The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act Of 2006 Analyzed

[Suited_Up 2]

No ill fate intended for Daniel, but this honestly makes me feel better. You'd have to imagine you'd hear about the Big time pros endorsing Poker sites getting locked up before they go after the guys playing 100nl. Atleast most of us here would have a decent warning.

That can't ever happen.It's not illegal for us to play. Only for people to run the sites.

[mtdesmoines 3]

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.

Exactly. My impression (without confirming) was that this vote was 400+ to 2. Some people are so desparate to paint the opposing party with the "stink" brush that they leave logic behind. Face facts; there are a LOT of poker players. But poker players are not mainstream in the sense that we have any political power.

[Scott3705 0]

That can't ever happen.It's not illegal for us to play. Only for people to run the sites.

this is what I thought for the longest time as well. I feel like over the last year, it's gotten grayer to me.

[copernicus 0]

this is what I thought for the longest time as well. I feel like over the last year, it's gotten grayer to me.

The new law makes it clearer, not grayer. Unless you are professional player (who may have some problems) playing is not outlawed, nor are cashouts.Regs may change everything of course, and any intepretations, whether by the "Foremost internet gambling authority" or Joe Schmoe, are mere speculation.

[Balloon guy 158]

The more I read your posts, ummm....how do I say this nicely.....the more I think you are a person with his head in the sand. If you think for one second this issue would be on the agenda if the dem's were in control or that they would have stuck it on the end of a security bill to yes, "ram it through", you need a reality check. Talk about blindlessly supporting your party. The crazy Christian right wants family values and damn it, Frist is going to give it to em. Did Democrats vote for this bill even before it was attached? Absolutely. Because they could care less and would rather not be the person who "supports" gambling. If you watched any part of the house Friday on CSPAN you heard Democrat after Democrat go off about how shady this was. Not one Republican.

Dude, if I was watching CSPAN on a Friday, I would not admit it.just saying

[The Mole 0]

I do know that one reason the deal was attatched to the port securities bill is because Bush is totally for that bill. Makes it even easier for him to sign it.All I can say is that there are 2 million people roughly playing poker online today, and if they all make their voices heard and vote these people out, it could be a great start to snuffing all this negative momentum towards internet poker.Ok, I'm off to buy some STATE lottery tickets on my way to the Horse Races, then on the way home I will probably stop by the Indian Owned Casinos...lol

[RDog 0]

Dude, if I was watching CSPAN on a Friday, I would not admit it.just saying

When they are talking about something that could potentially cost me a lot of money? Ummm....wasn't everyone watching?

[zoo22 0]

If this isn't a democratic versus republican issue, and the whole government has something against online gaming, then I have one question for you.Why wasn't there a bill passed against online gaming on its own? Why did it have to be attached to the port securities bill?Oh, and Patrick-thanks for the read.

[alabama 0]

so you might want to get around this? Maybe one could send money to an overseas/offshore bank from a US bank. Hmmmm bank to bank transfer seems like that might be legal. US can't dictate to non-US banks how to act. Transfer money in and out of a the overseas/offshore bank to wherever you would like to play. I am not a lawyer, I will not be doing this, nor am I recommending it but it would seem that folks can get around this if they really want to. BTW the repubs voted for it because of family values (yeah right) the dems voted for it because people are not smart enough to be responsible for themselves (yeah right) ie the government needs to look out for us. Guess we are all children who just can't take care of ourselves in their eyes. Vote em all out.

[MtdRounders 0]

I have had the pleasure of reading everyone's replies. I have also read Daniel's recent blog on the new bill that was passed by the US government. This bill is an absolute GODSEND to our country and it will continue to ensure the fluidity of our economy. In case everyone is completely blind, our economy is what makes us strong and powerful as a nation.Daniel is worried about this bill passing because this is his LIVELIHOOD!If the U.S. government was about to pass a bill that made a portion of my job obsolete then I would also try to rally people against it. I would also attempt to coerce people to join the PokerPlayers allegiance. By the way, I joined this months ago. Do I want on-line poker to continue? Part of me does, part of me does not. Daniel mentioned that there are plenty of people that rely on playing poker on-line to put food on the table.How many are NOT putting food on the table because of on-line poker?How many dollars are lost in our economy because of people playing on off shore sites?I know the argument. Let's tax it! NO! You allow people the ease to dump money, max out credit cards, max out home equity loans, etc.ABSURD!Let me all tell you something about Daniel Negreanu (did I spell that right?)He is on the same level as a porn star, a train wreck. He is someone that you continue to watch (like me) but do not understand why. He is a high school drop out who posts blogs about watching 24 and Survivor ( I also watch Survivor and have Ozzy in a pool) and we all read. He won one tournament in the last, what, two years? We continue to read and watch. I followed his progress in the WSOP and still do not understand how he was top six in chips on day three and wound up losing it. Professional?No wonder he does not want this bill passed. I was talking to my wife earlier and we were talking about this phenomenon that has taken control of this country for the last four years. I watch poker on TV and I follow the players. The funny thing is that these degenerate ****ing gamblers have made a living (profitable one at that) off of us, the American people. Our economy is heading for a huge accident if this ridiculousness continues. As I was talking to my wife, we decided to come up with a list of professional poker players that are making a great living off of this phenonemon. I do not mean people that are simply playing cards. I mean people that write books, pimp their names for video games, have their names associated with on-line gambling sites, and write columns for card magazines.Who did we come up with?1. Johnnie Chan2. Phil Helmuth3. Doyle Brunson4. Howard Lederer5. Daniel Negreanu (spelling)He is top five. There are no other players that can touch him in regards to popularity. You are all saying...Allen Cunningham, Jennefer Harman, John Juanda, Eli Elezra (Spelling?) Um, No! Not even Barry Greenstein (I know he wrote a book, but give me a break) would match up to him. High school drop out who got lucky three years ago and won a couple of card games. He recently lost a million dollars in a game at the Bellagio.Why do I keep watching High Stakes Poker, read his blogs, and follow his tounament winnings?Same reason I slow down when I see a real bad accident.Good for you Daniel, and I meana that!Please stop with blasting Senators and calling them weasels when you do not get the larger picture. You are in this for youself. And to answer your question from a previous blog....the United States absolutely has to stop nuclear proliferation from other countries. However, I would expect idiotic comments like you made from a high school drop out and a gambler. You are, quite frankly, an entertainer. I will continue to read and watch. My biggest problem is this.Daniel? You have been blessed. What have you given back?I never see that in your blogs.Those who have more have to give more. I am almost done watching the train wreck. If you had a half a hair on your ***, you would address this. Sincerely, Kevin D

[alabama 0]

after reading this previous post I sat for a moment and tried to decide how to respond or if I even wanted to. I look at poker players the same as professional golfers. If they do not perform well they do not get paid. If you use your argument that all things that take money out of the economy are bad then let's look at other things as well. You talk about the lowly educated (and I use this term sarcastically) people who are trying to influence the government - look at Hollywood. How much money do actors remove from the economy - films for example. By your reasoning we should stop all movie production because what do we get back from it. And more importantly, look at the people involved in that business. You put down poker players (perhaps because you do not truly approve of gambling) and call them degenerate. Look at the Hollywood lifestyles - how many marriages last more than a year there and is there rampant drug use among those folk? Let's see and what do these people do for a living - THEY PRETEND TO BE SOMEONE THEY ARE NOT. Their whole career is based on a lie. How many couples put 30 or 40 dollars a weekend on a credit card just to go see a new movie? And what do the actors give back to the econoomy? 25 million dollar mansiions along the california coast. OK so they help the CA housing market. I would think you would have more of a problem with those folks than someone risking their own monies playing cards for a living. We did not get to be great by being a nanny state. Individual freedom means exactly that. If some people get addicted to something well shame on them but this is America my friend and is the land of the free (and this does not mean only free to do things you think are right). With great freedom comes great responsibility and perhaps that is what we should be teaching. If you do not have the money to lose don't lose it!!!! But back to the original topic of this post - as I stated above Vote all of em out.

[ColeSLaw 0]

Ok, so I've read the responses to the Act on cardplayer and in D.N.'s blog and while it's clear that some people misinterpret the Act and think that it is going to be illegal to play poker online, it's not business as usual for these sites.The aim of the gaming legislation within the Act is to stop Americans from playing poker online. Plain and simple. For political and practical reasons, they are choosing to go after the middlemen, the banks and transfer sites. We'll all wait and see how it shakes out. Publicly traded gaming companies are going to be more cautious, as will some players. There will be a WTO challenge of the Act for violating national treatment obligations but that will take years with little direct recourse.All this is probably old news, but the point is... don't believe the hype on either side, but realize that the landscape is changing.

[Money022 0]

I have had the pleasure of reading everyone's replies. I have also read Daniel's recent blog on the new bill that was passed by the US government. This bill is an absolute GODSEND to our country and it will continue to ensure the fluidity of our economy. In case everyone is completely blind, our economy is what makes us strong and powerful as a nation.Daniel is worried about this bill passing because this is his LIVELIHOOD!If the U.S. government was about to pass a bill that made a portion of my job obsolete then I would also try to rally people against it. I would also attempt to coerce people to join the PokerPlayers allegiance. By the way, I joined this months ago. Do I want on-line poker to continue? Part of me does, part of me does not. Daniel mentioned that there are plenty of people that rely on playing poker on-line to put food on the table.How many are NOT putting food on the table because of on-line poker?How many dollars are lost in our economy because of people playing on off shore sites?I know the argument. Let's tax it! NO! You allow people the ease to dump money, max out credit cards, max out home equity loans, etc.ABSURD!Let me all tell you something about Daniel Negreanu (did I spell that right?)He is on the same level as a porn star, a train wreck. He is someone that you continue to watch (like me) but do not understand why. He is a high school drop out who posts blogs about watching 24 and Survivor ( I also watch Survivor and have Ozzy in a pool) and we all read. He won one tournament in the last, what, two years? We continue to read and watch. I followed his progress in the WSOP and still do not understand how he was top six in chips on day three and wound up losing it. Professional?No wonder he does not want this bill passed. I was talking to my wife earlier and we were talking about this phenomenon that has taken control of this country for the last four years. I watch poker on TV and I follow the players. The funny thing is that these degenerate ****ing gamblers have made a living (profitable one at that) off of us, the American people. Our economy is heading for a huge accident if this ridiculousness continues. As I was talking to my wife, we decided to come up with a list of professional poker players that are making a great living off of this phenonemon. I do not mean people that are simply playing cards. I mean people that write books, pimp their names for video games, have their names associated with on-line gambling sites, and write columns for card magazines.Who did we come up with?1. Johnnie Chan2. Phil Helmuth3. Doyle Brunson4. Howard Lederer5. Daniel Negreanu (spelling)He is top five. There are no other players that can touch him in regards to popularity. You are all saying...Allen Cunningham, Jennefer Harman, John Juanda, Eli Elezra (Spelling?) Um, No! Not even Barry Greenstein (I know he wrote a book, but give me a break) would match up to him. High school drop out who got lucky three years ago and won a couple of card games. He recently lost a million dollars in a game at the Bellagio.Why do I keep watching High Stakes Poker, read his blogs, and follow his tounament winnings?Same reason I slow down when I see a real bad accident.Good for you Daniel, and I meana that!Please stop with blasting Senators and calling them weasels when you do not get the larger picture. You are in this for youself. And to answer your question from a previous blog....the United States absolutely has to stop nuclear proliferation from other countries. However, I would expect idiotic comments like you made from a high school drop out and a gambler. You are, quite frankly, an entertainer. I will continue to read and watch. My biggest problem is this.Daniel? You have been blessed. What have you given back?I never see that in your blogs.Those who have more have to give more. I am almost done watching the train wreck. If you had a half a hair on your ***, you would address this. Sincerely, Kevin D

Well Kevin D (MtdRounders), everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I'm not going to respond much to your views of DN because for one, I don't know the guy. Neither do you, yet you seem to feel you have him figured out pretty well. You have some pretty bold statements based on what you've read online or seen on TV. Hardly enough to go on if you ask me. Could it be that DN does give back to his community, but doesn't feel the need to make it known like most other celebs? I don't know, but it's a definite possibility.You seem to be overlooking the fact that this online gambling bill is an intrusion on our rights. Since when do we need big brother looking down at us trying to hold our hands and tell use what forms of recreation we can spend money on? Gambling is a legal activity in many states, yet we can't do this from our own home? The prinicple of this is what a lot of us are upset about. The government does not need to regulate every area of our lives. Most of what we do in our own home should be up to us. As far as these two statements go..."1. How many are NOT putting food on the table because of on-line poker?2. How many dollars are lost in our economy because of people playing on off shore sites?ABSURD!"1. Online gaming is not the root of the problem for those with a gambling addiction. They had the problem before they found online poker, and they'll have it long after. Adults are accountable for themselves. We don't need the government restricting what we can and cannot do because a small minority lack the ability to exercise control on their own. If people are spending their grocery money on cards, then tough. That's their issue, not the government's. 2. Are you kidding? It's a global economy. Some money may end up overseas, but plenty of it makes it's way back one way or another. Not to mention the thousands of players that win and bring money into the US and spend it on goods here. I'm sure it's pretty much a wash on where the money ends up. That's not even the issue though. We earned our money and we sure as hell shouldn't be told what country we can spend it in. Your lack of insite is what's absurd here, not our disgust in this Bill.As far as this comment to DN..."However, I would expect idiotic comments like you made from a high school drop out and a gambler. "What kind of prick makes a comment like this? You completely lose any bit of credibility or respect when you start slinging mud like this. Any valid point you may have made is going to fall on def ears because you lack a single ounce of tact in the way you wrote up your dribble.Poker is a form of recreation for most people, for some it's a way of life and a way to put themselves into a better place. I know numerous players who use their earnings to better themselves through education and have goals and poker is putting them in a better place to reach those. There are pros and cons to every aspect of life. It's not the responsibility of the government to put their foot down because the cons don't fit well with their personal religious beliefs. That's what this really boils down to, and it's not right. For that we will continue to fight this thing in any way we can.

[californiaholdem 0]

I have had the pleasure of reading everyone's replies. I have also read Daniel's recent blog on the new bill that was passed by the US government. This bill is an absolute GODSEND to our country and it will continue to ensure the fluidity of our economy. In case everyone is completely blind, our economy is what makes us strong and powerful as a nation.Daniel is worried about this bill passing because this is his LIVELIHOOD!If the U.S. government was about to pass a bill that made a portion of my job obsolete then I would also try to rally people against it. I would also attempt to coerce people to join the PokerPlayers allegiance. By the way, I joined this months ago. Do I want on-line poker to continue? Part of me does, part of me does not. Daniel mentioned that there are plenty of people that rely on playing poker on-line to put food on the table.How many are NOT putting food on the table because of on-line poker?How many dollars are lost in our economy because of people playing on off shore sites?I know the argument. Let's tax it! NO! You allow people the ease to dump money, max out credit cards, max out home equity loans, etc.ABSURD!Let me all tell you something about Daniel Negreanu (did I spell that right?)He is on the same level as a porn star, a train wreck. He is someone that you continue to watch (like me) but do not understand why. He is a high school drop out who posts blogs about watching 24 and Survivor ( I also watch Survivor and have Ozzy in a pool) and we all read. He won one tournament in the last, what, two years? We continue to read and watch. I followed his progress in the WSOP and still do not understand how he was top six in chips on day three and wound up losing it. Professional?No wonder he does not want this bill passed. I was talking to my wife earlier and we were talking about this phenomenon that has taken control of this country for the last four years. I watch poker on TV and I follow the players. The funny thing is that these degenerate ****ing gamblers have made a living (profitable one at that) off of us, the American people. Our economy is heading for a huge accident if this ridiculousness continues. As I was talking to my wife, we decided to come up with a list of professional poker players that are making a great living off of this phenonemon. I do not mean people that are simply playing cards. I mean people that write books, pimp their names for video games, have their names associated with on-line gambling sites, and write columns for card magazines.Who did we come up with?1. Johnnie Chan2. Phil Helmuth3. Doyle Brunson4. Howard Lederer5. Daniel Negreanu (spelling)He is top five. There are no other players that can touch him in regards to popularity. You are all saying...Allen Cunningham, Jennefer Harman, John Juanda, Eli Elezra (Spelling?) Um, No! Not even Barry Greenstein (I know he wrote a book, but give me a break) would match up to him. High school drop out who got lucky three years ago and won a couple of card games. He recently lost a million dollars in a game at the Bellagio.Why do I keep watching High Stakes Poker, read his blogs, and follow his tounament winnings?Same reason I slow down when I see a real bad accident.Good for you Daniel, and I meana that!Please stop with blasting Senators and calling them weasels when you do not get the larger picture. You are in this for youself. And to answer your question from a previous blog....the United States absolutely has to stop nuclear proliferation from other countries. However, I would expect idiotic comments like you made from a high school drop out and a gambler. You are, quite frankly, an entertainer. I will continue to read and watch. My biggest problem is this.Daniel? You have been blessed. What have you given back?I never see that in your blogs.Those who have more have to give more. I am almost done watching the train wreck. If you had a half a hair on your ***, you would address this. Sincerely, Kevin D

I more than half think this is a fishing, trip, but I'll address it.You have an opinion. That's lovely. You have the right not to play poker for whatever reason(s). However, I do make money playing poker and I don't look at it as taking advantage of anyone. By educating myself, I found ways to profit in poker. This can be said about any vocation, from the financial industry to professional sports to brick laying. In any edeavor, there are those who learn to excel and if you can't, then there are opportunities for you. Luckily, there are jobs out there that reflect your level of ambition, skill, intelligence and education no matter who you are. But we call can't be at the top of our industries or crafts. At least in poker if you aren't at the top of your game, you can still derive entertainment value. I certainly don't mean to imply that I personally am anywhere near the top of the poker hierarchy, because I have much to learn. (Less to learn about the game and more to learn about myself and my ability to control my thoughts, emotions, etc. You see, one thing poker has taught me, and continues to teach me, are infinite lessons of wisdom that transcend the game.) Within the boundaries of my life and financial situation, I can make the choice as to when to raise the stakes responsibly. My story is the norm; not the image of the degenerate lying in a gutter or who "lost a house by clicking a mouse."You allude to a coming financial disaster. I agree that some could lose more than they should. But I could go out with my American Express card today and buy a new Porsche. That doesn't mean I could make the payments. I would end up in the same trouble if I did that than if I gambled my money away. Does this mean credit cards should be illegal?OFCOURSENOT!If regulated, the industry could require measures that protect problem gamblers. Many sites already allow limits to be set, but these measures could be made more strict and consistent across the industry. They could also ensure fair games by making the code available for random inspections. They could also tax both the earnings and the winnings. Overall, you're fooling yourself if you think that if you're irresponsible to begin with you can't get yourself in financial trouble in a myriad of ways. The onus lies on the individual. I prescribe to a world where my rights end at your nose, meaning as long as what I do doesn't impinge on your rights, get away from me. I'm perfectly capable of making my own decisions. That doesn't mean I fail to recognize that there will be people who need protection from themselves. So there are ways to regulate industries to protect these weakest links. But it just sucks when you start to limit society at large because of the actions of the weakest amongst us. (Dumb people have already watered down our movies and television shows.) It's simply not fair and it insults the overwhelming majority of us who can make adult decisions.And speaking of adult decisions, don't pretend this bill protects children. Again, if regulated sites could be required to enact measures to protect against underage gamblers, but it's not a real problem. If your child is inclined to steal your credit card and play online craps, God Bless the little tyke, but you've got bigger problems than any bill can solve. You need to spend some more time with the parenting books.If there is an impending financial disaster in this country, it's not coming from online gambling. The entire industry is a drop in the bucket in the overall economy. If you want to place your energies into something, research what will happen when the adjustable interest mortgages lead to a sudden rise in mortgages that Americans can't afford to pay, all at once when the interest rates rise. Research how many people will suddenly have negative net worths and the inability to pay bills because they maxed out home equity loans. THAT is a cause for alarm. I bring it up because these are the kinds of real problems we need a government to be aware of and creating legislation to protect us from... Built in traps that the ordinary consumer can't expect to see coming. But online gaming -- I'm sorry, but as an individual, you have every means at your disposal to control your actions and to seek help if you can't. A recent AP poll concluded that 7 out of 10 Americans did not think American Government adequately represents the People. That's because we are led to believe that these inconsequential hot-topic issues matter when compared to the things we ought to be concerned with. Don't wait until gay marriage is on the ballot to get off your *** and get to the polls... And when it is, don't be goaded into expressing your hatred as an excuse to vote for a party. Who cares! Let gay people get married and focus on real issues. Do some reading. Get involved. Let Internet gambling remain as it is. Despite the belief that's been instilled in you by your annointed leaders that somehow these things are going to lead to you and your children dead in the streets, they are merely the distraction the magician uses to steal your watch. We've got a lot of major issues in this nation from lack of preparedness for disaster, to corruption and cronyism that leads to no-bid pilfering of tax dollars, to campaign finance laws that do not allow honest candidates to emerge to a war we're losing in two countries. Just wake up a bit and priortize. Play some poker, maybe... It'll get your mind off things.Imposing this regulation in the middle of the night, would be like someone who drove around to private parties and tried to have them shut down merely because they don't drink. Some of the people at those parties are alcoholics. Some will drive their cars drunk and make mistakes that affect others from their drinking. But most are having fun and just trying to be happy during this breif and magical stay we have on Earth.Prohibition doesn't work!...It leads to more sin and a dangerous relationship between people and the sinful activities that lead to less responsible use, zero regulation and the level of abuse you fear. Prohibition favors criminals instead of fair businessmen. So with all due respect, you may think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong, we have our opinions... The difference is that your opinion imposes itself on mine... It shuts mine down. So while I have problems with the way you think, with the lack of overall awareness you have of the big picture, I wouldn't dare to prevent you from living the way you choose... But you expand your right to an opinion into actions that restrict mine. That makes you a very dangerous American. And I'm sick of dangerous Americans restricting my freedoms -- as are many of us.

[MtdRounders 0]

I actually wasn't fishing with my post. I also enjoy everyone's opinion. I was also wrong to assume Daniel does not give back. However, I am sure we would of heard about it by now if he did. Greenstein gives back a portion of his winnings to charity. I am sure we all know this.The funny thing is that I also play, just not at FCP. I am not one of those idiots that maxes out credit cards either. The problem is that there are plenty of people that do. What about the 18 year old that receives his first credit card and decides to start playing. Yes gambling is legal in plenty of states, but you have to be 21. You have to actually drive to the locations. When it is in your living room it is to easy. And all the talk about being free and this is America.....give me a break. This is not a libertarian community. On-line gambling must be legal because it is our right? Okay, then I also want every drug legalized and brothels in communities across the state. Lets lower the drinking age to 18, lets do away with speed limits. Screw it all. It makes no sense. Our government is there to ensure that we continue to live under the social contract that we are a part of. To the person that resopnded to me about the economy and about the couple that spends 40 dollars at the movies....That is exactly my point. If on-line gambling continues, then that 40 will not be spent at the movies. The theaters lose money, the employees lose money, etc. It starts out small and then snowballs. Gambling is a vice, that can turn into an addiction in some. Much like other things, like smoking, drinking, drugs, etc. The government regulates all of those things too....for good reason. Also, I should not have called DN a degenerate gambler high school drop out. It was simply a knee jerk reaction to his last post when he used the words ****** bag and weasel. However, he is entitled to his opinion as am I. That is what makes this country truly great....not the freedom to gamble from your living room. On a side note, is it just me or does anyone think these new poker video games are going to fail miserably?Who wants to play just for fun, ya know?

[californiaholdem 0]

"I was also wrong to assume Daniel does not give back. However, I am sure we would of heard about it by now if he did."Irrelevant to the discussion."The problem is that there are plenty of people that do. What about the 18 year old that receives his first credit card and decides to start playing. Yes gambling is legal in plenty of states, but you have to be 21. You have to actually drive to the locations. When it is in your living room it is to easy." Regulation could add barriers to that 18-year-old's ability to gamble online. He could, for example, be required to send in a FAX of his driver's license. The 18-year-old with his first credit card is NOT the problem. That can be solved. And it's probably better that the 18-year-old gets a life lesson at 18 when he has a low limit on a card than later in life.I can drive to no fewer that eight poker rooms in a half an hour. This is not about accessibility... It's about responsibility. You obviously recogize the fact that online poker can fit into a healthy lifestyle... "The funny thing is that I also play." Hypocrite. One of the problems with America today is that people make sweeping generalizations that others need protection against what you can handle. It's presumptuous and insulting. There will be grapes that fall off the vine, it's inevitable. "On-line gambling must be legal because it is our right? Okay, then I also want every drug legalized and brothels in communities across the state. Lets lower the drinking age to 18, lets do away with speed limits. Screw it all. It makes no sense. Our government is there to ensure that we continue to live under the social contract that we are a part of." Drugs, brothels and speed limits come with physical consequences to others and infringe directly on other's health and lives. If I speed, I may injure you. If that 18-year-old tries Heroine, he could die the first time. (Though pot should be legal and I say that as someone who doens't smoke it.) Similar to how it's hypocritical to allow gambling in every state but disallow it online because of "moral" objections, it's strange and unreasonable to make pot illegal while alcohol and smoking tobacco are legal. Again, I believe the bar should be set here...When an activity poses a direct and imminent threat to public health and safety, restrict to the least amount of regulation that produces the most reasonable protection to the public. Then allow the public to make choices as to whether to partake in an activity.Case in point, I agree with speed limits... I do not agree with eliminating driving.I think when there is an activity with a negative total sum to the public, it is also reasonable to have regulation. For example, studies have shown that the REAL cost of each pack of cigarettes on society, after factoring in health costs incurred, is $80 a pack! I think it would be completely reasonable to demand that manufactureres charge $80 a pack and use the profits to reimburse the Health Care industry.If online gambling were taxed, the revenues would far, far exceed the write-offs incurred by the tiny fraction of those who got into financial trouble. Remember, in addition to the taxable revenue, the wealth is redistributed and remains in the economy. If regulated, much of the winnings would be taxed as well, creating a positive economic value to the country. This is similar to how credit card companies are able to write off the deadbeats while continuing to make profits and allow consumers to have more spending power when they want it. "To the person that resopnded to me about the economy and about the couple that spends 40 dollars at the movies....That is exactly my point. If on-line gambling continues, then that 40 will not be spent at the movies. The theaters lose money, the employees lose money, etc. It starts out small and then snowballs."In a free and fair market, Adam Smith rules. If people choose not to watch movies and play poker, sobeit. That's the consumer's choice. The cynic in me thinks that the lobbies for other forms of entertainment are partially to blame for the bill. This is akin to the government ruling that Americans need to watch more sitcoms versus playing video games. That's not their decision; nor is which industries or companies thrive versus others. Government's role is SUPPOSED to be to create a fair environment for open commerce while protecting against manipulation by corporations who interfere. "Gambling is a vice, that can turn into an addiction in some. Much like other things, like smoking, drinking, drugs, etc."I find it interesting how some in this country, like you, who admitted above to being involved in this "vice" are so afraid of it. We all enjoy certain vices and understanding how to responsibily incorporate (or not) vice into our lives is an inevitable confrontation we will all have as a matter of course. We shouldn't run from it. In fact, that instinct only creates myth and lore around the vices when instead we should accept our relationship with vice as part of life and confront it out in the open. Relegating vice to speak-easies and back rooms under the shroud of illegality causes more problems than it solves. I would argue that you could study any vice and find a direct relationship between its abuse and the level of control that is imposed upon it by government.We all have our vices. This can be okay, if we can handle it right. The journey to doing so, not the one to making all vices illegal, is the more productive one for society."Also, I should not have called DN a degenerate gambler high school drop out."No, you shouldn't have. I'm a fan of Daniel's because he's an impressive guy who is very alive and aware of the world and that doesn't diminish with education level or because he happens to have applied his intelligence to games where skill matters."It was simply a knee jerk reaction to his last post when he used the words ****** bag and weasel. However, he is entitled to his opinion as am I. That is what makes this country truly great..."Here, here. And FWIW, I agree with Daniel's descriptions precisely because it wreaks of corruption and because Frist didn't give the issue the benefit of its own vote. Our leaders are supposed to represent us, whether what we want is contrary to their millieu or not. This was an issue that would not have gone his way, and so he weaseled it in on another bill that also attached conotations of terrorism to online gambling that are not real nor deserved. "Weasel" is a very good verb here. And frankly, given Frist's dubious histroy with ethics (see his "blind" trust,) it leaves many of us wondering what lobbyist made this such a vital issue for Frist as to use such tactics and spend such political capital to sneak it into action... I've gotten the opinion from many right-wing types who claim this was never a big issue pressed on the Christian Right talking points -- meaning that average Christian didn't care about the issue. Thus, it's not logical to assume this was Frist merely appeasing his base. It's as reasonable to assume that someone, like the Indian casino lobby, made a closed-door deal that involved the millions that the online gaming lobby, which couldn't exist because of the ambiguous laws, was unable to funnel to one politician or party. Hmmm. Sounds weaselly to me. Something a douchebag might do. "On a side note, is it just me or does anyone think these new poker video games are going to fail miserably?Who wants to play just for fun, ya know?"Yeah. No ****.

[Money022 0]

I actually wasn't fishing with my post. I also enjoy everyone's opinion. I was also wrong to assume Daniel does not give back. However, I am sure we would of heard about it by now if he did. Greenstein gives back a portion of his winnings to charity. I am sure we all know this.The funny thing is that I also play, just not at FCP. I am not one of those idiots that maxes out credit cards either. The problem is that there are plenty of people that do. What about the 18 year old that receives his first credit card and decides to start playing. Yes gambling is legal in plenty of states, but you have to be 21. You have to actually drive to the locations. When it is in your living room it is to easy. And all the talk about being free and this is America.....give me a break. This is not a libertarian community. On-line gambling must be legal because it is our right? Okay, then I also want every drug legalized and brothels in communities across the state. Lets lower the drinking age to 18, lets do away with speed limits. Screw it all. It makes no sense. Our government is there to ensure that we continue to live under the social contract that we are a part of. To the person that resopnded to me about the economy and about the couple that spends 40 dollars at the movies....That is exactly my point. If on-line gambling continues, then that 40 will not be spent at the movies. The theaters lose money, the employees lose money, etc. It starts out small and then snowballs. Gambling is a vice, that can turn into an addiction in some. Much like other things, like smoking, drinking, drugs, etc. The government regulates all of those things too....for good reason. Also, I should not have called DN a degenerate gambler high school drop out. It was simply a knee jerk reaction to his last post when he used the words ****** bag and weasel. However, he is entitled to his opinion as am I. That is what makes this country truly great....not the freedom to gamble from your living room. On a side note, is it just me or does anyone think these new poker video games are going to fail miserably?Who wants to play just for fun, ya know?

Well for one I'm happy to see this being discussed like adults. Just a few points. An 18 year old with a credit card isn't going to get more than a few hundred dollar spending limit, so there's a safeguard already in place. Having the option to spend $40 at the movies or online is a right we should have. We shouldn't be told where and in what country we can spend our money. Besides, what about the people who make a deposit, win a little money, then take their family out to dinner, or buy a new TV for the family room, or buy their two year old son a new winter wardrobe (like me), or my buddy Jon who just paid for a full semester's worth of tuition with earnings from a MTT. Your concern in this area is one sided. You're focusing on the hypothetical negatives and not even considering the commerce that is brought back in by those that are winning players. Not to be rude, but you sound like one of these old timers who refuse to buy a foreign brand vehicle because it wasn't "Made in the USA" supporting American workers. Yet at the same time they overlook that times have changed and there are hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been created in the US by foreign based automakers with US based factories. Not to mention dealerships, service centers, and customer service centers for companies who do not have factories in the states. What I'm getting at is it's a global economy. Money may leave the country, but I guarantee it makes it back one way or another. Jobs haven't been lost over internet poker. Not the way you're eluding to at least.

[MtdRounders 0]

Jobs haven't been lost over internet poker. Not the way you're eluding to at least.You do not know this for sure. Great discussion and I need to clarify some of my views. However, we are having a party right now.....guess what, we will probably all play cards later. HAHA. on a side note, not that any of you care, Rounders in my name refers to baseball not that DAMN MOVIE!!!!

[californiaholdem 0]

The National Review:Their article:

Saved from MyselfAnd in a nick of time, too.By Geoffrey NormanIf it weren’t for Congress — man, I’d be in a lot of trouble. But you can always count on the boys and girls down in Washington to save you from yourself. Here I’d been accustomed to go online early in the week and make a wager or two on the upcoming football games. Why, just last week, I took the Packers, plus twelve, over the Eagles in the Monday-night game. Final score: Philly 36, Packers 6. But the first half was interesting, and, for a while there, it looked like I might win enough to fill up my truck with gas. Regular, of course. I knew, I suppose, that by making this bet I was doing something illegal. The law, however, was enforced about as robustly as the speed limit on one of those Wyoming four lanes where, if you’re doing 80, you’re running in the slow lane. Anyway, it’s hard to think of gambling as forbidden when you can’t turn on the television without seeing a come-on for the lottery; when Nevada’s Clark County is growing faster than any in the country; and when every Indian tribe with 100 acres it can call a reservation is throwing up a casino. If you can gamble in New Jersey and Mississippi, I figured, then why not in cyberspace?I also assumed that the government had bigger fish to fry. I might have been willing to fly to Las Vegas to make my bets if air travel hadn’t been made into such an ordeal by the TSA (Thousands Standing Around). The pols still had some fine tuning to do there, I thought. Surely they wouldn’t be wasting time and money trying to stamp out gambling online as long as there was a passenger somewhere trying to bring a bottle of shampoo on an airplane in his hand luggage.But I hadn’t counted on the relentless dedication of the people sent to Washington to do the nation’s business. I’d neglected the strength of their conviction that they know what is best for me, and if I disagree, well then, I’ll just have to go to jail for a while and think about it. I might believe that taking the Patriots and the points against the Bengals (won that one) is harmless and unlikely to cost me more than what some of the K-Street commandos spend on a single cocktail…but what do I know?Last Saturday, Congress — which was working weekends, because Election Day was coming and the members had to get home and campaign — passed a law that decreed the nation’s ports should be secure. There was a little add-on to bill (which cleared the Senate on a voice vote), and it had to do with internet gambling. It makes it illegal for banks and credit card companies to move funds to the sites that handle online wagers. President Bush is expected to sign this bill in a few days. Until then, of course, people can still make bets — so none of us is safe.Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist pushed the bill through the Senate, and how can we thank him enough? “Gambling is a serious addiction that undermines the family, dashes dreams and frays the fabric of society,” Frist explained. A “war” on gambling is probably not far off, and, going by the record of the one on drugs, we can figure it will result in a full-employment bill for bookies. We’ve been waging a war on drugs since at least the first Bush presidency, and there isn’t a 12-year-old in the country who couldn’t score some grass in an hour ( coke might take just a bit longer).The folly of this is bearable — what the hell, it shouldn’t come as a surprise when legislators pass stupid laws — but the thing that grinds your gears is that these particular people should presume to worry about other people being reckless and profligate with money. When Congress stops salivating every time a piece of pork gets dragged though chambers, then they’ll be qualified to take measures to prevent the rest of us from spending the rent money on the lock of the week. I’ve got more faith in my ability to pick the winner of the Ravens/Broncos game — against the spread, of course — than I do in Congress’ capacity to balance the budget, fix Social Security, or even just to say “no and hell no” to a multi-million dollar bridge to an uninhabited island in Alaska.You want a sure thing? Bet against Congress to balance the budget. If you can find anyone, that is, who will take the action.

[MtdRounders 0]

I am not impressed.Simply more dribble. I played tonight on PartyPoker. Won two tourneys, lost three. Still ahead.Look for my post later tonight.

[BlinkersOn 0]

Check out this article from today's Washington Post:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6100800230.htmlBritain may loosen Internet gambling lawReutersSunday, October 8, 2006; 8:21 AMLONDON (Reuters) - Britain may bring in legislation allowing London-listed Internet gambling companies to move their headquarters to Britain, the Sunday Times newspaper reported.The paper said it had seen documents in which the government said the move would provide Britain's online gamblers with "a safe, well-regulated environment." The paper also said the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had been lobbying the Treasury to introduce a favorable tax regime for online gambling companies.The biggest London-listed Internet gambling company, PartyGaming Plc which is in the blue-chip FTSE 100 index, is based in Gibraltar, as is 888 Holdings Plc. Empire Online Ltd is based in the British Virgin Islands.Earlier this month, the U.S. Congress approved a bill to make it illegal for banks to process payments to gaming Web sites, leading most European operators to pull out of the United States and hitting their share prices.

[SoCooLBob 0]

Party Poker just essentially informed affiliates they wouldn't be paid as of NOWif they're in the US. Their conversation appears very NOW NOW NOW as though they will IMMEDIATELY stop playing Poker For Money with US Customers IF/WHEN the President signs the bill. Within Two WeeksThat would seem like it would cost them a LOT OF MONEY?That would seem like it would have a dramatic impact on a lot of folks, including me and my current plan."Brought To Us By The Same Folks Having Sex With 16 Year Olds"http://www.socool.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=342#342http://www.winamillionplayingpoker.comhttp://www.winamillionplayingpoker.com/sne...kvideoblog.htmlHopefully, You will enjoy the above video and consider a cup of coffee for ThePlayer@WinAMillionPlayingPoker.Com As of Today, the video is still in the pre-publication phase, so you're opinion, advice, support, constructive criticism, positive add-ons may be even more appreciated So

[SoCooLBob 0]

Dude, if I was watching CSPAN on a Friday, I would not admit it.just saying

Shucks ... I was hoping someone, everyone, would get into the notion of posting links ... I'm wondering if there is a link to the video on CSPAN?http://www.youtube.com/socoolbobP.S. Looks like the IMPACT of this thing is already QUITE DRAMATIC?http://www.blackenterprise.com/yb/ybopen.a...blackenterpriseLooks like a portion of this conversation is going to be comfortably in the hands of lawyers ... doesn't matter who wins ... once again, they get all the money. Constitutional Question? What's the "percentage" in that if the value of your business can go downs billions .. in a day? 'Cause they passed a law saying "maybe" your business is "illegal" ... You know ... Your Favorite TV Show ... Is Illegal ... No ... Not the War In Iraq ... The Poker Show

[The Mole 0]

Hey Everyone, Im new to this Forum but wanted to add something here. I am with www.HoldemRadio.com and we just completed an interview with Professor Nelson Rose last week so if you want to learn a little more about his opinions, check it out!! It is pod-casted and available to listen to anytime!!!

[SoCooLBob 0]

I've listened to this podcast and it's EXCELLENT !!!I don't know how it would be possible to say Party Poker is "overreacting" ... when the stock market in Britain just reduced the value of their shares BILLIONS ... BILLIONS ... on account of One Guy who has NO CHANCE OF BEING PRESIDENTNONE >>>> ZERO >>>>> ZIP >>>>> ALL - IN The overreaction seems to be the timing of things, what the law actually says, as though ANYBODY has had a chance to actually READ IT ... including the people who VOTED FOR IT I pray to God nobody thinks we need a war in the USHeart Doctor ... Criminal Legislator wants to be PresidentSuck My Graphic - You Couldn't Possibly Make This Stuff Up Listen To The Jingle, The Rumble And The Roar