

The skill argument is good. Tax and regulate “because we cannot stop it” is good (although the supply is so scarce, that could be a bluff). Talk to the horse and lottery groups that have gained state legalization. The PPA could be helpful. If the majority of your state citizens want online poker, legalize and license the businesses.

Get your “rights” from the government that controls your “gambling rights”, your state.

I can’t make it much plainer.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the critique. You missed the part where I said I didn't have a plan. And the part where I supported several strategies people are promoting, so I didn't decide everyone is wrong. I don't want the Feds to pass "whatever legislation". You are really strident in your belief that the Feds are the problem and they are out to make us felons; I know the real power lies with the states and their anti-gambling laws.

My strategy:
Add state laws to license and regulate online poker and the Fed problem goes away -they just won't care. I got legal.

Your strategy:
Add Fed laws to license and regulate online poker and your state problem does not go away. You start over.

And remember, Fed licensing schemes, if somehow passed, could lead to a flurry of specific new state laws making online poker unlawful instead of the current implied illegality. That is if the governors think they need new laws instead of just opting out with what they have. Your state battle is likely harder than mine.

A Fed enabling law is all the states need if they want to legalize and pool. Maybe it would work to have that enabling law in place prior to specific state legalization and regulation. That would be a good start and could encourage some state legislators or petition writers. Talk to Barney? There might be drawbacks that I don't see immediately. But it seems more sensible than a Fed Director; that thought would be enough to scare any state official into action.

Caution! It is still not a plan-plans imply action-and I spend too much time learning about and thinking about this mess already. I do know UIGEA (and other Fed law) is fairly worthless without state laws to enforce.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the critique. You missed the part where I said I didn't have a plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted your plan, so I was showing that you have one. I did post this prior to our exchanges on the other thread, where it seemed we were in at least some general agreement of what needs to happen overall.

Rather than retype it, here's my summary:

[ QUOTE ]
Permafrost's strategy:
Add state laws to license and regulate online poker and the Fed problem goes away at the state level-they just won't care until the sites want interstate or international gambling. I got legal in-state, but still can't play any offshore sites. I still need federal action to allow interstate poker, and I have to get it before HR 4777 passes, so I still need to build political momentum in Washington .

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
TheEngineer's strategy: Add Fed laws to license and regulate online poker because we'll have them under ANY plan that allows interstate/international poker. Concurrently work on the states, using government licensing and their means of tax collection as a lever to encourage them to legalize. The states think Internet gambling is illegal now, so there in no hurry to legalize it, especially as there's nothing in it for them the way things stand now. We have a lot of work to do at the state level.

Use IGREA as a means of showing support in Washington for our position. As HR 4411 won 317-93, it's obvious we have work to do there. As IGREA is a big underdog to pass, the specifics of the bill aren't all that important....I'll worry about details if its probability of passing ever exceeds 30%. For now, it's a tool to build and show support. If we win the "poker is skill" argument, we'll need political support in place if we don't wish to end up where we did when we "won" the WTO argument.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think we substantially disagree.

[drj003]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Engineer, you are not the only one on this site. Just because a few people have made up their mind doesn't mean that everyone has. Others are here too. Some of them might want to look before they leap. You have made up your mind. Fine. Let others have the information so they can make an informed decision instead of trying to stifle any discussion of the CONSEQUENCES of this bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps one of the greatest examples of the pot calling the kettle black I've ever seen. You think that when you discuss the bill it's "information" and when engineer discusses the bill he's "flaming you" and "promoting ignorence." You are both discussing your OPINIONS, that's it, nothing more. Just opinions. Try to be a little more respectful to the others here...I promise you're not any more intelligent than we are. If you really want to have a civil discussion, I'd suggest stop calling your opinion "information" and ours " promoting ignorence."

[/ QUOTE ]

You promise? You know my IQ? Dunkman, I don't see anything in this post discussing any issues, so what opinions are you promoting? Unless they are the typical whiny complaints about the poster. Since every sentence of your post included the word "you" it seems very clear that you are only interested in discussing me. If so, then do so in an IM. Seems you are quick to jump in when posters are fighting and must add your two cents worth. Got a jones for fights? Or are you just happy to attack me whenever you get the chance. This is what, the third or is the fourth time now?

I will say it again. This kind of childish whining doesn't help this site, anyone on it, or the thread. I have had enough of you and Skall and the Engineer attacking me. Why don't you all get together and have tea and discuss how much you hate me? But you three are not the only ones on this board no matter how much you like to think so. It is this kind of third grade nonsense that kills the integrity of this site.

[/ QUOTE ]

SSHHHHH!

[Sniper]

IGREA gains 6 cosponsors (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=10505416)

[Sniper]

Governer of NH states position on Frank's Bill (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=10528851)

Ron Paul speaks out in support of Frank's Bill (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=10528740)

[Sniper]

House committee to hold Internet Gambling hearing 6/8 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Number=10617130)