Impending Regulations/Reality Check - Page 5

jackaaron · #41 08-07-2007, 09:44 AM

Just in case potentially new players are reading this, and think epassporte is the only option, I withdrawal, and deposit very easily using paytru. For example, I w/d from Stars two days ago (Stars gives you about half of what you w/d immediately, and processes the other half which takes 24-48 hours), and went to the proper ATM five minutes later and got money out. paytru has been a dream thus far.

MiltonFriedman · #42 08-07-2007, 10:40 AM

As I said, I do not think that there will be a "list" in the regulations. That would not be the way regulations work.

However, your "logic" that inclusion of a site on a "list", let alone the creation of a "list" means that there is a real belief that the blacklisted parties violated a law is indeed blatant political ignorance.

Given the choice betweeen trying to prosecute someone in a court of law, carrying a burden of proof, and simply "blacklisting" them without a trial, a zealous DOJ would opt for the latter .... no burden of proof of violation of a law need be borne.

You really do not understand the politics of repression.

However, to answer your rhetorical question, "why are they delaying these political gains" ... The inertia of the regulatory process and the clear lack of a legal basis for posting a hypothetical poker list.

So, tell me why you think DOJ would NOT stoop to unwarranted blacklisting as a means to acheive the political objectives of the anti-gambling zealots ? Why DO you think that blacklisting a PStars or FTP WOULD show they were in violation of some law ?

When did the Judiciary get written out of the Consitution ?

Legislurker · #43 08-07-2007, 10:52 AM

I think the idea of a list was Kyl's and we have jumped on board. Remember when Gonzales was questioned, Kyl pitched the idea of 4-5 permanent employees maintaining a blacklist of sites/banks/processors? That is the shape of things being pushed............also I aksed in the wrong thread, but what are the chances of obtaining input about the Regulations using FOIA? Emails from the AG, Kyl, Paulson, et al should be available under it, and if we want to use them later as propaganda it would be useful. I doubt we get them in time to use to block, but no use delaying the process. I just have zero experience of FOIA.

oldbookguy · #44 08-07-2007, 02:29 PM

You might get them via FOIA but that is a years long process.
They are still reviewing and filling requests from 20+ years ago in many cases.

obg

dorethawsp · #45 08-07-2007, 04:28 PM

I worry that given this administration's ties the Christian Right anti-gambling wackos, they will be the ones helping write the regulations making them as harsh as possible. Please tell me I am being paranoid.

MiltonFriedman · #46 08-07-2007, 04:45 PM

Sorry, but you are being realistic. They really ARE after your ability to play poker from the US.

permafrost · #47 08-07-2007, 04:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I worry that given this administration's ties the Christian Right anti-gambling wackos, they will be the ones helping write the regulations making them as harsh as possible. Please tell me I am being paranoid.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are being paranoid.
But that is normal here.
Until they stop us soon.

Legislurker · #48 08-07-2007, 04:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You might get them via FOIA but that is a years long process.
They are still reviewing and filling requests from 20+ years ago in many cases.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the new bill made the process faster and attached some type of penalites to non compliance.

MiltonFriedman · #49 08-07-2007, 06:45 PM

Leave your personal sexual fantasies out of this, please.

permafrost · #50 08-07-2007, 08:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Given the choice betweeen trying to prosecute someone in a court of law, carrying a burden of proof, and simply "blacklisting" them without a trial, a zealous DOJ would opt for the latter .... no burden of proof of violation of a law need be borne.

You really do not understand the politics of repression.

However, to answer your rhetorical question, "why are they delaying these political gains" ... The inertia of the regulatory process and the clear lack of a legal basis for posting a hypothetical poker list.

[/ QUOTE ]
In one paragraph we have you promoting a zealous DOJ wildly intent on simply blacklisting with little/no reason; then you claim they have so far not begun this huge political gain of blacklisting because they need a reason, i.e. legal basis, and inertia has overtaken their zeal. For sure, I don't understand the politics of repression.

[ QUOTE ]
So, tell me why you think DOJ would NOT stoop to unwarranted blacklisting as a means to acheive the political objectives of the anti-gambling zealots ?

[/ QUOTE ] Do you mean "anti" unlawful gambling? Doubt they are trying to blacklist gambling.

[ QUOTE ]
Why DO you think that blacklisting a PStars or FTP WOULD show they were in violation of some law ?

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said a list would show that; I said a list, if it appears, would logically come about because someone believes sites violate laws.