An Interesting Conversation

[ArtieFish]

So I was taking the train back from NY yesterday and I ended up sitting across from this guy who, after some BS convo, was a Political Science Major and was helping on the Obama Campaign. Anyways, we got around some to talking about online poker because I said that's the only thing I'm really involved in concering law, yadayada. The conversation that came from that was very interesting and I will try to sum it up, but basically I wanted to share what I heard first hand with you guys. Maybe we can get something out of this that will help our cause. The way he put it, things are not in our favor obviously, but he was being very unbiased:

He said that gambling in general was always a touchy subject for an politician (we all know that already) and that, though we may be able to play the freedom card in our arguement, most people will shoot it down. The majority of players who support the total legalization of online poker are winning players. Most people do not have sympathy for said players for many reaons:
1) Due to jealousy. People see poker players as living a leisurely life without much stress/commitment/responsibility. This is all obviously BS, but that is what the majority sees.
2)Not many people know personally of people who have made money but seem to always know that crazy story of someone losing everything they had online.
3)There are never stories of people turning their lives around by finding online poker and picking their life up financially. Opera would most likely not invite any of these people on her show even if there were (This kind of pertains to the above)
4)Most people do not care about freedoms that don't really effect them.
5)Gambling in general is seen as immmoral (obvious one)even if it is bringing in more revenue if taxed.

So not only is our freedom card pretty beat up, but is also being matched up against the "children" and "addict" card, both big concerns that come up when any form of gambling, even if it's not truly gambling, is mentioned. With all the said, he ended the conversation saying that any politician will gladly bring all this up saying "we don't need more boken homes and broken people in our nation" or something to that effect. Applause would surely come from this and his potnetial voters will probably go up, sadly.

Anyway you guys probably have realized all this, but it was pretty cool to get the outlook from someone who is neither against nor for it and was taking it from a strictly political view, something we need to cope with when pushing what we want.

So how do we deal with this? We need something more than just freedom, but I just can't see what it is. International law? Aren't booze/cigs just as bad, so why not just tax it?

I'm not really totatlly educated on all of the readings about the bill and this problem, but I am truly interested on the thoughts of all here on the unbiased political view.

[T3485]

The distinction between live play and online play is that one is taxable and one is not. Politics has little to do with morals, though that won't stop politicans presenting it as such.

[Skallagrim]

The US voting population consistently breaks down like this:

Vast majority does not give a damn about gambling one way or another (as long as you dont build a casino next to their house/neighborhood).

A sizable group believes in personal freedom or just plain likes to gamble.

Another sizable group believes gambling is dangerous (nanny staters) or sinful (FoF types) and should be stopped.

Its all about getting that vast majority to either go with you or to not care when a politician pulls a fast one to get the support of one of the sizable groups (thats how the UIGEA got passed - and thats most likely how it will get reversed, if it does).

Your conversation partner is simply too influenced by the success of the religious right in recent years; they are not the majority however, and their power is fading fast thanks to all the things their republican panderers have messed up over the last 6-7 years.

Skallagrim

[oldbookguy]

This is why, AND I revile the man, Sen. Kyl is correct, go to court and WIN if we want poker as a skill game and legal. The UIGEA does not prevent skill gaming.

Wexlers bill is really not needed as it is already a given that skill is exempt.

obg

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]


2)Not many people know personally of people who have made money but seem to always know that crazy story of someone losing everything they had online.
3)There are never stories of people turning their lives around by finding online poker and picking their life up financially. Opera would most likely not invite any of these people on her show even if there were (This kind of pertains to the above)

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering the % of poker players that are lifetime losers, it's really the winners that are the "crazy stories", don't you think? I'm certain that there are ten people that have encountered serious financial problems from online gambling for every one that has "turned their life around by finding online poker".

Also "Opera"? Really?

[Grasshopp3r]

Politics is all about framing the issue. Instead of presenting online poker as a revenue source for Antigua, we need to present it as a way to suck revenue from the rest of the world into the US. That is an argument that trumps all of the above. Who in the US cares about the negative impacts on the foreigners?

[oldbookguy]

Granted, there are many lifetime losers.

However, there are many winners as well.

I am one and just in my 2 blocks in my neighborhood there are 2 others and I know personally they are lifetime winners as well.

Stories abound each way. The question of lifetime losers is was it a life changing loss or simply dropping a few bucks per week having some fun playing poker instead of the local lottery, a major concern of states since they are losing THEIR cut (99.99% lifetime losers).

obg

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Also "Opera"? Really?

[/ QUOTE ]

I read this thread usung Opera...does that count? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[JPFisher55]

An interesting story and why I believe that favorable legislation will only come out of WTO sanctions affecting powerful industries like music and movie that donate heavily to Democrats.
Of course, litigation could confirm or grant us the right to play online poker in our own homes.
The worst and most dangerous part of your conversation is how little people value their freedoms.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
The worst and most dangerous part of your conversation is how little people value their freedoms.

[/ QUOTE ]

No such inference is intended. In-fact, both my neighbors (neither posts here) do use links I e-mail and are active letter writers and both, as I am for now, are paying members of the PPA.

Notice my avatar, WV, we value freedoms here above most all else.

obg

[hollaballa]

I like to be as optimistic as the next guy, but it's hard when people in real high places are too confident.

This article is from February, but thinking much has changed is just wishful thinking.

Chances of legislation being overturned = "no chance in hell" according to the American Gaming Association.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/consumer/2007/feb/11/566626844.html

[JPFisher55]

I did not mean to infer anything about your beliefs. It was the person to whom you are speaking that brings up the fact that most people only care about a freedom that directly affect them that is so sad but true.
I think all the posters to this forum are in the minority on this point.

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
The US voting population consistently breaks down like this:

Vast majority does not give a damn about gambling one way or another (as long as you dont build a casino next to their house/neighborhood).

A sizable group believes in personal freedom or just plain likes to gamble.

Another sizable group believes gambling is dangerous (nanny staters) or sinful (FoF types) and should be stopped.

Its all about getting that vast majority to either go with you or to not care when a politician pulls a fast one to get the support of one of the sizable groups (thats how the UIGEA got passed - and thats most likely how it will get reversed, if it does).

Your conversation partner is simply too influenced by the success of the religious right in recent years; they are not the majority however, and their power is fading fast thanks to all the things their republican panderers have messed up over the last 6-7 years.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to depressingly disagree. I think that there's a totalitarian streak running through most people that causes them to have few problems with prohibiting things if:

1) They don't plan on doing those things themselves.
2) There might be some harm caused, somewhere, if this thing is allowed. Or, the thing in question is generally distasteful.

I think this guy got it exactly right on almost all counts. Most people couldn't give a [censored] about online gambling before, but now that elements of it are illegal, they won't actively support repealing those elements without a good reason.

[TheEngineer]

Interesting post. First of all, the opinion of an intern is meaningless with regards to Obama's position, as I'm sure you know. Many assume their preconceived notions are the truth by definition....no data required. Just read a few threads here for proof of that.

As for the questions posed by the young intern, let's look at the facts. First of all, gambling of some form is permitted in 48 states, and casinos continue to expand into new states. Some may BELIEVE that everyone hates gambling (for example, I'll bet everyone the intern in question knows hates gambling), but the facts say otherwise. I think the way we attack this is by proudly championing poker. Poker has come a long way in public acceptance over the last few years. We should keep this trend going. Next, we should work to win the 2007 KY gubernatorial election. This will demonstrate that an openly pro-casino candidate can win the statehouse in a Southern/Midwestern state, running against a rabidly anti-gaming incumbent. Finally, we should just keep playing online. Next, we should keep our letters flowing to Congress. Let them know there's a price to pay for taking our freedoms. Finally, always point out the Frank's bill requires age verification and methods for preventing compulsive gambling while funding treatment for the 0.4% of those unfortunate enough to develop problems.

[ QUOTE ]
With all the said, he ended the conversation saying that any politician will gladly bring all this up saying "we don't need more boken homes and broken people in our nation" or something to that effect. Applause would surely come from this and his potnetial voters will probably go up, sadly.

[/ QUOTE ]

The political climate right now is perfect for us, relative to this type of attitude. Few people trust the nanny-staters, and even fewer want government to control their lives.

[ArtieFish]

[ QUOTE ]
I did not mean to infer anything about your beliefs. It was the person to whom you are speaking that brings up the fact that most people only care about a freedom that directly affect them that is so sad but true.
I think all the posters to this forum are in the minority on this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I know. The point I wanted to bring across was that this guy was making some sad truths. How come there hasn't been more of an uproar about the government being able to listen in on anyone's conversation if they deem them a possible a threat. People don't care about their freedoms until they are directly affected. The average joe who does not play online is not affected. So why should he care.

Oh yea, and he def. did mention Opera or Morri or some other BS daytime show. He was a pretty down to earth guy though, he never was saying any of this was truly his view he was just telling me what the cookie cutter politician sees.

Anyway, i enjoyed reading all the responses. After that conversation I really started thinking what the hell can I do to contribute? I've done the basics, joined and donated to PPA, sent letters to my [censored] congressmen and so and so forth, but what's the next step?

[ArtieFish]

I posted before i saw your post TheEngineer.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

we may be able to play the freedom card

Did he actually use the phrase "the freedom card" or is that your way of recounting the conversation?

It just reminds me that even when we think we may be allying ourselves with someone who can help, they may have a completely different perspective on the role of government than we do (or the Constitution does)

[ArtieFish]

[ QUOTE ]
we may be able to play the freedom card

Did he actually use the phrase "the freedom card" or is that your way of recounting the conversation?


[/ QUOTE ]

He used the term card, I wasn't sure if he was trying to make a pun or not, but I kinda just ignored it.

[Skallagrim]

Grisgra, I too am appalled by the creeping totalitarianism that is present in modern America ... citing examples would produce a book, not a post.

But polls consistently show that when asked, the majority of americans believe it should be legal to play poker on the internet (around 70% IIRC). That same majority does not believe it to be an important issue.

This is where hope lies: once the politicians realize that the number of "anti-online poker votes" they lose will be offset by the number of "pro-online poker" votes they gain, and that their overall votes will be mostly unaffected, then they can do pro-online poker things and get away with it: like supporting the Wexler or Frank bill, especially if they see some money in it for them, oops, I mean their constituents.

Also, thanks to mostly the efforts of Engineer (and those who follow his advice) we can already see a number of politicians from a number of places (mostly the heathen northeast and the lawless west) who see that being pro-online poker actually gets them a few more votes (and money) than the opposite position.

Your words of caution are warranted, Gris, but we are far from losing this fight.

Skallagrim

PS - the guys who give the chance in hell are probably right so long as GWB holds the Whitehouse, but remember these are the same guys who predicted that the UIGEA would never get out of the Senate.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
Opera or Morri

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're just taunting us, right?

[T3485]

[ QUOTE ]
I like to be as optimistic as the next guy, but it's hard when people in real high places are too confident.

This article is from February, but thinking much has changed is just wishful thinking.

Chances of legislation being overturned = "no chance in hell" according to the American Gaming Association.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/consumer/2007/feb/11/566626844.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Ack! This is terrible journalism. This reads like a soap opera gossip column.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we may be able to play the freedom card

Did he actually use the phrase "the freedom card" or is that your way of recounting the conversation?


[/ QUOTE ]

He used the term card, I wasn't sure if he was trying to make a pun or not, but I kinda just ignored it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then its typical Republicrat thinking. Another reason not to trust anyone on either side of the aisle.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we may be able to play the freedom card

Did he actually use the phrase "the freedom card" or is that your way of recounting the conversation?


[/ QUOTE ]

He used the term card, I wasn't sure if he was trying to make a pun or not, but I kinda just ignored it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then its typical Republicrat thinking. Another reason not to trust anyone on either side of the aisle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does not compute..."Play the card" is pretty standard parlance for "make the argument" or "advance the position"

[yahboohoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like to be as optimistic as the next guy, but it's hard when people in real high places are too confident.

This article is from February, but thinking much has changed is just wishful thinking.

Chances of legislation being overturned = "no chance in hell" according to the American Gaming Association.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/consumer/2007/feb/11/566626844.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Ack! This is terrible journalism. This reads like a soap opera gossip column.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. It's the Las Vegas Sun, the junior paper is a town where journalism is a very low priority.

2. It's not an article, it's a column, which means it isn't subject to the same criteria as hard news.

3. If Frank J. Fahrenkopf, president and CEO of the American Gaming Association, is quoted as saying, "No chance in hell," I don't think it matters whether the quote appeared in a gossipy column from a rag paper. If he said it, he said it. The big question is, "What is the AGA's position towards online gaming?" Because maybe he's just spinning.

[yahboohoo]

I think when the boomers bankrupt this country through Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, every politician in America will gleefully embrace any source of revenue -- even morally baseless, addictive forms of child exploitation and terrorist financing (e.g., "online poker").

And let's not forget that we'll be starting that economic nightmare on the wrong foot: $1 trillion wasted on a pointless war, which continues to cost us $200 million every day.

This country needs money. A lot of it. Fast.

[yahboohoo]

Here's the two of the top three results for a Google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=AGA+"online+gaming"&btnG=Google+Search) of "AGA" and "online gaming:"

A 2003 article (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Nov-21-Fri-2003/business/22637521.html) stating the AGA opposes Kyl's bill (probably not a newsflash for this forum).

A 2006 study (http://www.pokernews.com/news/2006/5/two-poker-studies-shed-light.htm) by the AGA states that "the typical U.S. Internet gambler is under 40, is college-educated or has post-high school education of some sort, is male and is generally more affluent than his fellow citizens."

[coachkf]

[ QUOTE ]
3)There are never stories of people turning their lives around by finding online poker and picking their life up financially. Opera would most likely not invite any of these people on her show even if there were...

[/ QUOTE ]

Online poker turned my life around (more from the affiliate side of things than actually playing, but still).

Call her up. Tell her my wife loves the show!

[Mcbrag]

What is the AGA's position in relation to online gaming and live gaming? Is it largely representative of the live gaming establishment? The live gaming establishment is nearly as opposed to online gaming as the religious right. They view it as direct competition. Perhaps Frank J. Fahrenkopf is attempting to not only convince the public but convince himself by repeating the mantra of the party over and over again as often as possible.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we may be able to play the freedom card

Did he actually use the phrase "the freedom card" or is that your way of recounting the conversation?


[/ QUOTE ]

He used the term card, I wasn't sure if he was trying to make a pun or not, but I kinda just ignored it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then its typical Republicrat thinking. Another reason not to trust anyone on either side of the aisle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does not compute..."Play the card" is pretty standard parlance for "make the argument" or "advance the position"

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you're correct if you believe that government is our master rather than our servant.