Frank to introduce bill.....

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
So, I move to close debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think this is, a democracy? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Dunkman]

Jeffiner, you do realize that you just take one side of an issue, assorted facts that help your case, and present them ad nauseum, right? I mean I was raised in a family of lawyers so I'm pretty used to it, but I'm starting to wonder if you actually realize that you're not painting the whole picture.

After trading some PMs it doesn't bother me anymore, but I think that's why your views haven't been well received. I mean this is how politicians debate (read argue), and lawyers argue cases, but I guess it just doesn't happen here too much. I don't really think it's an effective way to discuss an issue (this point has been proven beyond all doubt by the partisan politics of the last couple decades.) Taking a position, finding facts for it (using facts pretty loosely for some of the stuff you've come up with, no offense), then plowing straight ahead is not the same as acknowledging all the relevant facts and hammering out their relative importance to try and come up with a course of action.

Any, I doubt you care much, nothing else has made much of a dent. I did think you'd want to at least know WHY you've pissed so many people here off...and I don't think it has anything to do with the actual views you've taken.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
Jeffiner, you do realize that you just take one side of an issue, assorted facts that help your case, and present them ad nauseum, right? I mean I was raised in a family of lawyers so I'm pretty used to it, but I'm starting to wonder if you actually realize that you're not painting the whole picture.

After trading some PMs it doesn't bother me anymore, but I think that's why your views haven't been well received. I mean this is how politicians debate (read argue), and lawyers argue cases, but I guess it just doesn't happen here too much. I don't really think it's an effective way to discuss an issue (this point has been proven beyond all doubt by the partisan politics of the last couple decades.) Taking a position, finding facts for it (using facts pretty loosely for some of the stuff you've come up with, no offense), then plowing straight ahead is not the same as acknowledging all the relevant facts and hammering out their relative importance to try and come up with a course of action.

Any, I doubt you care much, nothing else has made much of a dent. I did think you'd want to at least know WHY you've pissed so many people here off...and I don't think it has anything to do with the actual views you've taken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh Dunkman,
While I do respect the Engineer, Skalligrim and you, I have had numerous IMs from others on this site who thank me for my posts. So while the three of you consistently gang up on me, not everyone sees it the same way. It is kind of you to point to things you think I should change. I don't think that helps the rest of this board as I have said before, but somehow you do. Now over and over the Engineer says in every post that I am a woman and a Libertarian I suppose as reasons not to listen to me. The ad hominem attacks are getting really boring.

What whole picture do you want? We are discussing whether this bill should be supported or not. I think not. I have given reasons. Others say so. They have given reasons. Do you want a compilation? If so, read the responses side by side.

Your side wants this legislation because you think it will pass and you think the tide is against us and we need to do something to stop it. I think this legislation gives the feds more power over us than they have now, will cost us all money, and could be very harmful and therefore is not better than nothing. I think this bill washes the tide over our heads, the other guys thinks it is a dike. I think we should fight other battles. I think we should fight against anyone trying to say the Wire Act makes poker players felons.

By the way, I have asked a hundred times now what this bill gives us that we don't have now and have not received a response except that it gives us a bill that will pass and allow large American Corporations to have online gaming sites. (Still don't see how that helps me.) I guess from reading between the lines that your side also thinks this will stop the anti-gamblers from messing with us. I disagree due to that State Opt Out provision.

There that better? Happy now.

Please in the future, again, if you want to attack me personally do so on an IM, not on this forum. This nonsense doesn't help anyone.

[Dunkman]

Well, I haven't appreciated the tone you've taken much of the time, and you haven't appreciated the tone I (we) have taken, so I guess we can just leave it at that.

Here's what I like in the bill. We've debated at length whether this will be the case, but just to recap I believe that the bill will allow me to continue to gamble online. I also believe that my ability to do this is in serious jeopardy if a bill supporting online gambling doesn't pass sometime in the near future. Aside from simply supporting the bill on the basis of fear of the unknown, there is something that really excites me. Online gambling has always been perceived to be illegal in the U.S. Additionally, paypal was removed as a funding method many years ago, and for years most credit card companies have not allowed transactions to gambling sites. Only having commercials for free sites didn't help this perception any either. The options for funding accounts have been giving bank info to an overseas ewallet or sending a money order to a very strange location. I think many Americans were dissuaded by this, and would game online if they felt like it was safer (maybe they were smart not to trust overseas ewallets...I sure would like to have that 4k back from neteller.) I am very excited to see what the games will look like if this bill passes, especially since they've gotten pretty awful in the last few months.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
So while the three of you consistently gang up on me, not everyone sees it the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe we're ganging up on you. We simply see things differently than you.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's what I like in the bill. We've debated at length whether this will be the case, but just to recap I believe that the bill will allow me to continue to gamble online. I also believe that my ability to do this is in serious jeopardy if a bill supporting online gambling doesn't pass sometime in the near future. Aside from simply supporting the bill on the basis of fear of the unknown, there is something that really excites me. Online gambling has always been perceived to be illegal in the U.S. Additionally, paypal was removed as a funding method many years ago, and for years most credit card companies have not allowed transactions to gambling sites. Only having commercials for free sites didn't help this perception any either. The options for funding accounts have been giving bank info to an overseas ewallet or sending a money order to a very strange location. I think many Americans were dissuaded by this, and would game online if they felt like it was safer (maybe they were smart not to trust overseas ewallets...I sure would like to have that 4k back from neteller.) I am very excited to see what the games will look like if this bill passes, especially since they've gotten pretty awful in the last few months.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. Well said.

[TheEngineer]

We'll, we've clearly reached consensus on the decision to support IGREA. More importantly, the 400,000+ PPA has made the same decision, and they've sent us all emails asking us to write to our congressman. They created a simple-to-use auto-emailer, which is at PPA auto-mailer . This will take less than one minute. Barney Frank says if each congressman receives 500 letters from constituents, he'll be able to get IGREA through his committee. Thanks.

[TheEngineer]

From PPA:

Facts About HR 2046, The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007

Opponents of our freedoms will now launch a campaign to undermine HR 2046. We need to be armed with the facts to defend our rights.

HR 2046 protects poker players. Applicants for a gaming license would be required to provide comprehensive financial statements and corporate structure documents, and to agree to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction and all applicable laws related to Internet gambling. No license would be granted to any applicant convicted of a criminal violation of any law relating to gambling, money laundering, fraud or other financial laws.

HR 2046 protects consumers. The framework set forth in the bill would for the first time effectively regulate Internet gambling, thus making it possible to address underage and compulsive gambling, neither of which are prevented under prohibition regimes. Regulation combined with proven technology would establish a system of effective controls to block children and compulsive gamblers from gambling.

If HR 2046 becomes law, online poker will be safe, secure and regulated. The bill would create stringent licensing to ensure that poker operators are legitimate. HR 2046 protects poker players, and it protects consumers.

Now, your elected representatives need to hear your voice. Ask your U.S. Representative to support HR 2046, and to add their name as a co-sponsor!

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I haven't appreciated the tone you've taken much of the time, and you haven't appreciated the tone I (we) have taken, so I guess we can just leave it at that.

Here's what I like in the bill. We've debated at length whether this will be the case, but just to recap I believe that the bill will allow me to continue to gamble online. I also believe that my ability to do this is in serious jeopardy if a bill supporting online gambling doesn't pass sometime in the near future. Aside from simply supporting the bill on the basis of fear of the unknown, there is something that really excites me. Online gambling has always been perceived to be illegal in the U.S. Additionally, paypal was removed as a funding method many years ago, and for years most credit card companies have not allowed transactions to gambling sites. Only having commercials for free sites didn't help this perception any either. The options for funding accounts have been giving bank info to an overseas ewallet or sending a money order to a very strange location. I think many Americans were dissuaded by this, and would game online if they felt like it was safer (maybe they were smart not to trust overseas ewallets...I sure would like to have that 4k back from neteller.) I am very excited to see what the games will look like if this bill passes, especially since they've gotten pretty awful in the last few months.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think thier are a lot of assumptions going on on both sides of the debate. One thing we can be sure of is that Frank's motivation comes from the hordes of banking lobbyists breathing down his neck over IRS, Patriot Act, and now UIGEA enforcement. Banks don't want the added work, or the added responsibility of playing policeman.

Assumptions:

1. If the Bill passes, banks will no longer have to play policeman. This will free up ALL banks to do internet gambling transactions. I see this as Frank's goal, and Frank's will implode if some comittee or department screws this up for him. This is the best part about this bill because it will mean a flood of new money into our games.

2. We may get highly regulated, highly taxed internet gambling from this bill, if not immediately, then down the road. HOWEVER, there will still be sites that choose to operate outside of US law like they do now. Hopefully non-licensed sites will provide enough competition to keep the taxes down at a reasonable level.


While I agree with Jeffiner99's view that a bill repealing the UIGEA and The Wire Act with no strings attached is the best thing that could happen, legislation doesn't work that way. VERY few laws ever get repealed without any strings attached, our government unfortunately doesn't work that way.

So I have to agree with the majority here, that while this bill might screw us with games that are -EV because of taxation, we have to take that chance at the moment to subvert an expanded Wire Act.

An expanded Wire Act to include poker, will see every poker room not associated with a sportsbook close down immediately.

[JPFisher55]

In an ideal US, or as it existed 100 years ago, I would fully agree with Jeffliner. But in today's US, which I believe is slowly going downhill due to too big, intrusive and regulatory government, HR 2046 is the best that we can do; unless a majority of voters are prepared to vote both parties out of power.
The only other option is to challenge the UIGEA in federal court, but I am not sure that any party has standing or that such litigation would be successful like the adult pornagraphy litigation.