Barney Frank--realistic timeframe?

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
I would add that most Dems and liberals aren't fond of internet gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]
Republicans too, but...

...it's only when they don't get a piece. These folks seem to be VERY fond of horsebetting, lotteries, and fantasy sports.

I know I sound like a broken record on these forums, but it's true. The more I read about how the government doesn't like the iGamb000l, the more frustrated I get. It's a crock of [censored].

[Skallagrim]

I agree yahooboo's post pretty much sums up the situation and how things work in Washington, D.C. : votes and money. But before you naysayers go too far into your black cloud of hopelessness, just think about two groups who already have a UIGEA exemption: fantasy sports leagues and horse racing...We poker players cant put together as much political clout as fantasy sports and horse racing?

The fact that online poker is hardly a national issue can also work in our favor. Bringing up a repeal bill and compromising for a poker exemption attached to other important legislation (and, of vourse, a further study) is well within the power of Frank and allies who will vote with him just because he supports it. The shift in majority will help us here, not because Ds are inherently more our friends than Rs, but because of party loyalty (which is what got it by the first time, really).

Everyone has to make their voice heard, and hopefully, their wallet too.

If you are one of those still opposed to joining the PPA, there are other ways to get involved. You can find all the info or links to the info on doing that right in these forums.

I am far from saying were gonna get there, but all this is a light at the end of the tunnel, some hope finally.

Skallagrim

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
First, repealing UIGEA is not going to legalize online gambling. They aren't the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good point, this is a fact that many people seem to ignore.


Another thought you have confuses me. You agree online unlawful gambling exists then say it is "a reality that's not going away" in the US. UIGEA has not even been used yet. How can you be so sure that UIGEA (and/or other laws) will not work to stop unlawful online gaming?

[Dennisa]

[ QUOTE ]


...it's only when they don't get a piece. These folks seem to be VERY fond of horsebetting, lotteries, and fantasy sports.



[/ QUOTE ]

These folks are very fond of horse racing cause it generates a bunch of tax dollars and jobs for the states that allow racing. Online poker does neither, and until it generates tax dollars for the states, it will not have the politica capital to get a carveout.

[nineinchal]

Since it is really not in anyone's interest except poker players, it probably will never get done.

I will lay 3 to 2, no repeal within a year from today.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Senator7,

This isn't a major legislative move.


Dennisa,

There is almost zero chance of Bush vetoing this bill if it was standalone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say it would be close to 100%. Remember he still panders to the religious right

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why you don't know what you are talking about. Please find an example of a bill he vetoed.

[Grey]

He vetoed a stem cell bill.

And in all fairness he never faced a Democratic Congress before. Now that he is, he has threatened to veto numerous things which have not passed both houses yet.

[blutarski]

Plus, he has commented negatively about online gaming. I doubt he'd sign a repeal right away, unless it was attached to another 'tax cut for the rich' bill

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Senator7,

This isn't a major legislative move.


Dennisa,

There is almost zero chance of Bush vetoing this bill if it was standalone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say it would be close to 100%. Remember he still panders to the religious right

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why you don't know what you are talking about. Please find an example of a bill he vetoed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the first time he has had to work with a Democrat lead Congress therefore your point is pretty much worthless.

[yahboohoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Another thought you have confuses me. You agree online unlawful gambling exists then say it is "a reality that's not going away" in the US. UIGEA has not even been used yet. How can you be so sure that UIGEA (and/or other laws) will not work to stop unlawful online gaming?

[/ QUOTE ]
I suppose the US government might be able to fully squelch Americans' ability to gamble online, but I think it's highly unlikely. The best they can probably do is to seriously dent the volume.

The truth is that people love sex, drugs and gambling. No law will ever stop them. The US Government has passed laws trying to control and/or prohibit each one of these three things, and mostly to no avail. We still have prostitution, pimps, sodomy, booze, pot, coke, heroine, exstacy, meth, bookies, sports betting, online gambling, etc. And I'd bet there's very few Americans who haven't or don't partake in those activities.

So who do these legislators think they're representing? Some idealized, puritancial voters who don't exist? The f--king hypocrisy in this country...it's embarrassing. Gingrich is a classic example -- impeach and ridicule a man for doing the exact same thing you're guilty of.

Personally, I think it's foolish to try and stop something that's going to occur regardless. You could call it "legislative zen": the quickest way to get rid of my enemy is to call him my friend, so why not tax what you can't stop?