The government says online poker is evil

[beavis]

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060711/ap_on_go_co/internet_gambling;_ylt=AoWxzoOWitkszC3YhL6xe4Ks0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-)

Online wagering under attack in Congress

By NANCY ZUCKERBROD, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jul 11, 8:26 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Gamblers who prefer their laptops to blackjack tables won't like what Congress is doing. On Tuesday, the House plans to vote on a bill that would ban credit cards for paying online bets and could padlock gambling Web sites.

The legislation would clarify existing law to spell out that it is illegal to gamble online.

To enforce that ban, the bill would prohibit credit cards and other payment forms, such as electronic transfers, from being used to settle online wagers. It also would give law enforcement officials the authority to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling Web sites.

Some opponents of the legislation say policing the Internet is impossible, that it would be better to regulate the $12 billion industry and collect taxes from it. The online gambling industry is based almost entirely outside the United States, though about half its customers live in the U.S.

Other critics complain that the bill doesn't cover all forms of gambling. They point to exemptions they say would allow online lotteries and Internet betting on horse racing to flourish while cracking down on other kinds of sports betting, casino games and card games like poker.

"If you're going to support legislation that is supposed to 'prohibit gambling,' you should not have carve-outs," said Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the conservative Traditional Values Coalition.

Other conservative and antigambling groups are supporting the legislation, sponsored by Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Jim Leach, R-Iowa.

John Kindt, a business professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who has studied the issue, calls the Internet "the crack cocaine" of gambling.

"There are no needle marks. There's no alcohol on the breath. You just click the mouse and lose your house," he said.

Congress has considered similar bills several times before. In 2000, disgraced lobbyist Jack Ambramoff led a fierce campaign against it on behalf of an online lottery company.

Online lotteries are allowed in the latest bill, largely at the behest of states that increasingly rely on lotteries to augment tax revenues.

Pro-sports leagues also like the bill, arguing that Web wagering could hurt the integrity of their sports.

The horse racing industry also supports the bill because of the exemption it would get. Betting operators would not be prohibited from any activity allowed under the Interstate Horseracing Act. That law written in the 1970s set up rules for interstate betting on racing. It was updated a few years ago to clarify that betting on horse racing over the Internet is allowed.

Greg Avioli, chief executive officer of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, said the mention of horse racing in the bill is "a recognition of existing federal law," not a new carve-out.

He said the racing industry has a strong future in the digital age and acknowledged the bill would send Internet gamblers to racing sites. "They'd return to the one place they can bet legally," Avioli said.

That's what some critics say is unfair.

"Somehow we find ourselves in a situation where Congress has gotten in the business of cherry-picking types of gambling," complained Rep. Robert Wexler (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla. Wexler had tried unsuccessfully to include exemptions for dog racing and jai alai, both popular in Florida.

The Justice Department has taken a different view on the legality of Internet betting on horse races. In a World Trade Organization case involving Antigua, the department said online betting on horse racing remains illegal under the 1961 Wire Act despite the existence of the more recently passed Interstate Horseracing Act.

The department hasn't actively enforced its stance, but observers say it is possible the agency and the racing industry could face off in court in the future.

Regarding the House bill, Antiguan Finance Minister Errol Cort said Monday, "I'm very surprised and quite disappointed that the U.S. Congress would be pushing full force ahead."

Sen. Jon Kyl (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., is leading support for the ban in the Senate. The issue has so far not been debated in that chamber this year.

[beavis]

What a freakin' joke. You can throw your money away on horse racing, or on blind luck games like the lottery, but a game of skill like poker, whoa, that's out of bounds. You'd think they'd make it a little less obvious that they were bending over for the hacks that are paying them off.

In a couple of years, you won't be able to wipe your ass without government approved toilet paper.

[Iowanian]

They're fools.

Accept it for what it is, regulate it and tax the living crap out of the sites....like the UK is doing and making big bucks.

Put all that tax revenue into federal deficit relief.

[beavis]

They're fools.

Accept it for what it is, regulate it and tax the living crap out of the sites....like the UK is doing and making big bucks.

Put all that tax revenue into federal deficit relief.
It's really that simple.

[jspchief]

The current incarnation of the bill is so hypocritical it's insulting. They ban the stuff they don't have a stake in. What a joke.

[beavis]

The current incarnation of the bill is so hypocritical it's insulting. They ban the stuff they don't have a stake in. What a joke.
That's why they aren't going to have a leg to stand on. Even if it does get through, I think it'll get overturned in the courts.

[DaKCMan AP]

Good to see that our elected officials are focusing on what REALLY matters.

:shake:

[beavis]

Good to see that our elected officials are focusing on what REALLY matters.

:shake:
They are looking out for you! Don't you know you could lose your house by doing this!

[Brock]

They're fools.

Accept it for what it is, regulate it and tax the living crap out of the sites....like the UK is doing and making big bucks.

Put all that tax revenue into federal deficit relief.

Either that, or don't regulate it, don't tax it, and leave us all the hell alone.

[BIG_DADDY]

What horseshit. After this they will vote to give themself another big fat raise for doing such wonderful job of protecting us from ourself.

[patteeu]

Either that, or don't regulate it, don't tax it, and leave us all the hell alone.

That's a really good idea. I bet there aren't many Congresspeople who've thought of it though.

[Iowanian]

The only reason I'd want them anywhere near it, is to legitimize some of it, maybe certify sites to eliminate built in fleecing.

But the whole "stay out of it" isn't a bad idea either.

[beavis]

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060711/ap_on_go_co/internet_gambling;_ylt=ApinUdDmvuvy_gco7Zk8vPys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)

House OKs bill to rein in online gambling

By NANCY ZUCKERBROD, Associated Press Writer
35 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The House passed legislation Tuesday that would prevent gamblers from using credit cards to bet online and could block access to gambling Web sites.

The legislation would clarify and update current law to spell out that most gambling is illegal online. But there would be exceptions — for state-run lotteries and horse racing — and passage isn't a safe bet in the Senate, where Republican leaders have not considered the measure a high priority.

The House voted 317-93 for the bill, which would allow authorities to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling Web sites.

Critics argued that regulating the $12 billion industry would be better than outlawing it. Said Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., "Prohibition didn't work for alcohol. It won't work for gambling."

The American Gaming Association, the industry's largest lobby, has opposed online gambling in the past but recently backed a study of the feasibility of regulating it.

The Internet gambling industry is headquartered almost entirely outside the United States, though about half its customers live in the U.S.

Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Jim Leach, R-Iowa sponsored the bill. They successfully beat back an amendment to strip out exemptions in the legislation for the horse racing industry and state lotteries.

Goodlatte called that "a poison pill amendment," aimed at defeating the larger bill.

Supporters of the measure argued that Internet betting can be addictive and can lead people to lose their savings.

Leach said the problem is particularly acute for young people who are frequently on the Internet. "Never before has it been so easy to lose so much money so quickly at such a young age," he said.

Rep. Shelley Berkley (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., pushed for removal of the exemptions. She said it was unfair to allow online lotteries and Internet betting on horse racing to flourish while cracking down on other kinds of sports betting, casino games and card games like poker.

Supporters of Internet gambling agreed.

"They call it a prohibition. It's really Congress picking winners and losers," said Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance, a San Francisco-based group that opposed the bill.

Congress has considered similar legislation in the past.

In 2000, disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff led a fierce campaign against it on behalf of an online lottery company. Supporters of the bill brought up that history Tuesday and suggested that a vote for the bill was a way to make a statement against Abramoff's influence.

However, the lottery exemption wasn't in the bill back in 2000. If it had been, Abramoff's client probably would have backed the bill. Online lotteries are exempted this time around at the behest of states.

Under the provision that relates to horse racing, betting operators would not be prohibited from any activity allowed under the Interstate Horseracing Act. That law was written in the 1970s to set up rules for interstate betting on racing. The industry successfully lobbied for legislation several years ago to clarify that horse racing over the Internet is allowed.

Greg Avioli, chief executive officer of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, said the mention of horse racing in the bill is merely "a recognition of existing federal law."

Avioli said the racing industry has a strong future in the digital age and suggested the bill would send Internet gamblers to racing sites and away from the banned sites.

The Justice Department has taken a different view on the legality of Internet betting on horse races. In a World Trade Organization case involving Antigua, the department said online betting on horse racing remains illegal under the 1961 Wire Act despite the existence of the more recently passed, and updated, Interstate Horseracing Act.

The department hasn't actively enforced its stance.

Like the racing industry, professional sports leagues also like the bill. They argue that Web wagering could hurt the integrity of their sports.

Sen. Jon Kyl (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., is leading support for the ban in the Senate. The issue has not been debated in that chamber this year, and the measure hasn't been identified by Senate leaders as a top priority.

If the horse provision were stricken from the bill, there's a good chance the measure would run into objections from Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and others from racing states.

[htismaqe]

Either that, or don't regulate it, don't tax it, and leave us all the hell alone.

But then the evil ISP's and cable companies will shutdown Google and Chiefsplanet...

[htismaqe]

I can't believe this is a Jim Leach bill...actually, yes I can.

The hypocrisy isn't mind-boggling anymore, but the idea that these ****heads think we won't see it is...

[Chiefnj]

Some of those off shore gambling sites need to start making donations to the right people.

[Hydrae]

I will back this the day after they remove all state sponsored gambling (also known as the lottery).

[Mr. Flopnuts]

I will back this the day after they remove all state sponsored gambling (also known as the lottery).



I've said it a million times. The government only "tackles" issues that net them a profit.

[Hydrae]

I am just amazed that in the country we live in today with the pushes for more things christian that lotteries have not been attacked by any of the religious groups out there. But then again, I suppose Bingo is ok so lotteries are ok too. You can pick and choose which beliefs are beneficial and which were written in stone by God. :shrug:

[Mr. Flopnuts]

I am just amazed that in the country we live in today with the pushes for more things christian that lotteries have not been attacked by any of the religious groups out there. But then again, I suppose Bingo is ok so lotteries are ok too. You can pick and choose which beliefs are beneficial and which were written in stone by God. :shrug:


I live in NC which just finally started a state lottery back at the end of March. I had just moved down here and was dumbfounded that a place that had "no tolerance" for gambling had bingo halls. Humans are monkeys with thumbs that want what they want. Everyone else can go to hell.

[Adept Havelock]

I will back this the day after they remove all state sponsored gambling (also known as the lottery).


The lottery isn't really gambling. It's more like a voluntary tax on people who are really bad at math.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

The lottery isn't really gambling. It's more like a voluntary tax on people who are really bad at math.



I've seen the bumper sticker.

[Baby Lee]

I am just amazed that in the country we live in today with the pushes for more things christian that lotteries have not been attacked by any of the religious groups out there. But then again, I suppose Bingo is ok so lotteries are ok too. You can pick and choose which beliefs are beneficial and which were written in stone by God. :shrug:
Where's this stone tablet stating 'thou shalt not play games of chance?'

[Adept Havelock]

Where's this stone tablet stating 'thou shalt not play games of chance?'

It was on the tablet Moses dropped....

I give you the Fifteen.....Ten...Ten Commandments!

[Hydrae]

Where's this stone tablet stating 'thou shalt not play games of chance?'

Nowhere that I know of off the top of my head but I do that growing up in a Baptist family, gambling was one of those sins that just were a sin. I would imagine a pastor might respond about being a good steward of your money or something, I don't know. My point was that it seems like the fundamentalists are trying to do things like throw evolution out of schools and banning gay marriage but not a peep about the right or wrong of the lottery. I just find it a bit hypocritical IMO.

[oldandslow]

Keep voting "Repub" boys, cause they are the party of small government.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......

At least the dems admit to doing it....

[beavis]

Keep voting "Repub" boys, cause they are the party of small government.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......

At least the dems admit to doing it....
"317-93"

I guess the GOP must have picked up a few extra seats in the house that I hadn't heard about.

[oldandslow]

"317-93"

I guess the GOP must have picked up a few extra seats in the house that I hadn't heard about.

I guess the dems don't claim to be the party of small government.

Look, I haven't voted democratic in 3 presidential elections. I have not voted repub either...

I just find it quite humorous that folks on this board label the current crop of neo-cons as small government conservatives.

They are not.

[Brock]

I just find it quite humorous that folks on this board label the current crop of neo-cons as small government conservatives.

They are not.

I have seen literally nobody doing this. You sure you're on the right board?

[oldandslow]

Then you are telling me you did not want smaller govt when you voted for GW?

[Brock]

Then you are telling me you did not want smaller govt when you voted for GW?

When who voted for GW?

[Cochise]

Luckily I'm not someone who whom the convenience of gambling 24/7 from any location on earth is a big concern.

[patteeu]

I guess the dems don't claim to be the party of small government.

Look, I haven't voted democratic in 3 presidential elections. I have not voted repub either...

I just find it quite humorous that folks on this board label the current crop of neo-cons as small government conservatives.

They are not.

Who's doing that?

At least with the Republicans there's some hope that the guy you vote for will be favorably disposed toward small government. As you point out, the democrats are pretty clearly uninterested in restrained spending.

[beavis]

Luckily I'm not someone who whom the convenience of gambling 24/7 from any location on earth is a big concern.
I play once or twice a week, but the issue of online gaming isn't really my concern. If the government wouldn't mind, I'd like them to stay the **** out of my life every once in a while. But apparently, that's too much to ask.

[DaKCMan AP]

Nowhere that I know of off the top of my head but I do that growing up in a Baptist family, gambling was one of those sins that just were a sin. I would imagine a pastor might respond about being a good steward of your money or something, I don't know. My point was that it seems like the fundamentalists are trying to do things like throw evolution out of schools and banning gay marriage but not a peep about the right or wrong of the lottery. I just find it a bit hypocritical IMO.

Of course...if you gamble away all your money there's none left to give to the church. :hmmm:

[sedated]

Then you are telling me you did not want smaller govt when you voted for GW?

ROFL

that's one of the funniest things I've heard in my life.

(and when I say "funniest", I mean "ridiculous")

the same man that was responsible for the biggest infringement on personal freedom in US history, advocating small govt? :eek:

[Brock]

the same man that was responsible for the biggest infringement on personal freedom in US history, advocating small govt? :eek:


Is this another example of the "hyperbole" oldandslow referred to?

[patteeu]

ROFL

that's one of the funniest things I've heard in my life.

(and when I say "funniest", I mean "ridiculous")

the same man that was responsible for the biggest infringement on personal freedom in US history, advocating small govt? :eek:

Are you referring to FDR here? Or maybe Earl Warren?

[Hydrae]

I play once or twice a week, but the issue of online gaming isn't really my concern. If the government wouldn't mind, I'd like them to stay the **** out of my life every once in a while. But apparently, that's too much to ask.


:clap:

[Iowanian]

Jim Leach is a dipshit.

What I really need to know, is when do I need to pull my money out of a certain unnamed, offshore website's account?

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Luckily I'm not someone who whom the convenience of gambling 24/7 from any location on earth is a big concern.


Is that really the point? What about when it IS something that is a big concern to you? Apathy is the debil.

[Swanman]

I play once or twice a week, but the issue of online gaming isn't really my concern. If the government wouldn't mind, I'd like them to stay the **** out of my life every once in a while. But apparently, that's too much to ask.

The asshats in our government don't seem to realize, that if people want to gamble, they're going to gamble. If they shut down the online sites, they'll just find another way to gamble. You'd think they would have learned their lesson with prohibtion, but I guess not.

They're just trying to blame the ills of society on a bunch of little things instead of tackling the huge issues, because that would require effort.

[Hydrae]

I don't understand how they think this will work. Most of these sites are offshore anyway due to current state laws limiting these things. So now the feds want to limit my intraweb browsing??? :cuss:

[beavis]

I don't understand how they think this will work. Most of these sites are offshore anyway due to current state laws limiting these things. So now the feds want to limit my intraweb browsing??? :cuss:
They're going to try and block their methods of funding (Firepay, Neteller), and yes, they are going to try to keep your from even getting to the sites.

[htismaqe]

They're just trying to blame the ills of society on a bunch of little things instead of tackling the huge issues, because that would require effort.

You couldn't be more wrong.

If that were the case, the sponsors of this bill wouldn't have fought SO HARD to exempt horse tracks and state lotteries (ironically, Jim Leach is from IOWA and we have BOTH).

What this is a clear case of the government eliminating competition for the people that are greasing their palms.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

There is no place for me to play poker in the Charlotte NC vicinity. If this law goes through and you hear about a big bust in this area about an illegal gambling ring poker related. I probably won't be posting for a while. ;)

[beavis]

There is no place for me to play poker in the Charlotte NC vicinity. If this law goes through and you hear about a big bust in this area about an illegal gambling ring poker related. I probably won't be posting for a while. ;)
This is a great example. If anything, this is going to increase illegal activity as the hardcore poker dorks look for some other place to get their fix.

I was telling a friend yesterday, what I could almost see happening is the big casinos developing some kind of online presence, after they say it's ok for gambling sites to exist as long as they're onshore.

[beavis]

This is definately worth bumping. Make sure you watch all the way until the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DClkE64nFDY