Why a Carveout for Poker Can't and Won't Work
Will in New Haven
made, to convince people that poker either is not gambling or that it
is gambling on a game of skill and therefore should not be treated the
same as roullette or slot machines. Obviously, there is some truth to
the latter argument. Long-term, a poker player will often have results
_close to_ what his or her skill might indicate is likely. Leaving
aside the silliness of arguing that plus EV gambling isn't gambling,
there is a major flaw in this approach.
The nanny-staters and family-valuers don't care whether poker is a
game of skill. Not only that, there is no reason for them to care. The
exceptions made in state and local legislatures for games of skill
have always been made for one reason: Those games, bridge, chess and
backgammon primarily, have small handles. They don't move large
amoounts of money around. Poker has a huge handle. Large amounts of
money change hands. This is not going to go unnoticed.
>From the POV of the do-gooders, the punter at, say, roullette has to
be protected from the evil casino. He is giving up a huge edge and the
do-gooders do not buy the argument that he _deserves_ to lose his
money because he is doing something stupid. they want to protect him.
The bad poker player (all the arguments for poker forget about _him_)
is in the same situation as the punter at roullette. In fact, facing
the edge that the good players have _plus_ the rake or time charge, he
is in worse shape than the slots player. What good is it doing him
that it is a game of skill when he does not or, more likely, will not
exercise skill. The do-gooders don't care that he is foolish to be
playing. They don't even care that he, or most of his ilk, could
improve and that people playing the slots or roullette cannot improve.
For them, it is the same situation. They have to protect the victim.
The fact that skillful players prey on the unskilled does not make the
game more attractive to them. They do not think that skilled players
somehow deserve an advantage.
The do-gooders need allies and the contol-freaks are their allies,
when they aren't the same person. Internet gambling, unlike some guys
playing chess for money, is too big to ignore. The handle on internet
gambling and on internet poker as well is too big and it is not going
to benefit the state and its causes. They don't care if it IS a game
of skill. Not only that, but most of these people think of the
_winning_ poker players as a waste, since they produce nothing, employ
nobody and give nothing back to society. Not paying taxes is also an
issue.
There are plenty of arguments for allowing gambling but the ones that
try to exceptionalize poker don't cut any ice with these people
because they don't address their concerns. There are some great
arguments for poker. For instance, it provides an opportunity to learn
and grow and get better at something. Even for people who never learn
to play well, it gives them a _game_ for their money, something to do,
decisions to make. However, none of that addresses the do-gooders or
the control-freaks. Poker is going to stand or fall with the rest of
internet gambling.
Will in New Haven
--
"Suckers got no business with their money" - Titanic Thompson
risky biz
You are a confused person. First of all, your description of the
intentions of "nanny-staters" and "family-valuers" having the same
objective is spurious.
The guiding spirit behind the UIGEA was the religious right operating
through the Republican Party. The fact that the same Republican operatives
have also taken money from other, better established gambling venues is
just a sideshow. Online gambling was the weak player in gambling that
could be easily employed as the victim for the Republican Party to cement
it's relationship with the biblethumpers.
Where are the "nanny-staters" in all this? They didn't even know what was
going on, assuming that you're referring to "liberals" or the Democratic
Party. "Nanny-staters", as you like to term it, don't outlaw activities,
they regulate them. The "huge handle" in poker that you describe would be
a reason for "nanny-staters" to want to regulate and tax poker, not kill
it.
I assume that your later transition to the "do gooders" and "control
freaks" categories is a variation on "nanny-staters" and "family-valuers"
but your statement that "The handle on internet gambling and on internet
poker as well is too big and it is not going to benefit the state and its
causes" still doesn't make any sense. The "do gooders" are obvious but who
are the "control freaks" who are part of the campaign to outlaw online
poker? Please identify them.
The problem is not that there's some kind of implausible alliance between
your categories that has killed online poker. The problem is that online
poker simply doesn't have enough supporters. For that reason it will be
very difficult to reverse the fait accompli that was rammed through by the
Republicans at the behest of a small social minority and a few economic
special interests.
Why, really, should the Democrats, or "liberals" in general, spearhead
something like that when people like you probably hate them anyway, as
evidenced by your comments? You even go to the extent of proposing a
conspiracy theory between them and their worst enemies.
____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> You are a confused person. First of all, your description of the
> intentions of "nanny-staters" and "family-valuers" having the same
> objective is spurious.
I guess you're not going to let the fact that he didn't attribute any
objective to both groups get in the way of pompous rant based on nothing
but a false premise.
____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> On May 10 2007 10:41 AM, risky biz wrote:
>
>
>
> > You are a confused person. First of all, your description of the
> > intentions of "nanny-staters" and "family-valuers" having the same
> > objective is spurious.
>
> I guess you're not going to let the fact that he didn't attribute any
> objective to both groups get in the way of pompous rant based on nothing
> but a false premise.
He is also ignoring the fact that I wasn't terribly _interested_ in
the political identities of the people who have to be convinced, and
won't be convinced. I was discussing the tactical mistake that many
poker supporters are making. He just thought I said something bad
about the Democrats and he had to defend them. Twooly, he is a nappy-
headed ho.'
Will in New Haven
--
>
JohnnyT
There needs to be a carve out for person to person wagering with a house
rake.
And you simply have regulations about how money is kept, handled,
received, remitted, and taxed.
It doesn't really matter if it is chess, coin flipping, NFL betting,
horse racing, or even poker.
Odds are not set by the house. Play is not against the house.
It is person to person play, the only thing that the house can do is
charge a rake. They compete on Rake, Services, Quality, Number of
Players etc.
It can be for play money, real money, or coupons. Just regulated
differently than house games.
Will in New Haven
This is possibly the right solution. However, it would take poker
spokespeople who would be able to resist the temptation to posture
about how superior they are to well, gamblers.
risky biz
What they definitely don't want to do is appoint you as a spokesperson.
_____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Will in New Haven
> On May 10 2007 10:48 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 10, 12:22 pm, JohnnyT <n...@home.com> wrote:
> > > I think it can... But it is focused incorrectly...
>
> > > There needs to be a carve out for person to person wagering with a house
> > > rake.
>
> > > And you simply have regulations about how money is kept, handled,
> > > received, remitted, and taxed.
>
> > > It doesn't really matter if it is chess, coin flipping, NFL betting,
> > > horse racing, or even poker.
>
> > > Odds are not set by the house. Play is not against the house.
>
> > > It is person to person play, the only thing that the house can do is
> > > charge a rake. They compete on Rake, Services, Quality, Number of
> > > Players etc.
>
> > > It can be for play money, real money, or coupons. Just regulated
> > > differently than house games.
>
> > This is possibly the right solution. However, it would take poker
> > spokespeople who would be able to resist the temptation to posture
> > about how superior they are to well, gamblers.
>
> > Will in New Haven
>
> What they definitely don't want to do is appoint you as a spokesperson.
I never asked to be spokesperson. I pointed out why the current tactic
doesn't seem to be getting there. You took that as an opportunity to
make a political speech. Now you take the opportunity to say nothing
in a briefer manner. Well, that's progress.
Will in New Haven
--
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
risky biz
Is your definition of political speech the act of pointing out that you're
personally confused?
> Now you take the opportunity to say nothing
> in a briefer manner. Well, that's progress.
_______________________________________________________________________
Will in New Haven
I'm not confused about anything. Disagreeing with you does not equal
confusiion.My original post was correct. There is no point in trying
to convince anyone in congress that poker is a game of skill. None of
the supporters of the ban care about that. While it might make some
people happy to claim that poker isn't gambling, those who want to
protect people from themselves note, correctly, that losing poker
players are in the same need of protection as losing roullette
players. The fact that some people can win at the game does not stop
the do-gooders, of every political affiliation, from wanting to
protect them.
Instead of addrssing this, you had to express your distress at my use
of the terms do-gooders and control-freaks for our beloved ruling
class.
Will in New Haven
--
>
> > Now you take the opportunity to say nothing
> > in a briefer manner. Well, that's progress.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders :http://www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted text -
risky biz
The basis of your comment was false. Where were the "nanny-staters" who
were involved in the insertion of the UIGEA into a port security bill?
Point them out. They must be different than the "family-valuers" or you
wouldn't have used two categories originally, which you are now trying to
merge so you can be right anyway.
It was the UIGEA that has caused all the current problems for online poker
players, in case you forgot.
And it was "family-valuers" and "do-gooders" who were foursquare behind it.
You're also confused about the significance of the "huge poker rake". Why
wouldn't the "nanny state" that you describe want to tax it?
The FTP poker bots discussion in another thread might lead a rational
person to conclude that a regulated game is better than what is available
now.
______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Will in New Haven
And it passed without a great deal of Democratic opposition. The
IMPETUS of the thing came from the Republicans but the Dems have very
little chane of opposing something that is supposed to protect people.
Barney Frank, who is an admirable guy, cannot seem to convince anyone
in his party that letting people mind their own business is a possible
course of action.
>
> And it was "family-valuers" and "do-gooders" who were foursquare behind it.
And those Democrats who overwhelmingly voted for it were innocent
victims.
>
> You're also confused about the significance of the "huge poker rake". Why
> wouldn't the "nanny state" that you describe want to tax it?
They would. However, the setup as it stands would be very difficult
for them to tax.
>
> The FTP poker bots discussion in another thread might lead a rational
> person to conclude that a regulated game is better than what is available
> now.
It might be. I was addrssing the people who want a return to being
able to play the way they were able to before and pointing out that
the most common tactic, the "we aren't gambling" tactic, is counter-
porductive. You want to make it a partisan issue and look for Democrat-
bashing under every rock.
Will in New Haven
--
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted text -
risky biz
Jesus, get off it. Anyone here who doesn't have their head up their ass
knows the machinations involved in sneaking that into a port security bill
that the Democrats would have been excoriated for voting against.
Democrats had no chance to even know it was in there until the day of the
vote. The UIGEA is 110% Republican.
> > You're also confused about the significance of the "huge poker rake". Why
> > wouldn't the "nanny state" that you describe want to tax it?
>
> They would. However, the setup as it stands would be very difficult
> for them to tax.
It wouldn't be at all difficult to tax and regulate. No more so than any
other business.
> > The FTP poker bots discussion in another thread might lead a rational
> > person to conclude that a regulated game is better than what is available
> > now.
>
> It might be. I was addrssing the people who want a return to being
> able to play the way they were able to before and pointing out that
> the most common tactic, the "we aren't gambling" tactic, is counter-
> porductive. You want to make it a partisan issue and look for Democrat-
> bashing under every rock.
Poker is a game of skill. The fact that a person can improve, which you
yourself stated, is adequate proof of that. Is football gambling? There is
a huge amount of uncertainty in everything done on a football field.
Football isn't banned. The best players rise to the top and reap economic
rewards with no complaints. It is a spectator sport just as poker has
become.
So, why exactly is it "counterproductive" to point that out?
I don't have to look under a rock to see Democrat bashing. All I have to
do is read your comments above. You can bash the Democrats all you want
with no complaints from me. With one provision- they have to make sense
and be based on some facts. I could give you a Democrat-bashing list a
mile long that is based on facts.
Do me a favor though and don't fabricate some silly story about the
"liberals" being in an unholy alliance with the biblethumpers to kill
online poker.
________________________________________________________________________
Will in New Haven
Of course, poker is a game of skill. However, that is not relevant to
the law in question. Football _gambling_ also involves skill. All one
has to do is pick winners better than the public does by enough of a
margin to overcome the vig. However, the vig makes it almost
impossible to beat. Arguing about the superiority of poker as a game
of skill is counter-productive. As you pointed out, internet poker
players aren't numerous enough. They need allies and the only allies
they are going to get are other internet gamblers.
>
> So, why exactly is it "counterproductive" to point that out?
Because it isolates the poker players from the other gamblers. All of
them have to cooperate if they want that law repealed.
>
> I don't have to look under a rock to see Democrat bashing. All I have to
> do is read your comments above. You can bash the Democrats all you want
> with no complaints from me. With one provision- they have to make sense
> and be based on some facts. I could give you a Democrat-bashing list a
> mile long that is based on facts.
>
> Do me a favor though and don't fabricate some silly story about the
> "liberals" being in an unholy alliance with the biblethumpers to kill
> online poker.
When the bill was passed, I didn't see any Democrats opposing it.
People who contacted their Democratic congressmen got the usual crap
about protecting the public from itself. I don't think that the
Democrats would have passed this bill on their own but I also think
that they would find opposing it difficult.
Will in New Haven
--
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders :http://www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted text -
Edward
> - Show quoted text -
If you knew what the fuck you were talking about - some might even
conclude that you were smart. But since you haven't got a clue, we'll
just excuse you for being a stupid fuck.
risky biz
You neatly avoided this part of my post.
> > > > You're also confused about the significance of the "huge poker rake".
Why
> > > > wouldn't the "nanny state" that you describe want to tax it?
> >
> > > They would. However, the setup as it stands would be very difficult
> > > for them to tax.
> >
> > It wouldn't be at all difficult to tax and regulate. No more so than any
> > other business.
> >
> > > > The FTP poker bots discussion in another thread might lead a rational
> > > > person to conclude that a regulated game is better than what is
available
> > > > now.
> >
> > > It might be. I was addrssing the people who want a return to being
> > > able to play the way they were able to before and pointing out that
> > > the most common tactic, the "we aren't gambling" tactic, is counter-
> > > porductive. You want to make it a partisan issue and look for Democrat-
> > > bashing under every rock.
> >
> > Poker is a game of skill. The fact that a person can improve, which you
> > yourself stated, is adequate proof of that. Is football gambling? There is
> > a huge amount of uncertainty in everything done on a football field.
> > Football isn't banned. The best players rise to the top and reap economic
> > rewards with no complaints. It is a spectator sport just as poker has
> > become.
>
> Of course, poker is a game of skill. However, that is not relevant to
> the law in question. Football _gambling_ also involves skill.
I didn't say anything at all about gambling on football. I pointed out
that the game itself is full of uncertainty and those who are better at it
receive the rewards. But the game of football is not considered gambling
even though it has these very strong similarities to poker in addition to
the spectator sport aspect.
> All one
> has to do is pick winners better than the public does by enough of a
> margin to overcome the vig. However, the vig makes it almost
> impossible to beat. Arguing about the superiority of poker as a game
> of skill is counter-productive. As you pointed out, internet poker
> players aren't numerous enough. They need allies and the only allies
> they are going to get are other internet gamblers.
>
> >
> > So, why exactly is it "counterproductive" to point that out?
>
> Because it isolates the poker players from the other gamblers. All of
> them have to cooperate if they want that law repealed.
Which would help the uniformed come to the false conclusion that poker is
pure chance just like internet roulette wheels. Great strategy.
> > I don't have to look under a rock to see Democrat bashing. All I have to
> > do is read your comments above. You can bash the Democrats all you want
> > with no complaints from me. With one provision- they have to make sense
> > and be based on some facts. I could give you a Democrat-bashing list a
> > mile long that is based on facts.
> >
> > Do me a favor though and don't fabricate some silly story about the
> > "liberals" being in an unholy alliance with the biblethumpers to kill
> > online poker.
>
> When the bill was passed, I didn't see any Democrats opposing it.
See above. You can repeat this ad infinitum but it's completely phony. The
UIGEA is 110% Republican.
> People who contacted their Democratic congressmen got the usual crap
> about protecting the public from itself. I don't think that the
> Democrats would have passed this bill on their own but I also think
> that they would find opposing it difficult.
>
> Will in New Haven
"People who contacted" has a strong similarity to Fox News' "some people
say".
The real problem, as I have pointed out several times here, is that
supporters of online poker don't have nearly the clout of the
biblethumpers. So, the Democrats are going to cover their asses rather
than get out front on behalf of a tiny special interest, online poker
players, that generally wouldn't give a damn about them otherwise. That's
a far cry from pretending they're in bed with the biblethumpers and
convening joint strategy sessions to kill online poker.
____________________________________________________________________
risky biz
Uh, yeah . . . OK, genius. Whatever the fuck you're talking about.
--------
Old Wolf
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> The nanny-staters and family-valuers don't care whether poker is a
> game of skill. Not only that, there is no reason for them to care.
To answer risky-biz's objection without bothering to make another
post: the nanny-staters think they know better than you what's
good for you. In this case, they think you can't be trusted to
manage your own money so they will try to pass laws to stop
you spending it all.
This has nothing to do with "true" family values. However, the
nanny-staters (aka. socialists) often try to pass off their policies
as 'family values'. We've had a couple of decades or more now of
socialism being implemented by stealth under the guise of family
values. For example, in this case. "Gambling destroys families.
So by controlling your gambling we are helping families."
> Not only that, but most of these people think of the _winning_
> poker players as a waste, since they produce nothing, employ
> nobody and give nothing back to society.
Spending money is an important form of giving back to society.
That money is all going to end up in the pockets of people who
are making something to sell -- quite likely something in their
home country, too -- and there'll be another tax take on those
transactions.
Even putting money in a nationally-owned bank (I mean, not a
foreign bank) is good for the country.
Social welfare, although bad, isn't as dreadful as it looks at first,
because the people you give free money to, quickly donate it
back to you in the form of cigarette & alcohol taxes, and so forth.
risky biz
> On May 11, 2:15 am, Will in New Haven
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > The nanny-staters and family-valuers don't care whether poker is a
> > game of skill. Not only that, there is no reason for them to care.
>
> To answer risky-biz's objection without bothering to make another
> post: the nanny-staters think they know better than you what's
> good for you. In this case, they think you can't be trusted to
> manage your own money so they will try to pass laws to stop
> you spending it all.
>
> This has nothing to do with "true" family values. However, the
> nanny-staters (aka. socialists) often try to pass off their policies
> as 'family values'. We've had a couple of decades or more now of
> socialism being implemented by stealth under the guise of family
> values. For example, in this case. "Gambling destroys families.
> So by controlling your gambling we are helping families."
You wouldn't mind referenceing who those quotes are from, would you?
Would you?
Will in New Haven
The difference is that the players don't put up the money. So know one
is going to call it gambling. Of course, playing football is gambling
in a sense. It involves risking your well-being and, on a less
dramatic level, tons of time that you could be using for other
purposes in order to further a football career. However, there is no
real analogy.
>
> > All one
> > has to do is pick winners better than the public does by enough of a
> > margin to overcome the vig. However, the vig makes it almost
> > impossible to beat. Arguing about the superiority of poker as a game
> > of skill is counter-productive. As you pointed out, internet poker
> > players aren't numerous enough. They need allies and the only allies
> > they are going to get are other internet gamblers.
>
> > > So, why exactly is it "counterproductive" to point that out?
>
> > Because it isolates the poker players from the other gamblers. All of
> > them have to cooperate if they want that law repealed.
>
> Which would help the uniformed come to the false conclusion that poker is
> pure chance just like internet roulette wheels. Great strategy.
Proving that it is NOT pure chance won't help. As you pointed out,
there aren't enough internet poker players to make any real
difference. We need the roullette players. You want to prove how much
better we are than they are. Great strategy. It will make you feel
better but it won't help with the goal of restoring internet poker in
this country. One way to do that is to get the legality of all
internet gambling acknowledged and the ban on funding all internet
gambling accounts lifted. Poker cannot make itself exceptional enough
to go it alone.
> > > I don't have to look under a rock to see Democrat bashing. All I have to
> > > do is read your comments above. You can bash the Democrats all you want
> > > with no complaints from me. With one provision- they have to make sense
> > > and be based on some facts. I could give you a Democrat-bashing list a
> > > mile long that is based on facts.
>
> > > Do me a favor though and don't fabricate some silly story about the
> > > "liberals" being in an unholy alliance with the biblethumpers to kill
> > > online poker.
>
> > When the bill was passed, I didn't see any Democrats opposing it.
>
> See above. You can repeat this ad infinitum but it's completely phony. The
> UIGEA is 110% Republican.
Who voted for it; it is public knowledge.
> > People who contacted their Democratic congressmen got the usual crap
> > about protecting the public from itself. I don't think that the
> > Democrats would have passed this bill on their own but I also think
> > that they would find opposing it difficult.
>
>
> "People who contacted" has a strong similarity to Fox News' "some people
> say".
OK, asshole. I called my senators and my congress-thing and both of
them pledged to protect the victims of internet gambling. Well, only
Dodd actually talked to me but the staffers of the other two claimed
that they were staunch supporters of the ban. You can disown Lieberman
but Dodd and De Lauro are Democrats.
>
> The real problem, as I have pointed out several times here, is that
> supporters of online poker don't have nearly the clout of the
> biblethumpers. So, the Democrats are going to cover their asses rather
> than get out front on behalf of a tiny special interest, online poker
> players, that generally wouldn't give a damn about them otherwise. That's
> a far cry from pretending they're in bed with the biblethumpers and
> convening joint strategy sessions to kill online poker.
They don't have to be in bed with them. Their behavior is objectively
the same as if they were. I don't blame them; poker players are a very
small constituency and they are busy trying to prove how much better
they are then their allies. Now I don't think much of roullette
players either but I also don't have much stake in restoring internet
poker. The people who do, or claim to, are barking up the wrong tree.
Which is the whole point, not your hysterical defense of one political
party.
Will in New Haven
--
"I have seen the David, seen the Mona Lisa too
And I have heard Doc Watson play Columbus Stockade Blues"
Guy Clark - "Dublin Blues"
San Te of the 36 Chambers
Most people realize that sports handicapping and horse handicapping also
require skill. It isn't the skill vs. luck element that raises the moral
objections. It's the wagering aspect. Trying to tackle the morality of
wagering head-on is still a losing battle.
If you look at the history of gambling legislation in the US, you will see
it has always been a pendulum swinging back and forth. However, one
constant has been widespread contempt for the professional gambler. Hell,
even I have contempt for professional gamblers.
If you want online poker to return, I think you have to convince people
that it is mostly for fun and that people aren't getting hurt. But of
course, neither of those two things are true. So I think the only
recourse left is to evoke the constitution and attack the authority of
those who try and keep two people from betting against each other.
------
A Man Beaten by Jacks
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>On May 10, 3:39 pm, "risky biz" <risky-...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> And it was "family-valuers" and "do-gooders" who were foursquare behind it.
>And those Democrats who overwhelmingly voted for it were innocent
>victims.
It is neither Democrat nor Republican to be for the UIGEA and similar bills.
The core of opposition to it is libertarian in nature, which cuts across
parties. That's why you find two of the people most critical of the bill are
a very liberal Democrat (Barney Frank) and a very conservative Republican
(Ron Paul), though of course, the Republican is really a Libertarian who
just happens to have an (R) by his name.
risky biz
> > On May 10, 6:53 pm, "risky biz" <risky-...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > Of course, poker is a game of skill. However, that is not relevant to
> > > the law in question. Football _gambling_ also involves skill.
> >
> > I didn't say anything at all about gambling on football. I pointed out
> > that the game itself is full of uncertainty and those who are better at it
> > receive the rewards. But the game of football is not considered gambling
> > even though it has these very strong similarities to poker in addition to
> > the spectator sport aspect.
>
> The difference is that the players don't put up the money. So know one
> is going to call it gambling. Of course, playing football is gambling
> in a sense. It involves risking your well-being and, on a less
> dramatic level, tons of time that you could be using for other
> purposes in order to further a football career. However, there is no
> real analogy.
So, you take both sides but not really?
> > See above. You can repeat this ad infinitum but it's completely phony. The
> > UIGEA is 110% Republican.
>
> Who voted for it; it is public knowledge.
Jesus, get off it. Anyone here who doesn't have their head up their ass
knows the machinations involved in sneaking that into a port security bill
that the Democrats would have been excoriated for voting against.
Democrats had no chance to even know it was in there until the day of the
vote. The UIGEA is 110% Republican.
_____________________________________________________________________
risky biz
Sooner or later someone is going to have to admit that the UIGEA is 110%
Republican. If it hadn't been for the Republican Party there would be no
UIGEA. Can anyone imagine the Democrats cramming a UIGEA into an unrelated
bill to please the Pat Robertsons of the world?
---
OrangeSFO
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> When the bill was passed, I didn't see any Democrats opposing it.
Because they would have had to go on record voting against a port
security bill
Who's going to do that in the Age of Sacred Terror? Nobody...and
that's what REPUBLICAN Bill Frist was counting on when he cravenly
exploited a measure directly related to protecting American life with
this wet kiss for his corporate owners.
Old Wolf
> On May 10 2007 4:42 PM, Old Wolf wrote:
>
> > This has nothing to do with "true" family values. However, the
> > nanny-staters (aka. socialists) often try to pass off their policies
> > as 'family values'. We've had a couple of decades or more now of
> > socialism being implemented by stealth under the guise of family
> > values. For example, in this case. "Gambling destroys families.
> > So by controlling your gambling we are helping families."
>
> You wouldn't mind referenceing who those quotes are from, would you?
>
> Would you?
This isn't an actual quote of reported speech; I'm indicating
the sort of thing that these people would say, it is a similar
use of quote marks as in "true" earlier in my paragraph.
risky biz
Isn't that accurately called "fabrication"?
_______________________________________________________________________
Will in New Haven
Oh, the poor Dems. They were VICTIMIZED by a very common legislative
tactic. Poor babies, like they had never seen this before and there
are no ways to get around it. No one tried to cut it out of the port
security bill. No one vocally opposed it. Dodd, Lieberman and De Lauro
were vocally in support of protecting American citizens from gambling
interests.
On the other hand, that isn't the issue. The issue is how to fight it.
It has to be fought by making sure that online gambling stays legal
and the funding ban gets lifted. Differentiating poker from other
gambling won't work. As Biz himself pointed out, when he wasn't
hysterically defending the Democrats, there aren't ENOUGH poker
players to do the job.
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> On May 10 2007 9:23 PM, Old Wolf wrote:
>
> > On May 11, 12:09 pm, "risky biz" <risky-...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > On May 10 2007 4:42 PM, Old Wolf wrote:
> > >
> > > > This has nothing to do with "true" family values. However, the
> > > > nanny-staters (aka. socialists) often try to pass off their policies
> > > > as 'family values'. We've had a couple of decades or more now of
> > > > socialism being implemented by stealth under the guise of family
> > > > values. For example, in this case. "Gambling destroys families.
> > > > So by controlling your gambling we are helping families."
> > >
> > > You wouldn't mind referenceing who those quotes are from, would you?
> > >
> > > Would you?
> >
> > This isn't an actual quote of reported speech; I'm indicating
> > the sort of thing that these people would say, it is a similar
> > use of quote marks as in "true" earlier in my paragraph.
>
> Isn't that accurately called "fabrication"?
Not by anyone with an above-room-temperature I.Q.
-------
bo dark
-Jesus, get off it.
is this the same risky biz who worried about some black girls being
offended racially offending people religiously?
risky biz
> On May 10, 10:51 pm, OrangeSFO <intangible...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 10, 12:50 pm, Will in New Haven
> >
> > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > > When the bill was passed, I didn't see any Democrats opposing it.
> >
> > Because they would have had to go on record voting against a port
> > security bill
> >
> > Who's going to do that in the Age of Sacred Terror? Nobody...and
> > that's what REPUBLICAN Bill Frist was counting on when he cravenly
> > exploited a measure directly related to protecting American life with
> > this wet kiss for his corporate owners.
>
> Oh, the poor Dems. They were VICTIMIZED by a very common legislative
> tactic. Poor babies, like they had never seen this before and there
> are no ways to get around it. No one tried to cut it out of the port
> security bill. No one vocally opposed it. Dodd, Lieberman and De Lauro
> were vocally in support of protecting American citizens from gambling
> interests.
Like Lieberman's even a Democrat. LOL. You are identical to
WuzzWhateverHeWas. You will never admit you're wrong no matter how obvious
it is. In fact, I've suspected for a while now that you are Wuzz.
Democrats never would have crammed the UIGEA into legislation in the
underhanded manner the Republicans did, to please the biblethumpers. Get
over it.
> On the other hand, that isn't the issue. The issue is how to fight it.
> It has to be fought by making sure that online gambling stays legal
> and the funding ban gets lifted. Differentiating poker from other
> gambling won't work. As Biz himself pointed out, when he wasn't
> hysterically defending the Democrats, there aren't ENOUGH poker
> players to do the job.
Did I finally say it enough times for it to start sinking in? And the only
reason that's relevant to anything is that the Republicans FUCKED online
poker players to please the Christian Crusaders.
Hysteria or plain, obvious facts?
"The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 was rammed through
Congress by the Republican leadership in the final minutes before the
election period recess. According to Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), no
one on the Senate-House Conference Committee had even seen the final
language of the bill. The Act is title VIII of a completely unrelated
bill, the Safe Port Act, HR 4954, dealing with port security."
© Copyright 2006, all rights reserved worldwide. Gambling and the Law® is
a registered trademark of Professor I Nelson Rose,
www.GamblingAndTheLaw.com.
______________________________________________________________________
risky biz
> -Jesus, get off it.
>
> is this the same risky biz who worried about some black girls being
> offended racially offending people religiously?
That's a lie. I have never intentionally offended anyone for simply being
religious.
----
bo dark
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> There is a great deal of effort being made, or at least noise being
> made, to convince people that poker either is not gambling or that it
> is gambling on a game of skill and therefore should not be treated the
> same as roullette or slot machines. Obviously, there is some truth to
> the latter argument. Long-term, a poker player will often have results
> _close to_ what his or her skill might indicate is likely. Leaving
> aside the silliness of arguing that plus EV gambling isn't gambling,
> there is a major flaw in this approach.
>
> The nanny-staters and family-valuers don't care whether poker is a
> exceptions made in state and local legislatures for games of skill
> have always been made for one reason: Those games, bridge, chess and
> backgammon primarily, have small handles. They don't move large
> amoounts of money around. Poker has a huge handle. Large amounts of
> money change hands. This is not going to go unnoticed.
>
> >From the POV of the do-gooders, the punter at, say, roullette has to
>
> be protected from the evil casino. He is giving up a huge edge and the
> do-gooders do not buy the argument that he _deserves_ to lose his
> money because he is doing something stupid. they want to protect him.
> The bad poker player (all the arguments for poker forget about _him_)
> is in the same situation as the punter at roullette. In fact, facing
> the edge that the good players have _plus_ the rake or time charge, he
> is in worse shape than the slots player. What good is it doing him
> that it is a game of skill when he does not or, more likely, will not
> exercise skill. The do-gooders don't care that he is foolish to be
> playing. They don't even care that he, or most of his ilk, could
> improve and that people playing the slots or roullette cannot improve.
> For them, it is the same situation. They have to protect the victim.
> The fact that skillful players prey on the unskilled does not make the
> game more attractive to them. They do not think that skilled players
> somehow deserve an advantage.
>
> The do-gooders need allies and the contol-freaks are their allies,
> when they aren't the same person. Internet gambling, unlike some guys
> playing chess for money, is too big to ignore. The handle on internet
> gambling and on internet poker as well is too big and it is not going
> to benefit the state and its causes. They don't care if it IS a game
> of skill. Not only that, but most of these people think of the
> _winning_ poker players as a waste, since they produce nothing, employ
> issue.
>
> There are plenty of arguments for allowing gambling but the ones that
> try to exceptionalize poker don't cut any ice with these people
> because they don't address their concerns. There are some great
> arguments for poker. For instance, it provides an opportunity to learn
> and grow and get better at something. Even for people who never learn
> to play well, it gives them a _game_ for their money, something to do,
> decisions to make. However, none of that addresses the do-gooders or
> the control-freaks. Poker is going to stand or fall with the rest of
> internet gambling.
>
> Will in New Haven
>
> --
>
i think what is going to have to happen is that online poker is going
to have to be equated with other mainstream ways of taking risks and
either winning or losing money.like the use of credit cards.like the
stock market,running up debt using credit cards etc.
tournament television poker has hurt online poker,and the image it
projects,one player telling another player to bust this motherfucker
when referring to a third on national television doesn't help.the
kentucky derby just took place,there were probably quite a few people
there just to experience it,and some to get drunk,but the main thing
that was played up was that the queen of england was there.
poker has no structure,don't think it could ever be structured,it can
be played anywhere by anybody,for money.poker has a public relations
problem,and televised poker,especially ESPN's version does nothing but
show the profane side of it,especially the side show freaks of the
WSOP.
the mansionpoker deal that was pretty good,it just showed poker,with
the winner of each round moving on and winning 25,000.i understand
perry friedman said they changed some rules or didn't make clear
something about how many times you could qualify,but that wasn't the
image of the event the viewing public saw.
when i was a kid some parents prohibited them from going into the
poolroom i went to.my dad had no problem with it,it was a game he
enjoyed,he also gambled playing a domino game.poolrooms had a
reputation for other things than pool being played,like kids learning
to smoke,and society's losers hanging out there.there was some truth
to it.
poker,at least the online part needs to distance itself from the josh
arieh(sp),matusows and hellmuths of the world,they only lend creedence
to the disinterested of the world ,that poker is for the morally
destitute.
Deadmoney Walking
>
> - Show quoted text -
Will's original point was right. They banned online poker the same
way as any other form of gambling on the internet. The mere fact that
money was changing hands amongst a lot of people is enough to warrant
the ire of the rulers. I assure you, if millions of dollars were
changing hands playing Connect Four, the gov't would step in to
protect us by banning it or strangling with regulations.
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> Like Lieberman's even a Democrat. LOL. You are identical to
> WuzzWhateverHeWas. You will never admit you're wrong no matter how obvious
> it is. In fact, I've suspected for a while now that you are Wuzz.
The irony is overwhelming.
WuzYoungOnceToo
> On May 11 2007 9:59 AM, bo dark wrote:
>
> > -Jesus, get off it.
> >
> > is this the same risky biz who worried about some black girls being
> > offended racially offending people religiously?
>
> That's a lie. I have never intentionally offended anyone for simply being
> religious.
Nice display of reading comprehension, Goober.
____________________________________________________________________
Brian
On May 11 2007 12:58 PM, risky biz wrote:
> On May 11 2007 9:59 AM, bo dark wrote:
>
> > -Jesus, get off it.
> >
> > is this the same risky biz who worried about some black girls being
> > offended racially offending people religiously?
>
> That's a lie. I have never intentionally offended anyone for simply being
> religious.
Did you "intentionally" drop a word into your reply that wasn't in the question,
thus changing the question?
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
kevin cline
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 3:01 pm, "risky biz" <risky-...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> people happy to claim that poker isn't gambling, those who want to
> protect people from themselves note, correctly, that losing poker
> players are in the same need of protection as losing roullette
> players. The fact that some people can win at the game does not stop
> the do-gooders, of every political affiliation, from wanting to
> protect them.
How come those people don't care to protect people from television
evangelists?
Maybe we should create a religion around poker playing. It seems
pretty obvious that the fall of the cards is controlled by God.
bo dark
it's the same with the lottery,when the state gets a cut,it's okay and
funds education,when benny binion does it it's wrong,because poor
people are taken in.i think many who would object to online poker
would also object to lotteries,so who is pulling the strings?,doesn't
sound like the do-gooders.
is online gambling a threat to the casino's?a city like las vegas?how
many people gamble for enjoyment?do they need to take in shows,stay in
a fancy hotel,eat in a nice restaurant?personally,i could play poker
online and never set foot in a casino,indian or otherwise.if i want
social interaction i can play in a home game or shoot a game of pool.
would a city whose economy is based on gambling worry about people
like me?would the advent of legal online gambling put a crimp in their
city.online gambling,does it have the same overhead costs of a B&M
casino.even though i'm sure many people go for the experience,how many
would not go if the could conveniently wager on sports from the
comfort of their home.
do flea markets and resale shops suffer because of EBAY?i could care
less about going to las vegas,maybe atlantic city,it seems to be about
gambling,not shows and celebrity watchers.i think the casino industry
is involved in keeping it illegal online.no pit
bosses,dealers,maids,food servers,taxi drivers,dime store
magicians,pawn shops,etc.
long term if all gambling were legal online i think places like las
vegas lose,i could be wrong.
risky biz
> Will's original point was right. They banned online poker the same
> way as any other form of gambling on the internet. The mere fact that
> money was changing hands amongst a lot of people is enough to warrant
> the ire of the rulers. I assure you, if millions of dollars were
> changing hands playing Connect Four, the gov't would step in to
> protect us by banning it or strangling with regulations.
The "government" doesn't like money changing hands? Makes me wonder how
the Department of Commerce survives.
Think biblethumpers and Republican Party and admit what everyone with a
brain knows- the UIGEA was a creation of the Republican Party.
bo dark
biblethumpers,as you term them, couldn't stop the implementation of
state lotteries,and they tried,they are the strawman,somebody else's
self interest is at stake.i want to know what the people trying to
stop legal chickenfights are thumping.
risky biz
> On May 11 2007 12:58 PM, risky biz wrote:
>
> > On May 11 2007 9:59 AM, bo dark wrote:
> >
> > > -Jesus, get off it.
> > >
> > > is this the same risky biz who worried about some black girls being
> > > offended racially offending people religiously?
> >
> > That's a lie. I have never intentionally offended anyone for simply being
> > religious.
>
> Did you "intentionally" drop a word into your reply that wasn't in the
question,
> thus changing the question?
What part of what I said don't you understand?
In any case, using the name of Jesus is not an insult. It's an expression
of awesomeness. The Rutgers team wouldn't have been insulted if that
asshole, whatever his name was, had said, "Martin Luther King, get off
it." Except to a numbskull.
Only an asshole would defend someone who inferentially calls all black
women "whores" on a mass media outlet. Does that clear up my opinions for
you?
---
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
risky biz
> On May 11, 2:48 pm, "risky biz" <risky-...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On May 11 2007 11:46 AM, Deadmoney Walking wrote:
> >
> > > Will's original point was right. They banned online poker the same
> > > way as any other form of gambling on the internet. The mere fact that
> > > money was changing hands amongst a lot of people is enough to warrant
> > > the ire of the rulers. I assure you, if millions of dollars were
> > > changing hands playing Connect Four, the gov't would step in to
> > > protect us by banning it or strangling with regulations.
> >
> > The "government" doesn't like money changing hands? Makes me wonder how
> > the Department of Commerce survives.
> >
> > Think biblethumpers and Republican Party and admit what everyone with a
> > brain knows- the UIGEA was a creation of the Republican Party.
> >
> biblethumpers,as you term them, couldn't stop the implementation of
> state lotteries,and they tried,they are the strawman,somebody else's
> self interest is at stake.i want to know what the people trying to
> stop legal chickenfights are thumping.
Biblethumpers are very influential in the Republican Party. The Republican
Party controlled Congress and we got the UIGEA. The Republican Party does
not control every state government. In fact, if you did some research,
it's highly likely that you will find gambling much more likely to be
wholly or partially outlawed in states which are predominantly controlled
by the Republican Party. Would you like to disprove that?
---
Brian
On May 11 2007 3:03 PM, risky biz wrote:
> On May 11 2007 12:23 PM, Brian wrote:
>
> > On May 11 2007 12:58 PM, risky biz wrote:
> >
> > > On May 11 2007 9:59 AM, bo dark wrote:
> > >
> > > > -Jesus, get off it.
> > > >
> > > > is this the same risky biz who worried about some black girls being
> > > > offended racially offending people religiously?
> > >
> > > That's a lie. I have never intentionally offended anyone for simply being
> > > religious.
> >
> > Did you "intentionally" drop a word into your reply that wasn't in the
> question,
> > thus changing the question?
>
> What part of what I said don't you understand?
What part of my question didn't YOU understand. He asked you a question and you
answered a different question.
>
> In any case, using the name of Jesus is not an insult. It's an expression
> of awesomeness. The Rutgers team wouldn't have been insulted if that
> asshole, whatever his name was, had said, "Martin Luther King, get off
> it." Except to a numbskull.
>
> Only an asshole would defend someone who inferentially calls all black
> women "whores" on a mass media outlet.
First of all, he never used the word "whores and I don't know why you insist on
repeating that over and over. Repeating it doesn't make it true.
Second, he didn't call ALL black women (inferentially or otherwise) "whores" or
even hoes for that matter.
Third, if you really believe these women were "scarred for life" as one of them
claimed, you are retarded.
Does that clear up my opinions for
> you?
Nothing you ever say clears anything up for anyone.
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
bo dark
-In any case, using the name of Jesus is not an insult.
it is when used as a profanity or byword.if somebody used martin
luther "fucking king jr. as a byword or profanity you would have never
heard the end of the howling.if some employee of ESPN would use
mohammed "the friggin" prophet as a profanity he would have to
apologize,do public penance,rub shit on his self,and kiss chris
berman's ass.
if somebody used buddhist priest as a profanity at the WSOP it would
be bleeped out.if someone used mahatma "figgin" ghandi there prahlad
friedman would start screeching like a berkley barnacle,and the
offender would get a penalty.because you find it socially acceptable
you think everybody else does,it's a free country,some people have no
problem using the word nigger,and everyone has a right to be offended.
bo dark
republicans controlled the state of nevada before las vegas' rapid
growth,and it was the first state to legalize it.i'd bet they still
control the majority of counties.
Deadmoney Walking
> do flea markets and resale shops suffer because of EBAY?i could care
> less about going to las vegas,maybe atlantic city,it seems to be about
> gambling,not shows and celebrity watchers.i think the casino industry
> is involved in keeping it illegal online.no pit
> bosses,dealers,maids,food servers,taxi drivers,dime store
> magicians,pawn shops,etc.
Not sure on that one. B&M casinos did not start losing business in
2003 and even though they were in competition, they are smart enough
to know that poker promotion eventually brings more people to the
casino.
Deadmoney Walking
> On May 11 2007 11:46 AM, Deadmoney Walking wrote:
>
> > Will's original point was right. They banned online poker the same
> > way as any other form of gambling on the internet. The mere fact that
> > money was changing hands amongst a lot of people is enough to warrant
> > the ire of the rulers. I assure you, if millions of dollars were
> > changing hands playing Connect Four, the gov't would step in to
> > protect us by banning it or strangling with regulations.
>
> The "government" doesn't like money changing hands? Makes me wonder how
> the Department of Commerce survives.
>
They don't like it when they aren't dipping their hands in it.
> Think biblethumpers and Republican Party and admit what everyone with a
> brain knows- the UIGEA was a creation of the Republican Party.
Gambling is regulated by the authorities period. It's not a partisan
problem.
bo dark
i was thinking maybe because online poker was sort of in it's infancy
it's full impact on casino gambling might not be seen yet,i was
thinking of online gambling in the larger context.maybe the casino's
think that if the cat gets out of the bag they won't be able to get it
back in.
by this i'm saying if poker was made legal they might think there were
be an argument made for all forms of gambling,blackjack and other
games,plus sports betting.if this happened i think long term people
would be less likely to visit casinos on a regular basis.
Erdos2
news:9jmeh4x...@recgroups.com...
UIGEA looks a lot like HR 4411 (the Internet Gambling Prohibition
and Enforcement Act) that was passed by the House of Representatives
back on July 11, 2006. (In fact, it is exaclty like the main parts of that
bill)
This included Democrats voting 115-76 for it. It's not like it came out of
nowhere and surprised everyone.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h4411
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4411
This whole issue has much more bi-partisan support than most bills going
through Congress, which is why few people give much of a chance for it
to be overturned by the newer Democrat controled Congress.
Jerry
risky biz
> > "The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 was rammed through
> > Congress by the Republican leadership in the final minutes before the
> > election period recess. According to Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), no
> > one on the Senate-House Conference Committee had even seen the final
> > language of the bill. The Act is title VIII of a completely unrelated
> > bill, the Safe Port Act, HR 4954, dealing with port security."
> > © Copyright 2006, all rights reserved worldwide. Gambling and the Law® is
> > a registered trademark of Professor I Nelson Rose,
> > www.GamblingAndTheLaw.com.
>
> UIGEA looks a lot like HR 4411 (the Internet Gambling Prohibition
> and Enforcement Act) that was passed by the House of Representatives
> back on July 11, 2006. (In fact, it is exaclty like the main parts of that
> bill)
> This included Democrats voting 115-76 for it. It's not like it came out of
> nowhere and surprised everyone.
38% of Democrats voted against it in a Republican controlled Congress.
Only 7% of Republicans voted against it. There's an obvious difference.
The bill would never have been sneaked into legislation in a Democratic
controlled Congress. It is Democrats who are now pushing to change or
repeal the law.
--------
risky biz
You obviously like to listen to your own meaningless horseshit.
____________________________________________________________________
risky biz
> On May 11, 3:03 pm, "risky biz" <risky-...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On May 11 2007 12:23 PM, Brian wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 11 2007 12:58 PM, risky biz wrote:
> >
> > > > On May 11 2007 9:59 AM, bo dark wrote:
> >
> > > > > -Jesus, get off it.
> >
> > > > > is this the same risky biz who worried about some black girls being
> > > > > offended racially offending people religiously?
> >
> > > > That's a lie. I have never intentionally offended anyone for simply
being
> > > > religious.
> >
> > > Did you "intentionally" drop a word into your reply that wasn't in the
> > question,
> > > thus changing the question?
> >
> > What part of what I said don't you understand?
> >
> > In any case, using the name of Jesus is not an insult. It's an expression
> > of awesomeness. The Rutgers team wouldn't have been insulted if that
> > asshole, whatever his name was, had said, "Martin Luther King, get off
> > it." Except to a numbskull.
> >
> > Only an asshole would defend someone who inferentially calls all black
> > women "whores" on a mass media outlet. Does that clear up my opinions for
> > you?
> >
> -In any case, using the name of Jesus is not an insult.
Why do you keep lifting out what I said and posting it like you're saying
it?
> it is when used as a profanity or byword.if somebody used martin
> luther "fucking king jr. as a byword or profanity you would have never
> heard the end of the howling.
Point out where I ever said"Jesus f****** Christ". You and Brian are a
couple of dingbats talking to yourselves and living in a delusional world.
Jesus save me and God love ya.
if some employee of ESPN would use
> mohammed "the friggin" prophet as a profanity he would have to
> apologize,do public penance,rub shit on his self,and kiss chris
> berman's ass.
>
> if somebody used buddhist priest as a profanity at the WSOP it would
> be bleeped out.if someone used mahatma "figgin" ghandi there prahlad
> friedman would start screeching like a berkley barnacle,and the
> offender would get a penalty.because you find it socially acceptable
> you think everybody else does,it's a free country,some people have no
> problem using the word nigger,and everyone has a right to be offended.
_______________________________________________________________________
risky biz
> > Biblethumpers are very influential in the Republican Party. The Republican
> > Party controlled Congress and we got the UIGEA. The Republican Party does
> > not control every state government. In fact, if you did some research,
> > it's highly likely that you will find gambling much more likely to be
> > wholly or partially outlawed in states which are predominantly controlled
> > by the Republican Party. Would you like to disprove that?
> >
> republicans controlled the state of nevada before las vegas' rapid
> growth,and it was the first state to legalize it.i'd bet they still
> control the majority of counties.
When did you first discover that Nevada is "the States"?
Also for your information, you presumptuous juggernaut, prostitution and
gambling have been wide open in Nevada before it was ever a state. That's
because the miners needed diversions, it was established custom, and it
has never mattered which party was controlling the state.
You also present no evidence whqatsoever that Republicans did control
Nevada at the time Las Vegas appeared as a gambling mecca.
--------
risky biz
The Republicans are the ones who hid it in an unrelated Port Security
bill, not the Democrats. Keep denying it, though, if it makes you feel
better. Effectively banning poker is not quite the same thing as
regulating it if someone wants to get extraordinarily picky, to put it
fascetiously.
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> 38% of Democrats voted against it in a Republican controlled Congress.
Risky math. 2/3 voted for it, therefor they were against it.
______________________________________________________________________
KilgoreTrout
> On May 10, 10:51 pm, OrangeSFO <intangible...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 10, 12:50 pm, Will in New Haven
> >
> > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > > When the bill was passed, I didn't see any Democrats opposing it.
> >
> > Because they would have had to go on record voting against a port
> > security bill
> >
> > Who's going to do that in the Age of Sacred Terror? Nobody...and
> > that's what REPUBLICAN Bill Frist was counting on when he cravenly
> > exploited a measure directly related to protecting American life with
> > this wet kiss for his corporate owners.
>
> Oh, the poor Dems. They were VICTIMIZED by a very common legislative
> tactic. Poor babies, like they had never seen this before and there
> are no ways to get around it. No one tried to cut it out of the port
> security bill. No one vocally opposed it. Dodd, Lieberman and De Lauro
> were vocally in support of protecting American citizens from gambling
> interests.
That's all fine, Will. So, why were you repeatedly throwing out the
argument "So why didn't the Dems vote against it?", if you knew all this
going in? Yeah, sure, it's only risky who is politicizing this thread...
How exactly do you suppose the Dems coulda "cut it out of the port
security bill."? By the way, there is a small group <I count one> of
Democrats who have, very vocally, opposed this bill. Perhaps I'm wrong,
and one or two Republicans have been as vocal as Rep. Frank on this issue?
Let me know, if that's the case...
I guess my point is that, sure, yer right, this isn't the issue from yer
OP, but... I mean if yer gonna be drawn into this argument... do you have
to lead with that same <tired> "But the Dems didn't vote against it
either!!!" argument, that seems prefaced on the idea that the rest of us
are submorons?
>
> On the other hand, that isn't the issue. The issue is how to fight it.
> It has to be fought by making sure that online gambling stays legal
> and the funding ban gets lifted. Differentiating poker from other
> gambling won't work. As Biz himself pointed out, when he wasn't
> hysterically defending the Democrats, there aren't ENOUGH poker
> players to do the job.
>
> Will in New Haven
>
> --
______________________________________________________________________
KilgoreTrout
> Will in New Haven
>
> --
>
> "Suckers got no business with their money" - Titanic Thompson
I think yer fighting something even deeper here, Will.
There are lots of golf courses that have closed or are in serious trouble.
And the government didn't attempt to regulate golf. It's the nature of
fads. I'm not convinced that we wouldn't have started to see a drop off
in online poker play regardless of the prohibition <at least in terms of
US players>.
And, I'm even less convinced that repealing this prohibition will result
in a resurgence <again, amongst the US players affected by the new
legislation>.
The public is a fickle beast, right?
Oh well, 'twas fun while it lasted!
----
Deadmoney Walking
> fascetiously.
If that's the only way you make an ounce of sense.
Edward
The entire argument is null and void. The UIGEA is nothing more than
what the name says. It's an enforcement act meant to lend abilities to
the states to enforce the state laws that have been in place since
Doyle Brunson was a teenager. No state in the USA allows online
gambling in their gambling statutes. So a carve out for poker is
meaningless and quite frankly, unconstitutional. The fed has no
authority to make online poker legal in any state that has its own
statutes deeming it to be unlawful. And the law itself has no control
over any state that wishes to change their own statutes to allow
internet gambling within that states jurisdiction.
Poker proponents often argue that their game should be exempt from the
prohibition because it is a game of skill, based on understanding
mathematical odds. UIGEA defines gambling as risking something of
value on a "game subject to chance." Though poker involves some skill,
it is also subject to considerable chance. Therefore, real-money
poker is within the definition of a bet or wager under UIGEA
As for who was behind it?
Internet gambling legislation was originally introduced at the request
of the State Attorneys General. They were joined by groups as diverse
as professional sports leagues and the NCAA, several major financial
institutions and associations, and the Fraternal Order of Police. And
it didn't happen over night as some would like to believe. Internet
gambling legislation has been an issue in congress for over 10 years.
December 1995:
Senator Jon Kyl introduces S. 1495, the Crime Prevention Act of 1995.
Based on a request from the State Attorneys General, the bill includes
a brief title amending the Wire Act to clarify that non-sports betting
is prohibited. On the same day, the House Committee on the Judiciary
amends H.R. 497, the National Gambling Impact Study Commission Act, to
include an assessment of Internet gambling.
August 1996:
The National Gambling Impact Study Commission Act (Pub. L. 104-169) is
signed into law by President Clinton, including the study of Internet
gambling.
105th Congress March 1997:
Sen. Kyl introduces S. 474, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of
1997, expanding slightly on the legislation proposed in the previous
Congress. Rep. Bob Goodlatte introduces a companion bill in
September.
July 1998:
Sen. Kyl and Sen. Richard Bryan offer the Internet Gambling
Prohibition Act of 1998 as an amendment to an appropriations bill.
This bill includes new injunctive authority aimed at taking down or
disabling access to illegal gambling websites. The amendment passes
the Senate 90-10 (Record Vote 229).
106th Congress June 1999:
The National Gambling Impact Study Commission issues its report,
recommending legislation that blocks money transfers to offshore
gambling websites, and recommends against the legalization of any new
forms of Internet gambling.
November 1999:
S. 629, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999, passes the
Senate by unanimous consent. This bill continues to expand on
injunctions against computer services as the method for enforcing the
prohibition.
Summer 2000:
The House Committee on Judiciary reports H.R. 3125, Rep. Bob
Goodlatte's companion to the Senate-passed bill, by a vote of 21-8.
House Leadership places the bill on the suspension calendar, which
requires a 2/3 vote for passage. Rumors circulate on the Hill about
"carve-outs" that would "expand gambling on the Internet." Unbeknownst
to many at the time, many of these rumors originate with Jack
Abramoff, who is trying to kill the bill on behalf of his client,
eLottery. The bill receives a favorable vote of 245-159 (Roll
Call 404), but short of the 2/3 vote required. Meanwhile, Rep. Jim
Leach introduces H.R. 4419, the Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition
Act. This is the first bill to focus on blocking financial
transactions, based on
the recommendations of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission.
The Financial Services Committee holds a public hearing and revises
the bill on that basis.
107th Congress Throughout 2001:
The House of Representatives considers and revises the reintroduced
Leach bill (H.R. 556). The House Financial Services and Judiciary
Committees both hold public hearings. Meanwhile, Rep. Goodlatte
reintroduces the Abramoff-scuttled bill as the Combating Illegal
Gambling Reform and Modernization Act. The new Goodlatte bill includes
revisions based on concerns raised by the Department of Justice in the
previous Congress.
October 2002:
H.R. 556, the Leach-LaFalce Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, is
considered by the House of Representatives under suspension of the
rules. The revised bill turns to regulations developed by the
Department of Treasury as the central tool for blocking financial
transactions. It also incorporates some elements of Rep. Goodlatte's
bill. The bill passes the House of Representatives by a voice vote.
108th Congress March 2003:
The House Financial Services Committee reports the same bill that
passed in October 2002, renamed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding
Prohibition Act (H.R. 21). Senator Jon Kyl introduces companion
legislation in the Senate (S. 627) and hearings are
held in the Senate Banking Committee. June 2003 After a
"strengthening" amendment passes the House Committee on the Judiciary
but proves to be a poison pill, Rep. Spencer Bachus introduces a
similar bill that only authorizes financial regulations, to circumvent
Judiciary jurisdiction. The Bachus version of the bill (H.R. 2143)
passes the House of Representatives 319-104 (Roll Call 255).
July 2003:
The Senate version of the bill meets a similar fate to H.R. 21,
succumbing to "strengthening" committee amendments that result in
fatal opposition to the bill. The Bachus bill is never considered on
the Senate side.
109th Congress Fall 2005:
The Washington Post publishes a front page exposé chronicling how Jack
Abramoff had corrupted the Internet gambling votes in 2000. A few
weeks later, Rep. Leach introduces H.R. 4411, the Unlawful Internet
Gambling Enforcement Act of 2005, a further revision of his previous
bills. In February 2006, Rep. Goodlatte reintroduces his bill from
the
106th Congress, now H.R. 4777.
Spring 2006:
The House Financial Services Committee reports H.R. 4411 by a voice
vote. The House Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on H.R. 4777, and
reports both bills. Then the sponsors and committees negotiate a
merged bill, combining the Wire Act amendments from H.R. 4777 with the
financial regulations from H.R. 4411, and injunctive remedies
found in both bills.
July 2006:
The House of Representatives votes 317-93 in favor of the Goodlatte-
Leach bill (Roll Call 363). The chairmen of the Senate Banking and
Judiciary Committees waive jurisdiction and the bill goes directly to
the Senate calendar, but a few Senators place holds on the bill and
express preference for the pre-merger version of H.R. 4411.
September 2006:
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist seeks to attach the text of the
Leach bill to any available vehicle to expedite passage in the Senate.
The conferees for a port security bill sign off on including the
language in the conference report. The port security bill is passed by
both Houses, and the Members are fully aware of the inclusion of
Internet gambling
provisions at the time of the vote. President Bush signs it into law
on October 13, 2006.
_______________________________________
Supporters of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006
Sports Organizations:
· National Football League
· National Collegiate Athletic Association
· Major League Baseball
· National Basketball Association
· National Hockey League Law Enforcement
· National Association of Attorneys General
· National District Attorneys Association
· Federal Criminal Investigators
· Fraternal Order of Police E-Commerce
· Internet Commerce Coalition (includes AT&T, BellSouth, eBay,
TimeWarner)
· US Telecom
· PayPal
·319 out of 435 Members of the House of Representatives
Financial Organizations:
· American Bankers Association
· America's Community Bankers
· Securities Industry of America
· American Express
· Citigroup
· MasterCard
· HSBC North America
Family and Social Welfare Organizations:
· National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion
· Truth About Gambling Foundation
· Family Research Council
· Christian Coalition
· Concerned Women for America
· American Values
· Center for Moral Clarity
· Citizens for Community Values
· Eagle Forum
· Family Leader Network
· Family Resource Network
· Focus on the Family
· Religious Freedom Coalition
· American Association of Christian Schools
· Network of Politically Active Christians
· The Center for Arizona Policy
· Arkansas Family Council
· Hawaii Family Forum
· United Families Idaho
· Illinois Family Institute
· American Family Association of Indiana
· Iowa Family Policy Center
· The Family Foundation (Kentucky)
· Louisiana Family Forum
· Family Protection Lobby - Maryland
· Massachusetts Family Institute
· Minnesota Family Council
· New Jersey Family Policy Council
· North Carolina Family Policy Council
· Stronger Families for Oregon
· American Family Association of Pennsylvania
· The Family Research Institute of Wisconsin
· African Methodist Episcopal Church
· The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
· Alliance of Baptists
· American Baptist Churches in the USA
· The Antiochian Orthodox Christian
Archdiocese of North America:
· Diocese of the Armenian Church of America
· Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
· Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
· Church of the Brethren
· The Coptic Orthodox Church in North America
· The Episcopal Church
· Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
· Friends United Meeting
· Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
· Hungarian Reformed Church in America
· International Council of Community Churches
· Korean Presbyterian Church in America
· Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
· Mar Thoma Church
· Moravian Church in America Northern
· Province and Southern Province:
· National Baptist Convention of America
· National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc.
· National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
· Orthodox Church in America
· Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian
· Orthodox Church in the USA
· Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the
· Religious Society of Friends
· Polish National Catholic Church of America
· Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.
· Reformed Church in America
· Serbian Orthodox Church in the U.S.A. and Canada
· The Swedenborgian Church
· Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch
· Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America
· United Church of Christ
· Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
· General Board of Church and Society of United Methodist Church
· Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
· Together with their co-members of The National Council of Churches
risky biz
Are you talking about the misspelling? That doesn't make any sense.
_______________________________________________________________________
Batman
> On May 10 2007 6:45 PM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 May 2007 11:52:47 -0700, Will in New Haven
> > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> > >On May 10, 3:39 pm, "risky biz" <risky-...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >> And it was "family-valuers" and "do-gooders" who were foursquare behind
> it.
>
> > >And those Democrats who overwhelmingly voted for it were innocent
> > >victims.
>
I admit to nothing. It was one guy, actually, that had an R next to
his name. The entire party didn't up and decide to do this. It was one
guy. Who got voted out, BTW.
As for the Democrats attempting to please the Pat Robertsons of the
world, they would first need to admit there is a need to please them.
As if that's ever going to happen....
Mike
> > It is neither Democrat nor Republican to be for the UIGEA and similar bills.
> > The core of opposition to it is libertarian in nature, which cuts across
> > parties. That's why you find two of the people most critical of the bill are
> > a very liberal Democrat (Barney Frank) and a very conservative Republican
> > (Ron Paul), though of course, the Republican is really a Libertarian who
> > just happens to have an (R) by his name.
>
> Sooner or later someone is going to have to admit that the UIGEA is 110%
> Republican. If it hadn't been for the Republican Party there would be no
> UIGEA. Can anyone imagine the Democrats cramming a UIGEA into an unrelated
> bill to please the Pat Robertsons of the world?
>
> ---
Brian
Thank you for finally admitting that you were full of shit.
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
risky biz
"September 2006
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist seeks to attach the text of the Leach
bill to any available
vehicle to expedite passage in the Senate. The conferees for a port
security bill sign off
on including the language in the conference report. The port security bill
is passed by
both Houses, and the Members are fully aware of the inclusion of Internet
gambling
provisions at the time of the vote."
But someone in a position to intimately witness what took place adds a few
more details:
"The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 was rammed through
Congress by the Republican leadership in the final minutes before the
election period recess. According to Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), no
one on the Senate-House Conference Committee had even seen the final
language of the bill. The Act is title VIII of a completely unrelated
bill, the Safe Port Act, HR 4954, dealing with port security."
© Copyright 2006, all rights reserved worldwide. Gambling and the Law® is
a registered trademark of Professor I Nelson Rose,
www.GamblingAndTheLaw.com.
This is the oft-repeated "if they didn't vote against protecting America
then they were for the UIGEA" which is patently horseshit and should put
any unbiased person on guard against any of their other summary assertions.
They then go on to make sure we're aware of this:
"Myth: UIGEA is only supported by the “religious right.”
Fact: Internet gambling legislation was originally introduced at the
request of the State Attorneys
General. They were joined by groups as diverse as professional sports
leagues and the NCAA,
several major financial institutions and associations, and the Fraternal
Order of Police."
What they left out of that informative bit is the approximate 70 religious
or religion-based organizations that they themselves list as "Supporters
of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006" and which they
placed below the much less numerous and less politically powerful economic
and other special interest supporters. Interestingly, they didn't list any
resort casino organizational supporters of UIGEA.
So where did this come from? You cut and pasted it from right here:
http://www.ncalg.org/ That's the National Coalition Against Legalized
Gambling. Notice that the word "online" isn't in there anywhere. They want
to ban all gambling. So who are these people who seem anxious to separate
the "religious right" from the birth of the UIGEA? Let's take a look at
the Board of Directors:
http://www.ncalg.org/about_us.htm
Cynthia J. Abrams
Program Director, Alcohol and Other Addictions
General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church
Rev. Harvey Chinn
Barrett Duke, Ph.D.
Vice President for Public Policy and Research
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
Southern Baptist Convention
Mr. William S. Evans
Public Affairs, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Mrs. Audray R. Johnson
Southeastern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (SDA)
Rev. John D. Wolf
Indiana Coalition Against Legalized Gambling
Ms. Pat Loontjer, Director
Gambling With the Good Life
Dr. Dan Ireland
Alabama Citizens Action Program
. . and others with no upfront religious affiliation but who would
probably prove to be almost all religion-based if someone wanted to do the
research.
Looking at their summary analysis of how UIGEA came to be let's take a
look at the protagonists in it's creation whom they name themselves:
Senator Jon Kyl - REPUBLICAN
On the same day, the House Committee on the Judiciary amends H.R. 497, the
National Gambling Impact Study Commission Act, to include an assessment of
Internet gambling - REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS
Rep. Bob Goodlatte - REPUBLICAN
Sen. Richard Bryan - NEVADA CASINO DEMOCRAT
Rep. Jim Leach - REPUBLICAN
Rep. Spencer Bachus - REPUBLICAN
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist - REPUBLICAN
This is nothing but confirmation of what I have been saying all along- the
living, beating heart of the UIGEA is the biblethumpers and the
Republicans. The less influential they become the more likely online poker
is to become a personal decision free of persecution.
________________________________________________________________________