Frank to introduce bill.....

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
I kinda like that you dont give up Jeff, but you should turn your efforts elsewhere.

Pretty much all of us here are libertarians with respect to this issue, and would prefer unregulated poker to regulated poker. But that is not our choice right now. Its regulated poker or soon to be impossible to fund poker (that might be illegal).

Easy choice then for me.

You would do better to use your obvious arguing skills to make more folks libertarians in general, rather than try and convince us to give up our game for principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am confused by your argument. When I talked about taxes you made a big deal about not knowing exactly what we were up against and so it is way too early to discuss the issue. So why make the same kind of argument in regards to regulation?

The choice is not "this bill or no poker." Phrasing it so only obfuscates the discussion. It is by accepting false choices like that that liberty is lost. I am not giving up poker for a principle, I am sticking to a principle to SAVE poker. I don't see any problems with funding poker right now. The market is working the way markets work - other sites are coming in to fill the Neteller void, the sites themselves are making it possible to fund directly, and other choices will be available in the future.

If poker becomes illegal in every state and the US flouts the Antigua decision and somehow we are all unable to find a game to play then perhaps I will come over to your side.

Until then, we are free and I don't want any chains. I won't vote for chains just because I am scared of an uncertain future. If I do then I am just playing into their hands (the chain holders).

I don't believe they will have the votes or the power to shut down the whole industry. I don't believe they want that because then the fish would all be gone and it would be hard to get them back to give to their friends. I also don't believe the market that wants poker so much will fail to provide.

I am not as afraid as you. I am not willing to put myself in a cell to keep me safe. I think this bill is a scam, a con, a way to get you to be frightened and complacent and compliant. I think this bill is just like the Patriot Act and the Contract with (on) America. The political atmosphere has been filled with fear (the first step in removing liberty) and now the government is pretending to be benevolent in order to get you to agree to that loss of liberty with the pretense that they are saving you.

I ask you, what are we getting with this bill that we don't have RIGHT now? I can't think of a thing. Certainly not certainty. And I can think of a million things we may be giving up.

Do you not agree this bill is a blank check to the Director? If you do agree, then how could you be for it? If you don't agree then why not?

Are you truly willing to give the government this much power over the industry just because you are afraid of what MIGHT be coming? Do you not see the dangers lurking in this bill itself? Or are you saying that you are willing to succumb to the certain power of this bill to protect you from an unknown and uncertain power?

You say I don't know how this bill will be used specifically. I agree. But I know how much power it has. You want to protect yourself from the UIGEA. This bill adds to that bill so you are not protected. You want to make sure poker can still be funded. What makes you thinks that the UIGEA will prevent that? Whatever your answer to that is, then what makes you think that the additions to the UIGEA will change anything about your last answer?


Libertarian principles are not a luxury to be used when things are going fine and you don't have to worry, they are a way of thinking and acting to protect yourself in a time of crisis. When times are bleakest that is when they are the most necessary. "Those who would give up security for liberty deserve neither." I add to that saying: nor will they get either.

If you truly are a libertarian, a person who values liberty, then you must fight for liberty. People want to take it away from you. Don't let them. Don't fall for it. Don't make a decision based on fear of two terrible choices. The choice is an illusion they are trying to create. It does not exist.

When the UIGEA passed and Party jumped out of the game I was afraid that the games would die. They didn't. When Neteller folks were arrested and Neteller pulled out of the market I was afraid the games would die. They didn't. I saw a free market work to fill the void. Until the poker industry is regulated it is not regulated. I will not be the one to vote for that regulation sir.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I kinda like that you dont give up Jeff, but you should turn your efforts elsewhere.

Pretty much all of us here are libertarians with respect to this issue, and would prefer unregulated poker to regulated poker. But that is not our choice right now. Its regulated poker or soon to be impossible to fund poker (that might be illegal).

Easy choice then for me.

You would do better to use your obvious arguing skills to make more folks libertarians in general, rather than try and convince us to give up our game for principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, Skallagrim. She's so principled with regards to accepting no regulations that I didn't think she was for real when she joined our board. We exhanged some IMs and she is for real, and seems to be a nice person to boot...just very principled.

I personally see no way for unregulated poker to win Congressional approval, and I don't wish to lose on general principle. In fact, the other UIGEA foot will drop soon, followed by more legislation.

[Dunkman]

You can stop beating the dead horse now. Really, it's ok, we understand you're position. I have 30 pages of walls of text to go back and read if I forget.

Reasonably intelligent people can agree to disagree on something and neither of us has to be wrong. I assess the situation in a certain way, you in another, and that's perfectly reasonable. One thing I hate about forums is people always find it necessary to convince others of what they think/believe, and if they can't then the personal attacks ensue because they see the disagreement as a threat to their intelligence. I respect the fact that you don't support the legislation. However, a lot of people, including me, do. I think that's fine. We're reasonable people making decisions for ourselves. What I can't stand is continually being called an idiot and worse for my position, or talked to like I'm a 6 year old because I don't see something the same way as someone else.

[TheEngineer]

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
You can stop beating the dead horse now. Really, it's ok, we understand you're position. I have 30 pages of walls of text to go back and read if I forget.

Reasonably intelligent people can agree to disagree on something and neither of us has to be wrong. I assess the situation in a certain way, you in another, and that's perfectly reasonable. One thing I hate about forums is people always find it necessary to convince others of what they think/believe, and if they can't then the personal attacks ensue because they see the disagreement as a threat to their intelligence. I respect the fact that you don't support the legislation. However, a lot of people, including me, do. I think that's fine. We're reasonable people making decisions for ourselves. What I can't stand is continually being called an idiot and worse for my position, or talked to like I'm a 6 year old because I don't see something the same way as someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not call you a six year old. I did not call you an idiot. Saying that I did is an attack on me. Skallagrim, Engineer and I are all IMing back and forth and totally respect each other. We each are very passionate about saving poker and are expressing our ideas about this bill. Please IM me personally in the future if you wish to flame me. It does not help the thread. Just because you may have read some posts on a different thread does not mean that I cannot contribute to this thread. I think you are confusing your 30 pages of walls of text.

[Jeffiner99]

Engineer, your poll is rigged.

Unfair unfair. Support bill that regulates and gives the government unfettered power over the entire online gaming industry or don't.

[Skallagrim]

Jeffiner, this part of your argument "I am not as afraid as you. I am not willing to put myself in a cell to keep me safe. I think this bill is a scam, a con, a way to get you to be frightened and complacent and compliant. I think this bill is just like the Patriot Act and the Contract with (on) America. The political atmosphere has been filled with fear (the first step in removing liberty) and now the government is pretending to be benevolent in order to get you to agree to that loss of liberty with the pretense that they are saving you." is WAY OFF.

If the government wants to screw us poker players, there is no reason to do it by subterfuge. They've been quite succesful with the direct approach so far.

And that leads to the one part of Engineer's argument you really miss, by supporting this bill and gaining more support, we become a voice to be listened to. As the UIGEA showed, we are not that now (though gaining); the fact we were not before is one of the reasons the UIGEA passed.

Achieving one political goal makes the next goal easier. Winning here helps insure that they will llisten to us (at least somewhat) when they write the regs and taxes later.

It makes no sense for them to pretend to make it legal just to kill it when they could kill it outright pretty easy.

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer, your poll is rigged.

Unfair unfair. Support bill that regulates and gives the government unfettered power over the entire online gaming industry or don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tried to be unbiased. Please put up a poll....I'd really like to see where the group is so I don't misstate where we stand.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
Jeffiner, this part of your argument "I am not as afraid as you. I am not willing to put myself in a cell to keep me safe. I think this bill is a scam, a con, a way to get you to be frightened and complacent and compliant. I think this bill is just like the Patriot Act and the Contract with (on) America. The political atmosphere has been filled with fear (the first step in removing liberty) and now the government is pretending to be benevolent in order to get you to agree to that loss of liberty with the pretense that they are saving you." is WAY OFF.

If the government wants to screw us poker players, there is on reason to do it by subterfuge. They've been quite succesful with the direct approach so far.

And that leads to the one part of Engineer's argument you really miss, by supporting this bill and gaining more support, we become a voice to be listened to. As the UIGEA showed, we are not that now (though gaining); the fact we were not before is one of the reasons the UIGEA passed.

Achieving one political goal makes the next goal easier. Winning here helps insure that they will llisten to us (at least somewhat) when they write the regs and taxes later.

It makes no sense for them to pretend to make it legal just to kill it when they could kill it outright pretty easy.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it wasn't as easy as you think? Maybe there was a lot of political backlash? Maybe they just don't want us squawking anymore.

I know this board has basically called it right and not used the word repeal, but doesn't it disturb you that Barney Frank uses that word when he is quoted. That is obviously a lie. Liars lie for a reason. I don't think it is to help us. That lie is designed to placate the gamblers. That is a move that I find dangerous.

It is just like playing poker. Barney has so many tells it is blinding. I understand the appeal of ignoring all the signs, but they are there. Why do you think he wants to placate gamblers? Keep them placid. Keep them behind him? Why do you think he wrote a bill that could get passed? A bill that gives Congress a ton of power. Why do you think the right wing nuts are behind this bill? Because they know they will have control over you.

This bill pretends to be a repeal, was called a repeal by its drafter, is obviously not a repeal, and is supported by the last group on earth you would expect to support it.

Doesn't that send up some alarm bells?

If he called it a bill to give the US government unfettered access and control over the entire online gaming industry then you would never go for it. We would all be calling our congressmen and screaming our heads off. This way he can accomplish the same thing and not one person complains. In fact, we organize to send him thank you letters and let all of the other congressmen know that we support their support of this bill.

Nice trick.

I ain't falling for it. It smells too much too me. I assume you disagree. I am not trying to convince you. I am only telling you my reasons for disagreeing with you.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot open a site. I can't advertise it (the .com version). I can't finance it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure you can, if you find a state where it is legal to deal online poker in that state! The Feds are good with that.

You say you can't find a state that allows online poker businesses??? Ouch. That is a real problem.

So how does Frank's bill solve that problem?