Gg Online Poker

[TheCinciKid 0]

For purposes of this bill, Neteller is a bank, or more precisely part of a "designated payment system".And in this bill, a "designated payment system" means anything the Attorney General and Federal Reserve determine "could be utilized in connection with ... any restricted transaction". [Para 5362 (3)]The fact that Neteller also facilitates other legal transactions is irrelevant. If they work with gambling sites, US banks will not be able to transfer to them under this bill.

Where did you get your law degree from?

[jben 0]

Where did you get your law degree from?

No law degree (thank god), but I do spend WAY too much time dealing with lawyers, gov't regs, and legalese.The degrees I do have are from OHIO STATE.GO BUCKS!!!! WHO DEY!!!!

[KDawgCometh 2]

For purposes of this bill, Neteller is a bank, or more precisely part of a "designated payment system".And in this bill, a "designated payment system" means anything the Attorney General and Federal Reserve determine "could be utilized in connection with ... any restricted transaction". [Para 5362 (3)]The fact that Neteller also facilitates other legal transactions is irrelevant. If they work with gambling sites, US banks will not be able to transfer to them under this bill.

neteller itself doesn't accept bets. I would be shocked if this bill in its current form hits Bush's desk as is. Almost every bill gets cut to pieces before it hits the presidents desk for ratification

[TheCinciKid 0]

No law degree (thank god), but I do spend WAY too much time dealing with lawyers, gov't regs, and legalese.The degrees I do have are from OHIO STATE.GO BUCKS!!!! WHO DEY!!!!

Heh....you missed my point. I would definitely hesitate to make categorical statements about something we know so little about at this point. I will spare you any further snarkiness though since you're a Bengals fan.

[jben 0]

Heh....you missed my point. I would definitely hesitate to make categorical statements about something we know so little about at this point. I will spare you any further snarkiness though since you're a Bengals fan.

Thanks I appreciate it.And you are definitely right that nothing is written in stone and a lot can change before this is all over, so absolute statements are probably premature.Having actually read the bill, I was just trying to answer some questions that seem to be directly addressed in the bill as it stands right now.That said, I think it's obvious that the intent of this bill is to make it impossible for us to play for money.And if history is any guide, if a loophole like Neteller were to survive it would only be a matter of time before federal regulators would seek to close it.

[Zach6668 513]

haha... yanksawwwweeee... less fish

[JMoney2681 0]

haha... yanksawwwweeee... less fish

More fish Zach, less US sharks, more Canadian fish! Just playing.

[iggymcfly 0]

This is so gay. What kind of government do we have when one representative can basically decide "let's ban internet gambling today", attach it to an unrelated bill, and get it approved almost unanimously with no discussion whatsoever? Seriously, there's probably close to a million people in this country for which this is the most important issue in the fall elections or close to it, and they just gloss over it without a second thought.At least if they'd debated the issue in both houses of Congress, had lengthy discussions, and come to a split decision, I could feel like I understood what happened, but instead they just rubber stamped it, and the Senate didn't even release a vote. This government needs big-time changes.God, I HATE this government right now! When are people going to wake up and start voting Libertarian? It's not just gambling, they're basically taking away more and more of our rights every year to the point that the Constitution is nothing but an archaic historical document.

[ChrisRichey 1]

Well said Iggy. 1984 anyone?

[TheCinciKid 0]

This is so gay. What kind of government do we have when one representative can basically decide "let's ban internet gambling today", attach it to an unrelated bill, and get it approved almost unanimously with no discussion whatsoever? Seriously, there's probably close to a million people in this country for which this is the most important issue in the fall elections or close to it, and they just gloss over it without a second thought.At least if they'd debated the issue in both houses of Congress, had lengthy discussions, and come to a split decision, I could feel like I understood what happened, but instead they just rubber stamped it, and the Senate didn't even release a vote. This government needs big-time changes.God, I HATE this government right now! When are people going to wake up and start voting Libertarian? It's not just gambling, they're basically taking away more and more of our rights every year to the point that the Constitution is nothing but an archaic historical document.

I will vote Libertarian the moment the Libertarian party becomes relevant and runs a candidate that has a chance. Seriously I agree with alot of Libertarian ideals, but the biggest problem with our government really is the 2-party system and I see no way of changing that right now. Aw, screw it maybe I'll move to Canada.

[FourFlusher 0]

It's already nearly impossible to deposit with a credit card...at least the ones I have, the banks won't do it.I sometimes wonder if Neteller wasn't the driving force here...they stand to make out well.

[PairTheBoard 0]

Another troubling part of the bill is that it has language that forces ISP's to block access to "HyperText Links" to the gambling sites. It sounds like they mean the Site URL's. If this were enforced - similiar to China blocking Chinese access to forbidden outside sites - it could be even more damaging than the prohibition on Funds Transfers.I think the bill is basically ready for the President's signature now. This was the compromise version. It has now passed both the Senate and the House. PairTheBoard

[iggymcfly 0]

I will vote Libertarian the moment the Libertarian party becomes relevant and runs a candidate that has a chance. Seriously I agree with alot of Libertarian ideals, but the biggest problem with our government really is the 2-party system and I see no way of changing that right now. Aw, screw it maybe I'll move to Canada.

They become relevant when people start voting for them. You can't just go from 5% of vote one year to 45% four years later. You have to build the base. The point is that we have a democratic system where people are allowed to elect whoever they want, and they keep voting for the same **** over and over again because they "don't think it will work". What is the two-party system anyway? Does it keep third party candidates from taking office? No. Does it keep them from getting on the ballot? No. It's just a historical fact that there are usually two prominent parties in most elections. It's like saying the AL East has a "two team system" because the Red Sox and Yankees always win or something.If somehow, the Libertarians were to take 15-20% of the vote in the next presidential election, or even in some major House and Senate races, it would create change almost immediately. The Republicans wouldn't be pandering to Joe Fundy ******* from Nebraska, they'd be looking to regain the base of true conservatives that had left them. The party would also gain lots of momentum, and more and more people who voted Republican or Democrat because the Libertarians "didn't have a chance" would change their opinions. Given that your one vote won't decide a race anyway, I think you could say that you're actually more likely to affect change voting for a third party.What makes me angriest about this issue is that all we have to do as a country is agree in a plurality that we don't want all of our freedoms taken away and it stops. Seriously, we just have to get out there and say so. But instead, everyone's trapped inside the way things have been done, that they won't just get out and vote who they feel is right.Seriously, voting in this election is like voting between eating filet mignon, a piece of **** with peanuts, or a piece of **** without peanuts. And everyone's saying, well pieces of **** usually win, so I'm gonna vote for the one with peanuts since that has more nutritional value then the one without. Either way you're voting for the same thing, and it's destroying the country.Sorry if that's long, but I've been reading threads about this bill on 2+2 for the last hour and a half, and I'm kind of in a bad mood.

[$ STACKED $ 0]

STACKED ANYONE?

[steve7stud 0]

I think, or hope that Daniel or Bob (Fcp Info) will shed some light on this situation in the next couple of days. It seems like they would know much more about this then the general public.

[ROGUE06 0]

I think, or hope that Daniel or Bob (Fcp Info) will shed some light on this situation in the next couple of days. It seems like they would know much more about this then the general public.

Seconded.

[tallytownFSU 0]

Read the last sentence.http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/30/con...=cnn_topstories

[FCP Bob 1,312]

I think, or hope that Daniel or Bob (Fcp Info) will shed some light on this situation in the next couple of days. It seems like they would know much more about this then the general public.

This is a post I made in the FCP Forum. Basically in the short term I don't believe that anything will change. Beyond that we'll have to see.Please keep in mind that this Bill says nothing about whether Online Poker is legal or not and doesn't affect or amend any current laws on the subject to my knowledge.Also there is I believe a 270 day period for the financial services industry to come up with procedures to attempt to comply with the Bill so nothing should change in the short term.The banking and financial services industry were the ones most opposed to this Bill and they feel it's either going to be unenforceable or will create a massive burden on them that they won't be able to comply with.Nobody can really know what the fallout will be.

[mcpickl 0]

Bush is probably playing online right now and drinking a Natural Light.

[DanielSon 0]

I think it's a safe bet to leave your money on the sites. Even if neteller transactions are blocked by US banks and we can't EVEN withdraw to them, then at least neteller has their own debit card (granted it has huge fees) and I can withdraw my money through an atm....Unless the ATM BLOCKS IT!!:!?!?! OH NO!!!

[zimmer4141 0]

Bush is probably playing online right now and drinking a Natural Light.

Come on, give him a little credit. He's playing online and drinking Busch Light.

[KDawgCometh 2]

people, it has NOT passed the senate yet. This was a house vote. It will pass the senate though because its a defense bill. Riders are part of everyday legislature, so this isn't something new. That being said, I would be throughly shocked if in its current form that it hits Bush's desk. Bills get changed a lot even after passing so that they can generally withstand a judicial challenge from someone with standing. What that means is that someone from neteller or a site like Full Tilt would almost certainly challenge the constitutionality of the bill in the supreme court. A regular person can't just challenge. This is far from over, and what everyone should do is look at the people who advocated this rider and vote them out the next time they are up for re election

[Aardhart 0]

people, it has NOT passed the senate yet. This was a house vote. It will pass the senate though because its a defense bill. Riders are part of everyday legislature, so this isn't something new. That being said, I would be throughly shocked if in its current form that it hits Bush's desk. Bills get changed a lot even after passing so that they can generally withstand a judicial challenge from someone with standing. What that means is that someone from neteller or a site like Full Tilt would almost certainly challenge the constitutionality of the bill in the supreme court. A regular person can't just challenge. This is far from over, and what everyone should do is look at the people who advocated this rider and vote them out the next time they are up for re election

This is wrong. It passed both houses. The rest is also wrong. Bills do not change after they pass both houses in identical form. That is what happened. This was a bill from committee. After the post security bill passed in slightly different forms, members of both houses negotiated and came up with a compromise form, and added this unrelated topic. It will become law unless Bush vetoes a bill to make ports safer. There is no line item veto.From the Washington Post article: "The port security and Internet gambling legislation was approved 409 to 2 in the House and on a voice vote in the Senate early today, as lawmakers rushed to leave Washington for their fall reelection campaigns."

[subsin 0]

This is wrong. It passed both houses. The rest is also wrong. Bills do not change after they pass both houses in identical. That is what happened. This was a bill from committee. After the post security bill passed in slightly different forms, members of both houses negotiated and came up with a compromise form, and added this unrelated topic. It will become law unless Bush vetoes a bill to make ports safer. There is no line item veto.From the Washington Post article: "The port security and Internet gambling legislation was approved 409 to 2 in the House and on a voice vote in the Senate early today, as lawmakers rushed to leave Washington for their fall reelection campaigns."

[HoosierAlum 0]

Im on such life-tilt right now. Who advocated this rider and how would we find something like that out?Million Aces March in Washington!!!!!!!!!!!