Discuss: Online Gambling Prohibition News

*Last edited by Xianti on Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 6:26pm; edited 2 times in total*

Links to news articles go here:
http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/forum/poker-44325.htm

Discuss the new developments in this topic.

Heres some quotes from Sen. Frist, the person who wants to be President in 2008:

Before the voting, Frist claimed: “Gambling is a serious addiction that undermines the family, dashes dreams, and frays the fabric of society. Congress has grappled with this issue for 10 years, and during that time we’ve watched this shadow industry explode.

“For me as majority leader, the bottom line is simple: Internet gambling is illegal. Although we can’t monitor every online gambler or regulate offshore gambling, we can police the financial institutions that disregard our laws.”

edit: By the way, this really sucks, and I think the bill really has some teeth. I'm a nit and am being cautious about playing/withdraw/deposit after the bill is signed into law. However, it will be interesting to see what the big companies (neteller, party, PokerStars) come out with on Monday.

Im also wondering what this does as far as claiming internet poker for taxes.

that quote is obscene. It just shows how hypocritcal these douchbags are for craving out horse-race betting and even putting out those sorry ass scratcher lotto tickets, which have broken more people than playing some cards.

And if George W's reign of stupidity is followed up by this douchebag sneaking his way into Pres. in 2008, i'll be heading north or south of the border quick. Hell, even Red China is looking better than this shit.

the big companies all going to have statements monday, woopdee fricken do

too little too late

yah, seriously, if we elect another idjit, Im seriously making plans on living somewhere else. This country is starting to make me sick.

The problem is not the President.

Congress / Senate = the problem

there are compelling moral reasons to want gambling banned

Where the problem lies is in the hypocrisy, not in the desire to ban gambling.

frist was the ring leader, hes trying to make a run for pres in 08, if he gets elected, I dont intend to stay here. What dont you understand?

Hello Carl,

Thank you for your email.

We appreciate and share your concerns about the bill which passed in
the US Congress today regarding the funding of internet gaming, as an
attachment to a Port Security bill.

PokerStars' management and legal team are examining the bill at this
time. Until we understand the potential impact of the bill, we cannot
comment on how it will impact our players or PokerStars. Please note
that the bill includes a 270-day window for enforcement procedures to
be established, so we do not expect to see any immediate changes in
the ability to transfer funds to and from PokerStars.

Also please remember that your money is safe on PokerStars. All
player funds are in a segregated account at the Royal Bank of Scotland.

As always, we thank you for playing on PokerStars.

Regards,

VeronicaC
-------

Meh, wasn't a very good response but I can't wait to see what they plan on releasing to the public...

Renton, I disagree.

I think the idealogical problem does indeed have to do with wanting gambling banned in the first place, I am not as conerned with politicans being hypocritical as I am with sickening political ideas of the American voting majority.

What is sickening about regulating a degenerate person's ability to throw his life away?

you're probably right, let's ban alcohol, who's with me!

now that i think about it, all you non-christians are just throwing your lives away by not loving jesus b/c you're going to hell. love jesus or else you're banned motherfuckers!

just pm your br and then ill deposit for you. gg senate amirite...?

VQC -- I'm surprised ten people voted nay on this bill. The bill was for PORT SECURITY, banning online gambling was just added onto it. When it comes time to be re-elected nobody wants to be the candidate that voted nay on securing our ports, nobody wants to look weak on terrorism now-a-days.

Renton, it is okay to use the government as a public conglomerate to HELP someone, but it is not okay to help someone by outright restriction.

Well, if I can be optimistic for a moment...

There are various interests which do not like this bill. Obviously American poker players, ESPN, American Banks, WTO.

These organizations can put atleast some amount of pressure on politicans...

If there was another bill proposed to strike the anti gambling sections from the Port Security bill, in a democractic House and Senate, could it pass?

I believe the most major issue is that... under the World Trade Agreement the US cannot limit foriegn companies from competing in markets the US competes in domestically, therefore the US cannot legally stop buisness from being conducted between citizens and foreign poker corporations.

Secondly, the Banks do not want to have to regulate transactions as it adds increased cost, as well as a small hit from poker players switching to foriegn banks.

So if the democrats gain control, is there realistically any chance this is nullified in favor of some form of regulation?

I don't quite see those as equal, but I understand and agree with youre point.

I'd just like to point out driving restrictions are created because US road systems are 99% funded by taxes, and most driving restrictions are there to protect average family from getting blown up by drunk driver.

Drunk driving laws are to protect the uninvolved parties, where as drug laws, seat belt laws, poker laws are there to protect the directly involved parties wether they consent or not to the protection.

Just for discussion -

Are FTR members planning on quitting online poker because of this?

Let's assume you will need a foreign bank account... are you all going to go through the trouble of getting around the law to play poker without most of the fish from the US?

The government should not save anyone from any personal choice. Freedom should mean just that, which includes freedom for self-destruction. I can see the need to ban using credit cards as this puts the creditors money on the line. Come on driving a fucking car or smoking cigerettes is more dangerous than gambling, but they aren't jumping to outright ban these things, nor should they. The group is not supposed to control the individual for fuck sake.

Why should the government ban credit cards to help creditors?

Creditors can control their own credit.

well that's fine too, i'm only looking at the little shred of reason to ban anything here. I guess that credit card compaines should police themsleves.

There really is no logical explanation for laws like this. If someone wants to gamble and maybe make a lot of money, or go broke ruin their credit and lives they should be able to. If people want to do lines of coke off each other or put a gun in their own mouth and pull the trigger that is their choice. I hate the fact that it's come down to certain so called higher up people telling others what they can or cannot do with their time while they're alive.

Isnt it interesting how certain politicians claim to want less government and entrust individuals with more freedom, and then do something like this?

The truth of the matter is that it has nothing to do with moral issues or personal freedoms, it has everything to do with government bowing down to their corporate masters.

And yes, both gops and dems are the tools of industry, although historically gops are more typically the tools. Note that when the corporations are not U.S. based, then they do what they can to drop the hammer on the industry, using the impossible-to-argue-against scapegoat excuse: "moral issues."

i think there's a difference between prohibiting things that can only possibly cause harm, and things which only cause harm if you abuse it.

you can't possibly drive without a seatbelt and be as safe as you would be with it, and its reasonably easy to wear.

drugs are debatable i guess, but i think the idea is you can't do drugs without harming yourself significantly, and i agree.

you can most certainly drink alcohol and gamble without hurting yourself in any way.

personal responsibility, not government intervention. Frist is a fascist? Well yes, but ultimately is just a tool.

And thenonsequitur is right, it is probably more a motivation to get votes from people who need to be told what their moral concerns are.

WWIII will be over online poker.

Just wait.

dude if they baned internet poker that wo udl eb so cuncol

Frist is counting on the moral community to win him an election. He is trying to get every Christian in this country to vote for him for Pres. The election becomes an easy win when he tells every Christian that he stopped the Gambling Sinners and that your House is safe from your mouse... No offense intended, but I personally do not believe in religion or sin. To me relgion is crowd control on a massive scale, I mean how to keep 1,000's of people under control? You tell them that if they are bad they will go to the bad place...

My take on this bill is that it allows the government to go after all online gambling operators, not just the sportsbooks. If they come to this country they will be arrested. It will not make it any more illegal to play than it is now. They are also trying to keep it completely offshore by not allowing US based servers to host. They are going to make it harder to make deposits(CC, EFTs, etc), but what happens when you go to deposit? You are given 20 options, they will just add more to get around this bill. I think the average fish will just choose an option and go. They cannot make ISP's block sites, as to my knowledge this will not stand up in court(1st amendment rights).

PS: Sorry about my religous rant

It will not be illegal to make a deposit at a poker site, it will be illegal for them to accept it. This bill does not attack the player directly. If playing online is legal now, which is debatable, it will be legal after this bill is signed.

The U.S. government doesnt have enough money to stop online poker. It has become a worldwide phenomenon and it's only going to increase in popularity.

NO by them I mean the Gambling institutions. It is stated that the financial institutions cannot be held liable.

For Example: You deposit $100 at Party, when Party accepts this they will be breaking US law, not you.

The catch is that they will be allowed to do this under WTO jurusdiction, which basically states that any government cannot prevent international Commerce amongst its citizens as long as the business is legitimate according to the WTO.

you're right the nonsequitur. what i have been talking about is what the bill CAN do, not what it WILL do, which won't be known for a long time.

Jager, the bill talks extensively about blocking electronic fund transfers from financial institutions and intermediary financial institutions. It seems as though it will be very difficult for the gov't to actually shut us out from all of our options, but it is possible. The biggest threat is not us losing all of our ability to cash money out. It is that we lose easy methods to deposit money, which would stop fish from playing.

What it means when it says "financial institutions cannot be held liable" is that if bank of america doesn't accept an EFT from neteller because it reasonably believes it came from gambling, you can't do shit.

Poker Forum

Join Our Poker Community!

Poker Forum Index

Poker Etcetera

Discuss: Online Gambling Prohibition News

Poker Forum Index

Poker Etcetera

Discuss: Online Gambling Prohibition News