Democrat says expect online gambling bill Thursday

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing online Poker is probabaly "legal" in most states now based on an interpertation of state law. The sites are probably breaking the law in most (but not all) states. There are no Court rulings to provide absolute precedent. I am 99% certain playing poker online is currently legal in 3 states (Cal., Missouri and NH) and 90% certain in about 30 others, and 95% certain it is illegal in the rest. Note the uncertainty. Courts have disagreed with my legal opinions in the past, they may do so again. In my career I have seen far too many Courts rule on baseless assumptions and political concerns to ever be 100% certain of what they will do.

This bill removes the uncertainty and allows for completely legal poker if your state government declines to opt out.


[/ QUOTE ]

If your 25 to 30 states have legal online poker now, why do they have any interest in submitting to Fed licensing and regulation on top of their legality?

More importantly, why do the players want to encourage the Feds into the game?

And why are there no sites based in your 25 to 30 states, that offer this legal online poker? Strange to have a business legal in a state but no company in that business.

[Skallagrim]

I am glad I dont play poker with you permafrost because if your poker is like your posts you are the biggest nit out there. I think the majority of folks reading this thread are quite aware of the points I am making and your nitpicking of out-of-context language just to create controversy is tiring.

For example, you wrote: "And why are there no sites based in your 25 to 30 states, that offer this legal online poker? Strange to have a business legal in a state but no company in that business."

Yet I previously posted that the 35 or so states are states where PLAYING is legal (with one degree of certainty or another), as I know you have read (and I guess ignored) many times. Running a site is a whole different matter as I said just above when I posted that the sites are probably illegal in most but not all states.

I post to either get or give information and occassionally to encourage support for legal poker. It is really not my desire to engage in constant nitpicking over specific words over and over again.

And finally, if the events since the passage of the UIGEA have not shown you why it would be so much better to have a specific Federal Law allowing legal online poker (even if only in some states), nothing I can say will ever convince you.

Skallagrim

[rafiki]

I've already had a bunch of people call in to say that the bill is AWESOME.

As a player living outside the USA, I love it. I mean anyone who consistantly LOSES money doesn't give a crap about paying taxes. So the thousands of American fish that drop money on these sites are coming back to daddy !

I do feel for you winning players, I could totally see how this blows for you guys. My advice, get the hell out of dodge ! Come live in the free world ! We don't have guns, but we can do anything else. It rocks here !

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
I am glad I dont play poker with you permafrost because if your poker is like your posts you are the biggest nit out there. I think the majority of folks reading this thread are quite aware of the points I am making and your nitpicking of out-of-context language just to create controversy is tiring.

For example, you wrote: "And why are there no sites based in your 25 to 30 states, that offer this legal online poker? Strange to have a business legal in a state but no company in that business."

Yet I previously posted that the 35 or so states are states where PLAYING is legal (with one degree of certainty or another), as I know you have read (and I guess ignored) many times. Running a site is a whole different matter as I said just above when I posted that the sites are probably illegal in most but not all states.

I post to either get or give information and occassionally to encourage support for legal poker. It is really not my desire to engage in constant nitpicking over specific words over and over again.

And finally, if the events since the passage of the UIGEA have not shown you why it would be so much better to have a specific Federal Law allowing legal online poker (even if only in some states), nothing I can say will ever convince you.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your distinction between playing and dealing but don't agree that very many states make it legal for one and not the other.

If, as you say, "the sites are probably breaking the law in most (but not all) states", then how do you get enough numbers to pass this bill?

How many states are the sites breaking the law?

[permafrost]

And I don't agree that me trying to find any benefits in this bill makes me a "nit". Even if it does, I've been called worse names.

[Skallagrim]

If anyone else asks me to answer permafrost's questions I will. I have actually answered them before in other threads, but am too lazy to look up the links.

And its not that I have anything against you personally permafrost, you are probably a nice guy (maybe a little anal retentive [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ) and obviously intelligent. I called you a nit because you keep going round and round over the same twisted words and rarely talk about the bigger picture or respond directly to the argument.

A licensed, clearly legal site where I can play poker and easily deposit and withdraw is what I want. This bill will give it to me (at least as long as I live in New Hampshire).

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
Jeff, if we are going to continue this discussion you should respond to what I say, not what you think I said.

I disagree with JP that both "tax" paragraphs refer to site operators. The first one clearly allows for taxing of players at time of cashout. What I have also said is that "allowance" does not mandate any SPECIFIC kind of taxing/withholding. Another law is required to specify what the sites must do. My anticipation is that a rule similar to the one in casinos will later be adopted: cashout over $12,000 and the site must withhold (what is it 30%?).

Playing online Poker is probabaly "legal" in most states now based on an interpertation of state law. The sites are probably breaking the law in most (but not all) states. There are no Court rulings to provide absolute precedent. I am 99% certain playing poker online is currently legal in 3 states (Cal., Missouri and NH) and 90% certain in about 30 others, and 95% certain it is illegal in the rest. Note the uncertainty. Courts have disagreed with my legal opinions in the past, they may do so again. In my career I have seen far too many Courts rule on baseless assumptions and political concerns to ever be 100% certain of what they will do.

This bill removes the uncertainty and allows for completely legal poker if your state government declines to opt out.

Indeed, its primary accomplishment is a mechanism to remove uncertainty.

If your state does not opt out the price for legal certainty is some upfront tax payments (maybe).

"Look, if I thought that there was any real chance of a law repealing the UIGEA and sending us back to the wide open days, I would support that and drop my support of this bill. Go ahead and support that yourself; I wish you luck 'cause you will need a lot of it."

Ever read Aesop's fable about the dog and the bone?

Your writing about regulations and licensing shows you have all the makings of a good libertarian Jeff, but libertarians (like Ron Paul) have won few political battles lately. I want absolutely legal poker more than I want to be absolutely true to my libertarian principles. So I support this bill.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Skall, I am starting to understand your positions.

You write: "Look, if I thought that there was any real chance of a law repealing the UIGEA and sending us back to the wide open days, I would support that and drop my support of this bill. Go ahead and support that yourself; I wish you luck 'cause you will need a lot of it."

Well, there won't be if you vote for this bill. I appreciate the complement about being a libertarian. I do my best to be 100% devoted to liberty. I have stopped voting for the lesser of two evils because I never want to vote for evil again. I feel the same way about this bill. If it will throw even a few players under the bus because their states opt out of this scheme then I can't be for that. I am for freedom for ALL poker players to play online, not just the lucky few who live in New Hampshire.

You write: I want absolutely legal poker more than I want to be absolutely true to my libertarian principles. So I support this bill.

I don't believe you can be partly true to libertarian principles in this case. Either you are for gov't intervention into a free market (this bill) or you are against it. I choose not to give up my libertarian principles in this fight or any other. If we vote this in then we are saying, Hell Yes, it is ok if the feds come into this business and monkey around with it and take whatever money they want out of it. We will be happy with the scraps.

Well hell no. That is not good enough for me. I won't vote to give the feds tons of power over the industry. I won't vote or give support to any bill that will kill successful businesses and leave us with a federally regulated nightmare. I won't support anything that will make it easier not harder to make poker illegal throughout this country.

I thought the motto of your state was "live free or die". Not "live kinda free if you let me and if I think it will pass a vote in Congress, but if it won't pass then I will take whatever you give me."

And hey, lay off permafrost. No need to call someone a nit. That is just dirty fighting.

[LolotheBunny]

Regulating poker is a good thing to me. Having online poker sites in the USA instead of all of that money going to offshore companies is also a good thing to me.

What Jennifer wants is to have everything go back to the way it was when online poker was first exploding. This isn't going to happen. Online poker is going to go one way or the other, government regulated or banned.

I for one would even prefer regulation. This will allow more awareness and protection for people that shouldn't be gambling in the first place. As much as I enjoy playing poker, I don't enjoy ruining lives/taking people's money who are not in good financial standing. Anyone that wants to play without any form of taxation/limitation at all is in my opinion a greedy jerk.

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
Regulating poker is a good thing to me. Having online poker sites in the USA instead of all of that money going to offshore companies is also a good thing to me.

What Jennifer wants is to have everything go back to the way it was when online poker was first exploding. This isn't going to happen. Online poker is going to go one way or the other, government regulated or banned.

I for one would even prefer regulation. This will allow more awareness and protection for people that shouldn't be gambling in the first place. As much as I enjoy playing poker, I don't enjoy ruining lives/taking people's money who are not in good financial standing. Anyone that wants to play without any form of taxation/limitation at all is in my opinion a greedy jerk.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say we cannot go back to the days of unregulated poker? Why? Because we all must support this bill that regulates poker? That seems a little counter-productive.

In looking at this bill I have to ask what is the reason behind it? Barney Frank claimed it was because he wanted to repeal the UIGEA and that people should be allowed to do what they want to do in their own homes. Yet, this bill doesn't really do that. This bill is a pander to the ruling political class who will make millions from the lobbyists. Those millions will somehow come from you and me. It always happens that way. That is why the rich are so rich and the rest of are so ...not.

I read a great post on another site the other day. Some guy pointed out that we could all be in much worse shape than we are today if this passes and a lot of states start to opt-out. Think of the backlash against gay marriage when one state made it legal to get married there. I don't know how many states rushed to make explicitly illegal, but I know there were a lot.

What happens to us players if that happens in this case? What if states put misleading propositions on their ballots asking if you want people to go broke in your state and ruin your children's lives by having online gambling legal in your state? As a rule, the "leave us alone" crowd tend to vote less than the "butt into your life and tell you what to do crowd." If that happens then poker could become ILLEGAL in many more states. If that happens, then I guess this bill may turn out to hurt a lot of people? And if that happens then it probably won't be so good for the people who are left playing either.

I don't see how voting for more legislation is better than voting for no legislation. If you want less legislation then you must ask for it. That is the only way to get what you want. It is like voting for the lesser of two evils... why vote for evil?

The options before us are not, this bill or poker is illegal. Poker is currently legal (in most states and the ones where it is illegal this bill will not help). Poker is currently unregulated. I don't think that just because we are scared of the future is a good enough reason to vote to slit our throats with a sharp razor. I know, the slitting of our throats with a dull razor could happen in the future, but so far it hasn't. I see the arguments out there. I see people trying to make it more illegal, but right now it is not.

The market is large. The market has a lot of incentive to keep things going the way they are. I say trust the market. Keep the feds out! Don't support a bill that strengthens the UIGEA and weakens the market.

Ok, go ahead. Lambaste me. Tell me what an idiot I am for wanting to protect poker players and not make the politicians rich. Tell me what a greedy **** I am for not wanting to donate more to the wonderful friendly people who run our federal government. Tell me how much better off the politicians and big businesses are with our money than we. Tell me how we need these regulations to be protected. Of course we are the chickens and the feds are the foxes, but I suppose a lot of you will now attack me for not wanting more foxes to protect us.

The only way I know to get what I want is to firmly stick by what I want. I also believe the best thing that could happen to poker players would be to have Ron Paul in the White house. So I say, vote for Ron Paul. That could help. By the time the others get their bills together if Ron was in the White House he would veto them. Some polls even have him running third right now. Wouldn't it be a hoot if we put our efforts into getting him elected? And we did it. And he vetoed any effort to regulate poker. Because it is unconstitutional. And he abolished the income tax. And the inflation tax.

Imagine.....

There is only way to make the dream come true.

[RonWR]

[ QUOTE ]
I've already had a bunch of people call in to say that the bill is AWESOME.

As a player living outside the USA, I love it. I mean anyone who consistantly LOSES money doesn't give a crap about paying taxes. So the thousands of American fish that drop money on these sites are coming back to daddy !

I do feel for you winning players, I could totally see how this blows for you guys. My advice, get the hell out of dodge ! Come live in the free world ! We don't have guns, but we can do anything else. It rocks here !

[/ QUOTE ]


QFT