Jump to content

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act Of 2006 Analyzed


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

thanks, seemed very interesting at first but in the end it was TLDR (new saying we need here, too long didnt read)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna pin this for the next couple of days as its very important. Its very wordy and it will take a few times to go through to get it all. For those that don't know, Nelson Rose is one of the top legal analysists when it comes to gaming law and is very well respected

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, if you live in her district, vote for Shelley Berkley next election.http://bigpoker.typepad.com/
I was with her until she said instead of banning gambling we should prop up support for failed welfare programs.... In other words, she thinks we should be allowed to decide what we should do with our entertainment dollars, but not what we can do with our charitable and medical dollars, which need to be decided by distant bureaucrats.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting read- It seems to imply that this law is very useless- since most banks currently ban transfers to online sites. If the US gov has no oversite over Neteller, I am not sure how this las is going to change anything?

Link to post
Share on other sites
was rammed through Congress by the Republican leadership in the final minutes
from the discredited National Gambling Impact Study Commission, whose chair was the right-wing, Republican incompetent, Kay Coles James
© Copyright 2006. Professor I Nelson Rose, Whittier Law School, Costa Mesa, CA is recognized as one of the world’s leading experts on gambling law. His latest books, Gaming Law: Cases and Materials and Internet Gaming Law, are available through his website, www.GamblingAndTheLaw.com.He wrote this ending. Makes you wonder about him a little doesn't it?Lawyer and political hack.But he basically says: Buy my book.The rest is okay...just says we can gamble but banks will be watched.I'm not buyin his book.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting read- It seems to imply that this law is very useless- since most banks currently ban transfers to online sites. If the US gov has no oversite over Neteller, I am not sure how this las is going to change anything?
Next week, reconsider this statement.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not buyin his book.
If you read whole article, then I think you just read the book.
Link to post
Share on other sites
© Copyright 2006. Professor I Nelson Rose, Whittier Law School, Costa Mesa, CA is recognized as one of the world’s leading experts on gambling law. His latest books, Gaming Law: Cases and Materials and Internet Gaming Law, are available through his website, www.GamblingAndTheLaw.com.He wrote this ending. Makes you wonder about him a little doesn't it?Lawyer and political hack.But he basically says: Buy my book.The rest is okay...just says we can gamble but banks will be watched.I'm not buyin his book.
Can you honestly say those two quotes weren't true? It was rammed through by the right, and the National Gambling Impact Study Commission was discredited...I see the point you are trying to make, but it's not really a valid one.If you read that whole thing and the message you got was 'buy my book' then you are far better at finding hidden meaning then I am.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you honestly say those two quotes weren't true? It was rammed through by the right, and the National Gambling Impact Study Commission was discredited...I see the point you are trying to make, but it's not really a valid one.If you read that whole thing and the message you got was 'buy my book' then you are far better at finding hidden meaning then I am.
I know Im being a little sensitive. But these were at the begining of the article and turned me off a bit.Rammed through?? No, there wasn't any need to talk about this, the dems and repubs passed this with ease, so this wasn't snuck in. Just one of the last of a bunch of non related items added to the port bill.If people would quit acting like this is a repub vs dem item I would be happy. I know I am biased toward republicans, and they can be scummy, but this is about the whole governemnt against online gaming, not Repubs against poker players.
Link to post
Share on other sites

"...These include a recommendation from the discredited National Gambling Impact Study Commission, whose chair was the right-wing, Republican incompetent, Kay Coles James..."I got this far before I started to gag on the obvious agenda. Note to anyone wanting to be taken seriously and "recognized as one of the world’s leading experts on gambling law": Don't put political rhetoric in your analysis of an issue."...rammed through Congress by the Republican leadership in the final minutes before the election period recess..."Again, keep the political rhetoric out of analysis. And take a 100 level political science course. Riders like this are SOP and happen on most large bills.Sort of funny that I choked on the same two passages Balloon Guy also hit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"...These include a recommendation from the discredited National Gambling Impact Study Commission, whose chair was the right-wing, Republican incompetent, Kay Coles James..."I got this far before I started to gag on the obvious agenda. Note to anyone wanting to be taken seriously and "recognized as one of the world’s leading experts on gambling law": Don't put political rhetoric in your analysis of an issue."...rammed through Congress by the Republican leadership in the final minutes before the election period recess..."Again, keep the political rhetoric out of analysis. And take a 100 level political science course. Riders like this are SOP and happen on most large bills.Sort of funny that I choked on the same two passages Balloon Guy also hit.
Again, both quotes are true, and neither have anything to do with the actual analysis of the bill itself.I can understand your distaste with his obvious political stance, but I'm more interested in what he has to say about the law that was passed.
Link to post
Share on other sites
"...These include a recommendation from the discredited National Gambling Impact Study Commission, whose chair was the right-wing, Republican incompetent, Kay Coles James..."I got this far before I started to gag on the obvious agenda. Note to anyone wanting to be taken seriously and "recognized as one of the world’s leading experts on gambling law": Don't put political rhetoric in your analysis of an issue."...rammed through Congress by the Republican leadership in the final minutes before the election period recess..."Again, keep the political rhetoric out of analysis. And take a 100 level political science course. Riders like this are SOP and happen on most large bills.Sort of funny that I choked on the same two passages Balloon Guy also hit.
I couldn't agree more with this post! I think it would be more prudent to focus on discredited Republican Senator Bill Frist, who is responsible for this Act being ridden on a bill that he would have been the first to accuse anyone who voted against as being against Port Security, and therefore "with the terrorists." Luckily, only two did vote against. Probably heathen Democrats! We don't know for sure because the bill only got a voice vote due to the overwhelming support.We should also focus on the fact that our discredited Republican President doesn't have a line-item veto so that he can strike this senseless act from an otherwise necessary bill that protects us from foreign companies operating US ports, the plans for which discredited so many Republicans last year.It's sort of sad all of this got lost this weekend by discredited Republican Speaker Hastert's harboring of a pedophile and insistence that evidence of this crime against children was "an Internal GOP Problem." Otherwise, it may have gotten some more attention.But on principle, I agree that politics should stay out of this. After all, the Act wrote itself and added itself in the dead of night onto an unrelated bill.This should serve as no reason whatsoever to discredit the Republicans in the upcoming mid-term elections.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, both quotes are true, and neither have anything to do with the actual analysis of the bill itself.I can understand your distaste with his obvious political stance, but I'm more interested in what he has to say about the law that was passed.
unfortunately his strong political stance makes it hard to decipher what he means in some cases, since he is interpreting something that is beyond most of our abilities to interpret. by editorializing so heavily, it makes it difficult to give much value to anything he says.i happen to agree with him, but IMO this does very little to explain much or assist our cause.
Link to post
Share on other sites
unfortunately his strong political stance makes it hard to decipher what he means in some cases, since he is interpreting something that is beyond most of our abilities to interpret. by editorializing so heavily, it makes it difficult to give much value to anything he says.i happen to agree with him, but IMO this does very little to explain much or assist our cause.
I disagree, but we are all entitled to our own opinions....Oh wait, except the author of the analysis. ;-)He'll be on the P5s Podcast this week too, I believe.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I was with her until she said instead of banning gambling we should prop up support for failed welfare programs.... In other words, she thinks we should be allowed to decide what we should do with our entertainment dollars, but not what we can do with our charitable and medical dollars, which need to be decided by distant bureaucrats.
dude get your priorities straight.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks PM, i've been scouring articles all week looking for any insight into how this will effect us and at least it gives some legal interpretation of what the bill is actually trying to accomplish and if it is at all enforcable in the first place.The scariest part of the article was when he talked about affiliates, eg Daniel doesn't own this site but does take a profit from his promotion of it. Daniel could probably be arrested and chareged under the act once it's in force and any other person promoting online poker, really scary. Is this what our Federal government has to worry about now?I mean who cares if North Korea and Iran have nukes? Wars raging in Iran and Afghanistan and world poverty, no big deal they want to attack a normal citizen sitting in the privacy of his own home playing poker. Idiots.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I couldn't agree more with this post! I think it would be more prudent to focus on discredited Republican Senator Bill Frist, who is responsible for this Act being ridden on a bill that he would have been the first to accuse anyone who voted against as being against Port Security, and therefore "with the terrorists." Luckily, only two did vote against. Probably heathen Democrats! We don't know for sure because the bill only got a voice vote due to the overwhelming support.Overwhelming support? I thought Dems were your friends. I guess they betrayed you.We should also focus on the fact that our discredited Republican President doesn't have a line-item veto so that he can strike this senseless act from an otherwise necessary bill that protects us from foreign companies operating US ports, You mean like the Chinese that run Long Beach Harbor? That was Clinton pal the plans for which discredited so many Republicans last year. Line Item veto takes away congressmen's power, Wonder why neither side wants that?It's sort of sad all of this got lost this weekend by discredited Republican Speaker Hastert's harboring of a pedophile and insistence that evidence of this crime against children was "an Internal GOP Problem." Otherwise, it may have gotten some more attention. Guy writes some bad things to kids cause he's a sicko, Repubs kick him out and you expect Haster to resign? Why didn't your side resign when Gerry Studds was stooping a 17 year old boy and told the congress to pound sand? Both sides got sicko weirdos that could be shot and not missed. But only the Repubs are expected to fire their leadership for it.But on principle, I agree that politics should stay out of this. After all, the Act wrote itself and added itself in the dead of night onto an unrelated bill.Like this doesn't happen with EVERY SINGLE BILL the house passes. No, let's pretend the republicans are doing this for the first time.This should serve as no reason whatsoever to discredit the Republicans in the upcoming mid-term elections.Luckily your side always tries to create an October Surprise and it's backfired handily for the last 14 years. We may lose some seats, but we still packed the Supreme Court. And we got 2 more years before Jeb Bush steps up and we can vote Bush 2008. Good luck with Algore/Hillory/Dean/Kerry debates. Should be fun.
Since we're going to play the blame game, let me have a try:Bill Clinton enacted walls of seperation between FBI and CIA, AND made it impossible for the CIA to use 'criminals' as moles on the payroll. Only good church going terrorist can turn in their buddies. This helped set the stage for future problems according to the 9-11 commission.If Bill Clinton and the democrats in his administration would have made ANY sense than maybe he or Bush could have stopped 9-11. Without 9-11 we wouldn't have a Port Securites Bill, and Frist would have to sneak this into the next Global Warming Bill that Bush would have vetoed because Algore's movie sucked.So you see if only so and so wasn't such a hack, then so and so wouldn't stand a chance to make it harder to play poker at partypoker.comPay your nickle and make your reality.Sorry OP for getting off topic. I think I am addicted to political arguing.
Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I am an Independent. I tend to lean right on most issues, expect for issues of basic fairness and that recognize that this is not an equal country with equal opportunity. So when it comes to policies that provide opportunity to minorities, I don't try to pretend they just need to pick themselves up by the shoe straps. When it comes to gay marriage, I believe that every person not only has the right to equality, but also to pursue happiness, as our Declaration of Independence alludes, even if happiness is with a member of their own sex with whom they share love and in which neither exploits the other.That being said, I am dismayed more with Republicans than Democrats. I recognize that both parties serve their own interests. And much of my ire is due to the fact that power is consolidated on the right... But what they've chosen to do with the power and the sheer lack of concern for decency, justice, morality and our Constitution, as well as our standing in the world community, is unforgivable.I believe that the problems in this nation stem from the fact that corporations annoint leaders because only properly funded candidates stand a chance and the hatred and venom of American politics, coupled with the impossibility of getting an altruistic citizen funded, make it irrational for those who would truly represent us to serve.And so we end up with policies that fight preemptive war and rely on trust that we are doing the right thing, while our leaders withhold truth from us, manipulate data and run from admissions of fallability and from accountability.And then we scratch our heads and wonder why this Act? How can leadership merely legislate our behavior as if we need to be governed by a twisted set of morals that deem lotteries (that end up paying 45% or less of the revenues collected by the time it's double taxed and that serve as a regressive tax) legal; and that carves out horse racing and ubiquitous casinos and other forms of gambling?!It's a sham and our leaders are not representing us, as is their responsibility to us their bosses.Our right to self-determination is being taken from us within our own borders, so is it any wonder why the rest of the world is suspicious that we're trying to do the same? Can't you see the parallels? This is not a free and just nation. We are not really trying to spread "freedom" to other parts of the world. That's a lie. We are trying to curb self-determination in favor of corrupted politicians who wet their beaks in the deepest trough and then claim it's all for liberty and morality. Well I'm here to tell you it's bullshit. This Act doesn't make us free. It sure as hell has nothing to do with morality and if it does, **** them for telling me I'm immoral for playing online poker. Politicians aren't supposed to be our parents, they're supposed to be our employees!Rather than earning our continued place as the leader of the free world that we gained out of World War II from the blood of our bravest souls, we've spent what's left of our right to be that leader. We are no longer in the shadow of World War II and it's time for the world to form a new order where each nation has the right to participate in the resources and prosperity of the world. That process requires fairness. It requires understanding. It does not demand bullying and greed under false pretense. How you cannot look at what occurred over the weekend and see how it mirrors what the rest of the world fear we are, why we really invaded Iraq and are poised to invade Iran, why we insist on globalizing the planet and owning the future captialist opportunites before the citizens there can? If they can take away our right to determine our own best interests here, then they can and will do it elsewhere. And they do!Good governance, morality, in fact real freedom and liberty, are not simply rhetorical bombshells that can be dropped on your competitors, they are tenants that begin and end with actions. And our actions at home are vile and restrictive and not at all representative of a democratic republic. So is it any wonder that we should seem hollow when we announce to the world that we embody these high ideals and then fail to achieve them anywhere, including at home?Sorry to say this, because it's a long road back to a place where we participate as citizens in our government and it requires disgust and action against both sides of the aisle, but right now, in 2006, it begins with taking away some of the unchecked power and authority from Republicans, because they have misused it. Then we need to demand reform in the campaign financing rules by refusing to vote for anyone who won't back that reform. But the longer we have a Republican House and Senate and President, the longer we are going to see a leadership that abuses power and does what it wants regardless of the will or interests of the People.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You sounded much more reasonable in the second post.I can agree to disagree.I think we can agree that we want all politicians lined up and shot, I just want the Dems first, you want the Repubs.See, this is why California is so great, that and Arnold

Link to post
Share on other sites
You sounded much more reasonable in the second post.I can agree to disagree.I think we can agree that we want all politicians lined up and shot, I just want the Dems first, you want the Repubs.See, this is why California is so great, that and Arnold
I know this isn't (well wasn't) an inherently politican thread, but I am mad as hell and don't want to take it anymore...And if there's something I fear most, it's Hillary becoming President. And it has little to do with her as a person or even her politics. In a country of 300 million, we can't produce a more moderate, less polarizing figure?I can think of little worse than the next President being as polarizing as our current one. If you ask me, I'd push through a last minute rider that made it forever illegal to serve in office, even as Dog Catcher, if your last name is "Clinton" or "Bush." I'm seriously wondering whether our leaders want the constant distraction of half of the country busy blaming one person for all ills and the other half so blindly bent on defending that person that so one is watching the store. Let's end this crap once and for all! Never have I felt a tenth as disconnected and powerless as a citizen than I do now, in this 2006 America. Never have I been more pessimistic. Never have I feared that the media is so controlled by the five people who own it that a reactionary backlash is not necessarily going to unite us and bring us back toward reason. That will CERTAINLY never happen when we're goaded into a constant fight.I say Bush did it. You say it was really Clinton. We all lose.The answer is in civic involvement and the demand of accountability one action and one issue at a time. I ask... Looking at this Act in light of the actions of our supposed representatives in both parties -- is this still really our country? I really don't think it is. And who are WE? Can't we have someone who aspires to ask us that and unite us instead of tearing us apart?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Try saying "discredited" three times fast.
Qualms.
I disagree, but we are all entitled to our own opinions....Oh wait, except the author of the analysis. ;-)He'll be on the P5s Podcast this week too, I believe.
he's allowed to have his opinion, but he's not allowed to present opinion as expert analysis.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...