Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > General Poker Discussion > The Poker Legislation Forum, Brought to You by the PPA

Notices

The Poker Legislation Forum, Brought to You by the PPA Discussions of various poker-related laws and steps players can take to push for better laws.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-08-2008, 06:30 PM   #91
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 3,416
Re: Obama's Stance on Online Gaming

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Foolz View Post
there are different options to deposit and cashout. the sites recognize that people have favorites. and yes these options change--some new ones become available and some others for a variety of reasons cease. the fact that there have always been options is indisputable. the fact that at one point or another options changed i think is irrelevant. people always have had the opportunity and a way to deposit or to withdraw from the big 3 (ptars, fulltilt and party).
Yeah, but I miss Neteller or Epassporte. Try withdrawing from Bodog right now. The status quo is not sustainable. Either the DOJ continues its campaign in the next administration which will force the online poker sites like PS and FTP to litigate the legality of online poker to survive or the DOJ ceases its campaign which IMO will bring more online poker rooms and more ewallets back to the US market.
JPFisher55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2008, 06:38 PM   #92
adept
 
Robin Foolz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Celebrating TheYear of The Donkey
Posts: 1,176
Re: Obama's Stance on Online Gaming

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPFisher55 View Post
Yeah, but I miss Neteller or Epassporte. Try withdrawing from Bodog right now. The status quo is not sustainable. Either the DOJ continues its campaign in the next administration which will force the online poker sites like PS and FTP to litigate the legality of online poker to survive or the DOJ ceases its campaign which IMO will bring more online poker rooms and more ewallets back to the US market.
so the doj is getting away with threatening and harrasing without having to fight in court. it's not a question of legality since online poker is legal. it's a question of no one standing up to the bully. the law is on our side (admittedly the judges hired and paid by the govt may not be) so who shall/will stand up? will be interesting.
Robin Foolz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2008, 06:44 PM   #93
Pooh-Bah
 
BigAlK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,703
Re: Obama's Stance on Online Gaming

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Foolz View Post
there are different options to deposit and cashout. the sites recognize that people have favorites. and yes these options change--some new ones become available and some others for a variety of reasons cease. the fact that there have always been options is indisputable. the fact that at one point or another options changed i think is irrelevant. people always have had the opportunity and a way to deposit or to withdraw from the big 3 (ptars, fulltilt and party).
Sure things change and they would to some degree in a regulated environment. But those changes would be happening in response to legitimate business reasons. Not due to cat and mouse games with the DOJ. The replacement method/processor/etc would be in place and tested before the other one went away (assuming decent business practices are followed).

In a recent post addressed to TE in this thread you accuse him of being disingenous. Aren't you doing the same? You pretend that the churning of methods, processors, etc don't matter to you ("banks, payment processors and poker sites being harassed are not my concern"). Unless you never deposit or withdraw money from sites this statement is really living up to your name. The only way I can see this as possible is if you don't play online (in which case your opinion doesn't matter) you're breakeven (and plan to stay that way forever without ever having a good or bad run) or you could care less how long withdrawls take you (or even if they ever come).
BigAlK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2008, 06:58 PM   #94
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 3,416
Re: Obama's Stance on Online Gaming

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Foolz View Post
so the doj is getting away with threatening and harrasing without having to fight in court. it's not a question of legality since online poker is legal. it's a question of no one standing up to the bully. the law is on our side (admittedly the judges hired and paid by the govt may not be) so who shall/will stand up? will be interesting.
The DOJ has been very good at its campaign of harassment and selective indictments. They scared most online poker rooms away and most ewallets with one questionable indictment which was quickly settled and one maybe subpoena. I wish that the rest of the government was 10% as efficient and effective. So far they know better than to directly take on online poker, but eventually they will have to do so to remain credible.
JPFisher55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2008, 06:59 PM   #95
adept
 
Robin Foolz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Celebrating TheYear of The Donkey
Posts: 1,176
Re: Obama's Stance on Online Gaming

for the record i didn't accuse te of being disingenuous. i said his statement about the "we lost uiega" was. there is a discernible difference.
Robin Foolz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2008, 07:28 PM   #96
adept
 
Robin Foolz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Celebrating TheYear of The Donkey
Posts: 1,176
Re: Obama's Stance on Online Gaming

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPFisher55 View Post
The DOJ has been very good at its campaign of harassment and selective indictments. They scared most online poker rooms away and most ewallets with one questionable indictment which was quickly settled and one maybe subpoena. I wish that the rest of the government was 10% as efficient and effective. So far they know better than to directly take on online poker, but eventually they will have to do so to remain credible.
i'm starting to suspect that their harassment campaign and the scare tactics used are because they don't have a legal foot to stand on. it's unfortunate that litigating in federal court is grossly expensive, so i don't totally blame some of the doj targets for opting instead for a economical solution rather than fighting it out and in the process wasting a ton of money just to call the doj's bluff and just to get a judge in the end that is not competent.

still, eventually someone out there with poker only business/personal interests has to stand up to them and drag their arse in court. we have a court system and a bit of case precedent that should be used.

whether that will be a bank, payment processor, poker site or individual i dunno. but it will probably have to eventually happen if the doj gets more bold and starts going after poker-only entities.

the flipside is that the doj may change their direction away from gaming after november and this will all calm down a bit.
Robin Foolz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2008, 08:36 PM   #97
Rich Muny - PPA VP
 
TheEngineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ***Only a PPA post if so stated***
Posts: 22,678
Re: Obama's Stance on Online Gaming

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Foolz View Post
for the record i didn't accuse te of being disingenuous. i said his statement about the "we lost uiega" was. there is a discernible difference.
Calling me disingenuous isn't cool, nor is it accurate. I said we lost HR 4411, which we did. We lost in the House 317-93. HR 4411 did target online poker. Read the legislation and (especially) the testimony. They fully believed they were banning online poker, and they passed it overwhelmingly. It was watered down prior to becoming UIGEA.

I get that you think this is all wonderful and just fine. You're entitled to your opinion.
TheEngineer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2008, 09:07 PM   #98
veteran
 
Cactus Jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere on the Strip
Posts: 2,359
Re: Obama's Stance on Online Gaming

Depositing is easy.

Withdrawal is hard.
Cactus Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2008, 09:48 PM   #99
adept
 
Robin Foolz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Celebrating TheYear of The Donkey
Posts: 1,176
Re: Obama's Stance on Online Gaming

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Calling me disingenuous isn't cool, nor is it accurate. I said we lost HR 4411, which we did. We lost in the House 317-93. HR 4411 did target online poker. Read the legislation and (especially) the testimony. They fully believed they were banning online poker, and they passed it overwhelmingly. It was watered down prior to becoming UIGEA.

I get that you think this is all wonderful and just fine. You're entitled to your opinion.
then if u care please clarify what u meant by "we lost." i took it at face value. maybe u intended it to be taken otherwise. i took it as "we lost the right to play internet poker with the passage of x." if this is not what u meant then what it is that we as poker players lost? btw i assume by "we" u mean poker players, right.

it's my understanding that hr 4411 basically said that internet bets/wagers or the facilitating of such is illegal under applicable federal and state laws. that's all it said. it basically made sure existing federal and state laws dealing with above-metioned bets/wagers would apply to and be enforced on the internet.

because the majority of states have nothing on their books in re: online poker and because likewise there is nothing at the federal level that deals with online poker (no law prohibiting x = x being legal), i'm now very curious as to what u meant with "we lost hr 4411."
Robin Foolz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2008, 10:28 PM   #100
veteran
 
RolloTomasi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bovada
Posts: 3,086
Re: Obama's Stance on Online Gaming

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPFisher55 View Post
I agree that Democrats are better for online poker than Republicans. However, when I compare Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin the difference is less than most believe.

First, Obama-Biden have not shown the support for online gambling and online poker that Democrats like Rep. Franks. In addition, any legalization and regulation be Democrats carries some risk of over taxation and over regulation. Further, I doubt that such legislation could make it through even a Democrat controlled Senate without much stronger support than Obama-Biden are likely to give. However, IMO an Obama-Biden administration is likely to ignore online gambling and stop the DOJ campaign against it. This will encourage new ewallets or old ones to reenter the US market; ditto for gaming and poker sites.

I agree that McCain-Palin are more likely to oppose online gambling and continue the DOJ campaign against it. However, thanks to the PPA and Democrat control of Congress, they have zero chance of any additional anti-online gambling legislation. Also, continuing the DOJ campaign against online gambling and/or finalizing regulations under the UIGEA might give the PPA, and other organizations, the standing and motive to litigate the legality of online poker in federal court and perhaps improving the status quo by favorable court decisions. Furthermore, despite the nomination of Gov. Palin to the Vice-Presidency, IMO Sen. McCain is no friend to the RRR or FOF. I doubt that he has forgotten or forgiven the tactics that they used in the 2000 South Carolina primary election that propeled Pres. George W. Bush to the Republican nomination for President in 2000 over Sen. McCain. IMO, if elected President, Sen. McCain will put Gov. Palin on the sidelines where most Vice-Presidents exist (where she can raise her children and not do much, except when needed in the Senate) and will ignore the RRR and online gambling which is what Sen. Obama is likely to do. I sincerely doubt that Sen. McCain would ever veto a pro-online gambling bill, especially if it is part of broader legislation, which is the only way that I believe it could ever make it out of the Senate.

My grades would be: McCain-Palin C- and Obama-Biden C+; mostly because of the possibility of Sen. McCain passing away while serving as President.
please run for something so i can vote for you JP
besides Obama is going to TAX TAX TAX and kill our economy
forget the fishies and richies with discretionary funds because Obama will redistribute their fun money to people not paying taxes anyways and all you ballers wont be getting any of it because Obama will get it first to pay for his trillion dollar social programs IN THE DEMOCRAT PLATFORM I pray for the status quo
RolloTomasi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2008, 10:33 PM   #101
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 3,416
Re: Obama's Stance on Online Gaming

Quote:
Originally Posted by RolloTomasi View Post
please run for something so i can vote for you JP
besides Obama is going to TAX TAX TAX and kill our economy
forget the fishies and richies with discretionary funds because Obama will redistribute their fun money to people not paying taxes anyways and all you ballers wont be getting any of it because Obama will get it first to pay for his trillion dollar social programs IN THE DEMOCRAT PLATFORM I pray for the status quo
Sorry, I am the last person to run for anything. Also, since I have a law degree I am disqualified because too many politicians hold law degrees. We have long since passed our quota (which some would argue should have been zero).
JPFisher55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2008, 10:36 PM   #102
formerly TheProdigy
 
Schwallie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,637
Re: Obama's Stance on Online Gaming

You won't get the status quo with the Republicans....

So who are you going to vote for that keeps our status quo?
Schwallie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2008, 11:04 PM   #103
Rich Muny - PPA VP
 
TheEngineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ***Only a PPA post if so stated***
Posts: 22,678
Re: Obama's Stance on Online Gaming

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Foolz View Post
then if u care please clarify what u meant by "we lost." i took it at face value. maybe u intended it to be taken otherwise. i took it as "we lost the right to play internet poker with the passage of x." if this is not what u meant then what it is that we as poker players lost? btw i assume by "we" u mean poker players, right.
I have about 3000 posts here where I say online poker is lawful and is not included in the Wire Act. I've added this language to every PPA member letter to Congress as well.

Quote:
it's my understanding that hr 4411 basically said that internet bets/wagers or the facilitating of such is illegal under applicable federal and state laws. that's all it said. it basically made sure existing federal and state laws dealing with above-metioned bets/wagers would apply to and be enforced on the internet.

because the majority of states have nothing on their books in re: online poker and because likewise there is nothing at the federal level that deals with online poker (no law prohibiting x = x being legal), i'm now very curious as to what u meant with "we lost hr 4411."
HR 4411 would have changed federal law to make most online gaming illegal. Testimony at the time made it clear that lawmakers thought they were outlawing interstate online poker as well as other gaming (there is a technicality in that the bill limited the law to games predominantly subject to chance...poker may won in court, but that's a big if, especially as Congress was on record as wishing to prohibit poker). When I wrote of our loss, I was referring to losing that vote in the House 317-93.

HR 4411 was watered down when it became UIGEA. The provisions to amend the Wire Act were removed, such that it merely prohibited financial transactions for activities that were already unlawful. While we don't believe that includes poker, we're at great risk of overblocking. Surely you're not expecting banks to accept federal felony indictments to fight this for us, are you? Epassorte didn't fight back...why would Citibank or Chase?

Aside from that, I'd say we lost a lot with UIGEA in that we lost Neteller, PartyPoker, and a lot of fish.

I'm not sure why you think we're golden, but no site agrees....they're all lobbying for the Wexler bill and IGREA.

Last edited by TheEngineer; 09-08-2008 at 11:10 PM.
TheEngineer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2008, 06:46 AM   #104
veteran
 
RolloTomasi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bovada
Posts: 3,086
Re: Obama's Stance on Online Gaming

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPFisher55 View Post
Yeah, but I miss Neteller or Epassporte. Try withdrawing from Bodog right now. The status quo is not sustainable. Either the DOJ continues its campaign in the next administration which will force the online poker sites like PS and FTP to litigate the legality of online poker to survive or the DOJ ceases its campaign which IMO will bring more online poker rooms and more ewallets back to the US market.
I miss Neteller (had to sweat 8 months to get my money) and Epassporte too forcing me to only play PS,FT and Prima whom i trust for cash outs
Bodog as i am sure you are well aware is primarily a Sports Betting site with some poker( lousy software i might add).
Fugitive from Justice Calvin Ayre famously thumbed his nose at the DOJ for years and brought the wrath of the DOJ upon himself and all the DOJ managed to do was shut down one payment processor kinda encouraging amiright

and for the record Schwallie there is no proof that McCain or Obama will "change" the status quo. A vote for Obama is a vote to ruin our economy with a trillion dollars in additional taxes. McCain will cut taxes even further than current rates

John Adams was a lawyer JP

Last edited by RolloTomasi; 09-09-2008 at 07:02 AM.
RolloTomasi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2008, 07:10 AM   #105
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,450
Re: Obama's Stance on Online Gaming

Quote:
Originally Posted by RolloTomasi View Post
A vote for Obama is a vote to ruin our economy with a trillion dollars in additional taxes. McCain will cut taxes even further than current rates
Obama cuts taxes more than McCain does until you make more than $111,645.


Not to mention McCain's plan would add $1 trillion more to the national debt than Obama's plan.
otatop is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive