[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This liability clause IMO is the real proof of the intention of the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? The anti-gaming folks finally got their legislation through, and the bank lobbyists said something like, "whoa guys...the only way we can do that is if we're exempted from overblocking". None of us see WHY banks would want UIGEA. Are they trying to pass laws like UIGEA in Great Britain? Spain? On Internet horse racing? They only care that they don't get stiffed, as far as I can see. The T&C on your account don't prove they "hate gambling" or that there's some master conspiracy against us. Rather, it shows that they want to get paid, at least IMO.

You're entitled to your opinion, put the way you try to force it and everything else you think on everyone is getting old. Please relax and try to work with us. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

The banks on debit card and check transactions get "paid" they even get paid on e-wallet transactions. As a business they can refuse to do business with any one they choose. There is no right to bank.

So other than on credit cards how are the not getting paid? Even then the amount of transactions vs the few they have to settle on they are making money.

Again and again I have aked for and not recieved a single reason for the basis of the reasoning for this hopeful comment strategy of the PPA's you keep pushing.

Even the constitution lawyer suggested that the Agencies as Executive branch could not do what you want them to do. That action requires Legislative branch action.

I have gone on to further suggest that since the banks are happy as evidenced by the Banking Industry spokeman in the Reuters article, no matter who was behind the UIGEA, that the Agencies chance of writing a definition favorable to poker is pretty slim.

You have run a popularity poll menaingless in an exchange of ideas, attempted to attacked my credibility, criquited my spelling and grammar, and shown no understanding of logic in attempting to respond to my ideas.

I have some experience in D.C. in politics and in regulatory matters, we have even spoken on the phone about my qualifications and John has my refrences. So it is not like I am a completely unknown quantity, as is so often the case on the internet.

All I have asked is some reasonable foundation upon which to judge the possible sucess of the course of action you claim is the best in dealing with this proposed regulation for the ultimate good of poker.

Your repeated methods in my opinion to seemingly avoid the real question does you more harm than good.

Is your best answer to date really "we comment on the propose regulation because we can"?


D$D