BILL that could end ONLINE POKER...

[pdjplano]

[ QUOTE ]
Could somebody provide a link to how all the congresspeople voted? I've been poking around but can't figure it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

sure: http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote....rollnumber=363

you can search out all / any bill in Congress via that site and look at how each Congresscritter (or in this case, most of those asshats) voted...

I ran for Congress in 2004 actually, unfortunately I didn't win (about as close to winning as I am as a poker player, so way far away). Too bad because I'd be one the loudest opponents of this horrendous legislation.

[ouzacprice]

I think what it comes down to when ya'll were talking about the hippocracy of certain things being legal (guns, horseracing) comes down to the fact that politicians are essentially puppets of the hands that gave them money (and lots of it) to campaign and get in to office. This turns politicians into nothing more than official lobbyists for the big corporations that put them in office. I think campaign finance reform is one of the things our country desperately needs to make politics what they should be in a democracy- a representation of the citizens that elected you to office.

[pipsqueak]

Well, I'm happy to see that my Congressperson Barbara Lee took the unpopular yet correct stand yet again! (she was the only one that voted against sending troops to Iraq)

[frommagio]

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

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

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

[ImprovinNewbie]

i cant imagine nobody in the senate along the way will realize they cant regulate ones use of the internet!!! this probably will not go throught the senate..... i hope.

[sebumd]

lol @ the daily shows coverage of this bill

[memphis57]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but "Moral Decline" does not include betting on horse racing or lotteries on the internet!! The hypicrosy behind this political mush is disgusting. I guess this is how it was in the Prohibition era. I thought we were past that, but I guess not.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, true, but I guess we should be glad it works this way. The genius of the founding fathers was that they made it so difficult to get anything done, that you really need an overwhelming majority on any given issue before you can effectively legislate against it. If you just have a small majority, you end up with loopholes that you can't close. As far as the poker bill goes, we should not only be opposing it, but should also support any efforts to put loopholes in it like the horse racing/lotteries etc. The more loopholes the better. If this passes I guess the way it will work out is Party sets up a horse-racing afiiliate, you deposit your money there and then transfer it to the poker affiliate; reverse for withdrawals.

I read somewhere that prohibition had an exemption in it for medicine, and soon patent medicines with 99% alcohol content became all the rage. Then they passed another law to limit legal alcohol content in medicines, but they couldn't get it set any lower than 40%, and that was still enough to get hooked on. It also created a demand for 'medicine' with a little more oomph in it, so they mixed in some opium-based and cocaine-based additives to the 40% alcohol. In the end, when they cancelled prohibition, there were all these old ladies vehemently condemning society, who were addicted to patent cough medicines with 40% alcohol and laced with opium and cocaine.

[AJFenix]

Sigh, this has been posted in so many places. The bill, even if it does pass, seriously does not change anything. Aside from scaring some fish, and apparently a bunch of 2p2ers, all it does is disallow credit cards and and other electronic transfers from dealing with our poker sites. They CANNOT stop you from using neteller, and from there your money can still go into a poker site just as it always has. The vast majority of credit cards already don't allow you to deal with those gambling sites, so there won't be any noticeable effect. The heralding of this being a "ban on online gambling" is absolutely absurd. They wouldn't even be able to stop poker sites from advertising on television, given that those sites offer free poker, which is perfectly legal.

[Mark L]

stupid question: if this bill passes, does it mean that americans cant play online poker or that you cant play online poker while in america? thanks.

[AJFenix]

[ QUOTE ]
1. If it were to become law exactly as written, it would legally prohibit using U.S. credit cards and similar methods to fund accounts. As we all know, that already is pretty much the case.


2. It cannot become law without the Senate, which has shown no interest in this matter, is about to go on vacation, and has bona fide important business to deal with.

[/ QUOTE ]

From cardplayer. This bill is seriously causing way too much drama for what it is.