Let's make this clear....SPORTS BETTING is a SKILL also

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Why has any jurisdiction anywhere in this country bit the bullet on the moral outcry to sanction any kind of organized gaming? Because it was an economic stimulus.

Please let me know if there has ever been any other reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] the "moral outcry". We can produce a "freedom outcry" as well. The problem is that we keep bribing politicians with tax dollars to allow us to play. States expect money for gambling now. Meanwhile, every other industry with "moral issues", such as alcohol, eschews that approach.

As for examples, casino taxes in Nevada aren't particularly onerous, and they weren't the reason for legalization. There was an overall economic stimulus (just like bringing in any other big industry), but it wasn't a cash grab.

Anyway, the difference here is that Internet poker isn't illegal. Our efforts can PREVENT Congress from voting to ban the game. Our efforts can also improve the status quo by demonstrating the will of the American people -- which is what ended Prohibition. Again, IGREA provides for taxation, so that's not the issue at this point.

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

.
.
This is the flimsy argument I was referring to. Why is such a distinction, if it exists, important? And again, I will state that I wholeheartedly disagree with this. In both cases we are "players". In sports betting, you are matching your wits against the bookmaker (a person or group of people). Your fate, however, is decided by players on a field. In poker, you are matching your wits against other poker players. Your fate, however, is decided by which cards come.


[/ QUOTE ]

If 'ole glue factory' stumbles rounding the second turn, you cannot withdraw your bet or a portion thereof.

In poker, if two aces flop and you have reason to believe a bettor holds an ace, you can withdraw from the hand and lose the minimum.

BIG DIFFERENCE. In poker the individual player (contestant) can affect a favorable outcome (winning the most, losing the least) if his or her judgement is good.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

So the massive distinction you're making, and one that should mean the difference between a legal and illegal activity, is that in poker you can make multiple decisions per hand whereas in sports betting and horses you can only make a single decision per "hand". Good to know.

[andywend]

Engineer:

Name one form of gambling which is legal where the government doesn't get a piece of the action via tax revenues? Do you honestly believe the UIGEA was passed because gambling on the internet is harmful to families/underage gambling as the government claims? It was passed because the government could NOT collect taxes from the offshore outlets that profited off of accepting bets from U.S. citizens.

Back during the days of the Great Depression all the way through to the 50's and 60's, hundreds of different organizations would offer numbers betting where you had to pick a 3 digit number correctly. The true odds are 1000-1 and they normally paid off at 600-1. They would hire number runners and pay them 10% of all the monies collected. Local, state and federal governments were always prosecuting these people saying what they were doing was 100% illegal.

Now the majority of states have Daily 3 wagering where the payoff is 500-1 instead of 600-1 and you have to make your bets at designated outlets instead of the number runners coming to you.

What suddenly made numbers betting legal? The answer is obvious.

Fishhead is 100% accurate in his claim that its all about money/tax revenue.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
andywend
newbie
Reged: 02/01/07
Posts: 46

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I'm honored you're directing your 46th post to help me correct my thought process.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you honestly believe the UIGEA was passed because gambling on the internet is harmful to families/underage gambling as the government claims?

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe it was a combination of not getting tax revunue PLUS the whining of the social conservatives. Our plan now is to fight with a combination of offering some tax revenues PLUS whining about our rights.

Getting the taxes has never been a problem. All we had to do was explictly legalize the game. Why do you think we didn't for so many years?

[ QUOTE ]
Fishhead is 100% accurate in his claim that its all about money/tax revenue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, no he's not. You new posters should read through all we've discussed on this. Stating that the government would prefer tax revenues to not receiving revenue it stating the obvious. Acting like this is an issue only of money is ridiculous. It would have passed years ago.

My main problem is that the corollary to this argument is that "we shouldn't write or call Congress or the DOJ to complain. After all, it's only the money that concerns them." Sorry...that is fundamentally wrong. Bush is pwned by the religious right, as is Congress. They were the swing vote and they used their leverage to the max. Congress thought they were the only people who cared abou this issue, mainly because we were so quiet. Well, we're not going to be quiet any more.

[andywend]

Just because you have posted more often here than I, it doesn't make you more knowledgeable about this or any other subject.

Name one form of gambling which is legal where the government doesn't get a piece of the action via tax revenues?

I'm still waiting for the answer to that question.

You can legally bet on horseracing and various state lotteries on the internet.

You can smoke 4 packs of cigarettes a day and welfare receipients are standing on line to buy scratch off tickets and playing the lottery so the argument behind the UIGEA (gambling hurts families, etc) is completely hypocritical.

Its all about the money and you haven't furnished one shred of proof to back up your argument that says it isn't. However, of course, you are entitled to your opinion.

For the record, I did NOT vote for the first time in my life since I turned 18 because of what the republican congress did in passing the UIGEA.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, I did NOT vote for the first time in my life since I turned 18 because of what the republican congress did in passing the UIGEA.


[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't vote against the people who passed UIGEA? 'Nuff said.

That's not going to be the approach of the rest of us. You can sit back and do nothing (except discourage people who are fighting back). The rest of us will fight for our rights.

I'm not trying to be a [censored]. Rather, we're trying to fight back, but we get people who come here all the time to try to discourage us by arguing why it won't do any good. I don't understand that thought process, but I know there are many people like that. They're called "poison friends". They try to discourage their friends from going back to school or from going for better jobs. With our fight, it's not enough for them to give up....they have to get others on board. You actually sound angry that we're fighting for our rights, and you sound mad at me for trying to remind folks here that we do have to advocate for our position.

When I started trying to get us synergistically working together on our various initiatives, such that Congress and others would get our letters at once, rather than piecemeal, I thought it would be straightforward. I knew some wouldn't bother to participate, but it didn't occur to me that some would angrily denounce the effort. Fortunately, folks here aren't so easily dissuaded.

[ QUOTE ]
Name one form of gambling which is legal where the government doesn't get a piece of the action via tax revenues?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Name anything that isn't taxed. That's different from saying this is ONLY about taxation. Have you not followed this at all? Anyway, IGREA does offer a means of collection of taxes. We'll see where it goes. It's always been possible to tax this....why isn't it explicitly legal today?

[ QUOTE ]
Its all about the money and you haven't furnished one shred of proof to back up your argument that says it isn't. However, of course, you are entitled to your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure I did. UIGEA was passed, rather than a licensing plan. There's your proof. The government took a revenue loss so Congress could pander to the religious right. Fortunately, Republicans took a control loss in Nov. 06, delivered by angry voters (except for you).

Everyone else: We ARE fighting back. Please disregard the naysayers who get mad when we stand up for our rights. IGREA does provide for federal taxation, so that's not holding IGREA back. Please go to Fight for Online Gaming!! -- Plan for weeks of 5/28 & 6/4 and do your part. Also, we need to write to the Treasury Dept. and the DOJ THIS WEEK. Please see Letters to write THIS WEEK .

[andywend]

I live in Nevada and both of my senators voted against the UIGEA (even John Ensign who is a republican). While I was extremely upset with the republican party for coming up with this ridiculous measure, I couldn't vote for the democrats and never will. While my rights to gamble online are extremely important to me, its NOT the only thing I'm concerned about (the democrats desire to socialize our entire medical system is of greater concern).

When did I ever come across as trying to denounce the efforts from people like yourself who are trying to get this insane piece of legislation overturned?

I am simply agreeing with the claim that the UIGEA was all about money and had nothing to do with morality.

The offshore poker rooms/sportsbooks could have easily avoided this mess and stopped the UIGEA from becoming a reality if they would have taken a small percentage of their profits and used that money to gain political access (as so many other business sectors do). The problem is the people who run these offshore outlets thought there was no way the U.S. could reach out and stop them from doing business with U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, they were wrong.

The reason why I haven't gotten more involved is because all of the groups trying to overturn the UIGEA are only concerned with gaining a poker "carveout" as opposed to telling these politicians that they have no right taking away our freedoms to spend our money any way we wish (as long as we are not hurting anybody else).

By all means, keep up the fight and perhaps a small attitude adjustment might be in order as well.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I am simply agreeing with the claim that the UIGEA was all about money and had nothing to do with morality.

The offshore poker rooms/sportsbooks could have easily avoided this mess and stopped the UIGEA from becoming a reality if they would have taken a small percentage of their profits and used that money to gain political access (as so many other business sectors do). The problem is the people who run these offshore outlets thought there was no way the U.S. could reach out and stop them from doing business with U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, they were wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but I disagree. The social conservatives did vote on this as a "values" issue. You should read the Focus on the Family website, as well as the Republican platform. You're entitled to your opinion, but when you try to influence others, folks here have a right to respond.

IGREA offers up plenty of money. Shouldn't it pass unanimously?

[ QUOTE ]
The reason why I haven't gotten more involved is because all of the groups trying to overturn the UIGEA are only concerned with gaining a poker "carveout" as opposed to telling these politicians that they have no right taking away our freedoms to spend our money any way we wish (as long as we are not hurting anybody else).

[/ QUOTE ]

Says who? IGREA isn't a poker carve-out. We speak in terms of poker because we're poker players, but we all support repealing UIGEA, and the Wire Act. Perhaps that has to be piecemeal, but repeal is our goal. It's not our fault that the interstate sports betting industry has been illegal for over 40 years. No way we should couple our efforts to that, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
perhaps a small attitude adjustment might be in order as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. I look forward to your adjustment.

[TheEngineer]

[Skallagrim]

The biggest intellectual shortcoming among people these days is the inability to realize that all things have MULTIPLE CAUSES. Online gambling is opposed by moralists, nanny-staters, B&M gaming (to a mixed extent), sports leagues, AND poiticians who havent figured out how to make money off it. Each of these groups has different beliefs and agendas.

To single out one group and its agenda as the be-all and end-all of the opposition is a mistake and will hinder our efforts.

Skallagrim