Online funding legislation

[justus]

House panel backs limits on online gambling. Washington--A House subcommittee voted Tuesday to make it harder for Americans to gamble on the Internet, opting not to consider an alternative proposal that could lead to states legalizing and taxing online casinos.

Democrats on the House Judiciary subcommittee on crime said they would raise that alternative when the full committee considers the bill.

By a voice vote, the subcommittee approved legislationthat would prohibit the use of credit cards, checks and electronic fund transfers to pay for online betting transactions.

The bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa, previously passed the House Financial Services Committee. The full House approved a similar measure in the previous Congress, but it died in the Senate. From the May 7th Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

[RiverMel]

Welcom to America! The land of the free and the home of the brave. Hmmmm... 1 out of 2 ain't so bad..

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

They'll have a hard time keeping you from using NETeller. It isn't a gaming site and is used for many other kinds of transaction. It's not a US company, so they can't regulate the services it provides you.

[RiverMel]

What you say is partially correct. However, the bill allows for the "flagging" of foreign entities as "gaming-related." If Neteller is flagged, the law will prohibit any transfers to Neteller from US accounts, hence plugging that gap.

[FA_man]

Sorry, but that is exactly what it is.

The congressman who sponsored the bill feels that is what a majoity of his constituents want, and if that is what the public wants to disallow, then the public should be able to make that law. You do not have a constitutional right to play online poker.

-FA_man

[Emperor]

This is completely ridiculous. The vote should have been to lift the ban, and to reccomend to the committee that they draft legislation to regulate the industry.

Banning these transactions because it is gambling is hypocritical when they allow billions of dollars to flow internationally for every other kind of commerce.

Where is Gamblers of America website where I can put my name on the mailing list to these draconian "Representatives"?

[Emperor]

Kind of like the PM of Israel continuing to build new developments while displacing Palestinians, all the while the people of Israel are screaming for him to stop. Hmmm

Politicians spin legislation so that thier constituents think that thier views are being represented. Whether or not they are is another story. The public doesn't make laws, we don't hold referendums like other countries, and thank god. I say this because the majority of Americans are completely clueless about what is best for them.

I love America, I think that it could be an awesome country.

Politicians like this scare the heck out of me. This guy is a right wing, bible thumping, save the world from sin, kind of politician. I know because I used to vote for guys like this. They scared me less than the passive, environazi, lets save the world by giving them all of our money types.

Politics seem to be overrun with these types of extremists lately and this country is going to hell in a handbasket because of them.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Please cite the appropriate passage in the US Constitution that denies my right to play online poker.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

In fact, I would argue that taken in conjunction with Article 8, Amendments IX and X specifically *deny* congress the power to make such a law.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

You wrote:

"The congressman who sponsored the bill feels that is what a majoity of his constituents want, and if that is what the public wants to disallow, then the public should be able to make that law."

What the majority of those citizens wants is irrelevant *if* it contradicts the rules of governance as outlined in the constitution. Remember, the US is NOT a democracy, it IS a constitutional republic.

-In a democracy, 3 wolves and 1 sheep vote on what's for dinner -
-In a republic, 3 wolves and 1 sheep elect representatives who vote on what's for dinner -
-In a constitutional republic, dinner is not subject to a vote, and the sheep are armed -

[Emperor]

There is nothing wrong with having a crate full of Chinese SKS's (cheap I know) buried in the backyard.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean its not justified. :P

[Bubmack]

Sorry, but your way off.

Freedom is not equal to limiting freedoms because the majority of the group wants it that way. Freedom is enabling the minority to act as they choose....of which this country has a long way to go to catch up with most of Europe.

Bubs

[Jimbo]

". Freedom is enabling the minority to act as they choose...."

I believe you just defined anarchy not freedom.

[Ted Geisel]

If YOUR Bank is a US Bank, you're done under this legislation. YOUR Bank will fall in line faster than Paypal at an Elliot Spitzer fundraiser.

It is YOUR Bank that will shut you off from Neteller or wherever, not actual criminal enforcement. Even if YOUR Bank doesn't shut you off, somewhere in the intermediary chain of banks there will certainly be a Bank that will shut it off.

If the Leach bill passes and becomes law, then you will not be able to use the US banking system, period.

(There IS a solution, but it will lack the widespread acceptance needed to support a market.)

Think Pokerscene and the Pokervault will come to the rescue ?

Ted Geisel

[Bubmack]

Jimbo,

I would agree, but Anarchy may be freedom in its truest state.

I'll take anarchy over a cage any day!!

[RollaJ]

It seems there is an easy solution.....
Deposit money before the legislation is put into law, then dont lose.
/forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Just remember, the single most important part of the Constitution is the 2nd Amendment. Without the right of the citizens to bear arms, all the other rights can be taken away.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

A true free society guards against the tyranny of the majority, and protects the right to be different. From my experience, Europe does not do that any better than the US does. Both sides of the pond are still learning.

[jek187]

While an incovenience, this really isn't a problem for us because we won't be able to deposit money. It's a problem for us because the fish won't be able to deposit money.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

So what you're saying is that the majority of NETeller customers, those who don't use the service for gaming, will be screwed.

Oh, well. I'll just have to drive up to Canada, use somebody's address to open a bank account with a debit card, and use that.

[lorinda]

Right on the money as always Jek.

Personally, I would think a majority of the people couldn't give a flying **** what other people do with their money if it isn't harming anyone.

Lori

[Jeffage]

Why can't I and everyone else do what we want with our own goddamn money. WTF! This [censored] pisses me off. I'm currently doing very well online and would be majorly irritated if this is banned. What am I supposed to do, uproot myself from a city and job I enjoy so that I can play cards in a casino a few times a week because some moralist wants to tell me I "can't handle it" in a virtual environment? This is irritating. So if you have money in Neteller, what would you do...take it all out now? Or do we not have to worry about this for a year?

Jeff

[RiverMel]

I don't think withdrawals would be a problem.

[J.R.]

Check out article 1, section 8, clause 3. The power to regulate interstate, foreign and Indian commerce defeats your 10th Amendment argument.

I have no idea what 9th Amendment argument you are relying on. What right retained by the people are you refering to? Certainly not any judically recognized fundamental right reserved to the people, such as family or privacy, would permit a basis to challenge the regulation of foreign commerce (I don't know of any online gaming establishments based in the US, but they would be subject to regulation as interstate commerce).

By the way, I am pretty sure there are only 7 Articles in the United States Constitution, what other argument are you thinking about here?

[CtPokerPro]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
It seems there is an easy solution.....
Deposit money before the legislation is put into law, then dont lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. One of the reasons I have stayed at Paradise is that I have built a BR there, and do not need to make any further deposits. My original deposits (a total of 2 of them), were made when paypal was still processing. Now I make sure to leave enough so I don't have to worry about joining NETeller.

If and when I add another site or two, I will send a bank draft so that I do not have to open a NETeller account. Hopefully I will be able to build a BR there as well, and just take out checks when I have $500 above what I like to leave in the site. My guess is that NETeller will be shut down if this legislation passes, and I don't want to risk having an unregulated, non-insured, out of the country, money mover holding my funds. The best method is to deposit via bank draft or wire transfer BEFORE the legislation goes to be signed, and like RollaJ says, don't lose. lol /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[Glenn]

Hi FA-

I can say with some certainty that the congressman who sponsered the bill does not, in fact, feel it is what the majority of his constituants want. I have never heard any non-politician say internet gambling should be outlawed. He feels the need to protect people from themselves and thinks the solution to this is to impose his own (superior) morals upon them. He stands on moral high ground, and if everyone had his ideals (which mainly stem from his religion) there would be no problems. Since we are too stupid to agree to this, he will use whatever lies necessary (terrorism in this case) to push forth his bill. This is the truth.

[Emperor]

Doesn't this bible thumper know that the apostles gambled?

Check out the book of Acts. The apostles had two potential apostles "cast lots" to see who would take Judas' place.

Seriously check it out.

[FA_man]

Kind of like the PM of Israel continuing to build new developments while displacing Palestinians, all the while the people of Israel are screaming for him to stop. Hmmm

Few things:
1 All of the people in Israel are not screaming at the PM we just had elections and his party got a big voter share
2 Palestinians are not being displaced
3 The government has taken down illegal israeli settlements that are in supposed palestinian territory, but allows Bedouin illegal settlements in south Israel to go unchecked


As for your views on the US government, I dont know, I always had a little more faith in it than that. I still vote you know... absentee ballots, and im not voting for anyone who supports stopping online gambling.

-FA_man

[FA_man]

The constitution clearly states that any law not written in it is given over to the people to make their own.

So I really think youve got it backwards. You have to site the passage that specifically gives you the right to gamble online. Not some vague interpretation &amp; conjunctions of articles and ammendments not related to the subject.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Since this is not a political philosophy board, I'll stop after this post;

It is you who has it backwards. In fact, it is precisely the loose-constructionist view you hold that has led to activist judges raping the constitution for over a century, opening the door to such atricities (hyperbole here)as the income tax, the war on drugs and wholesale flouting of the bill of rights (e.g. gun control, laws against polygamy are most definitely unconstitutional, though I can't imagine why anyone would want more than one wife.)

Where is Barry Goldwater now that we need him?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I'm 100% with you on this one.

[lorinda]

Hi justus,

Could you provide a link to the post for us?

I have just nearly bust the MJS search engine to find references, and there are none coming up.

Note: Due to usage rights, some syndicated material published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel newspaper is not posted online

Which is rather annoying of course.

Lori

[lorinda]

Talking about majority views....

http://www.gambling-pro.com/gambling_news.htm

Lori

[chaos]

Some points to consider:

Leach introduced this bill in the previous session of Congress and it died.

Americans probably have lost orders of magnitude more money playing the stock market online than on gambling sites.

Playing poker isn't gambling. The state of California has already decided that poker is a game of skill. That is why poker is legal there.

Check out: http://www.legalpoker.org/

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Most of this legislation is directed specifically at the offshore sports books.

[maplepig]

morons, morons, morons, should send them a bullet. /forums/images/icons/mad.gif If they are going to shut down gaming, why don't they shut down the stock market? It has done much more damage. At least I haven't heard anyone jumping off from the 30th floor or killing people on the street because they lost at an Internet poker site.

[RiverMel]

If it weren't for the stock market, our economy would be a tiny fraction of the size it is today. Stock markets are very helpful in promotion of--if not necessary for--economic expansion and prosperity in the long run. I don't see how you could make that argument for online gaming. So, the downsides may be similar, but one of the two has a huge benefit. (Note: I am opposed to the legislation and wish they would let online gaming continue to be legal).

[justus]

I too could not find it on there web site. I read it in the newspaper. Now I've taken a picture of the article but how do I put a picture into a post?

[Emperor]

My understanding is that thier is only one "real" party in Israel.

Palestinians are being displaced, and have been being displaced for 50 years. Ask those who used to live in Jerusalem.

Illegal Israeli settlements. Thats like if we moved the Texas border 1 mile south every month for a year, and then said oh how did those illegal settlements get there?

The line was drawn a long time ago and Israel has pushed it out ever since. Thier shouldn't be a seperate nation of Israel, it wasn't right for one to be created in the first place.

FYI I'm a Christian, I lean republican, I think the Jewish people are "the chosen", they have a right to live in peace, but will never be able to when they continue to use acts of terrorism to oppress the palestinian people.

I think that online gambling should be legalized, and regulated.

[smd]

Yes. But if this legislation passes as it stands right now, it will effectively ban funding of poker site also, wouldn't it?

[Emperor]

What is crazy is that all of these proposed bills state that it will apply to all online gambling EXCEPT online gambling run by the state.

I researched this when looking up how you can have a US based Website taking bets on Horse and Dog Racing. What I found out was that these sites are EXCLUDED because they are run by the state.

Thats hypocrazy /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Except if we moved the Texas border a couple of miles south each year, the residents of Northern Mexico would welcome the move with open arms.

Point 2: There never has been a sovereign state in the area designated as "Palestine." Therefore that obviates your point. The US moving Texas' border south would be a land grab by one sovereign state against another. For over the last century, every time any Jew has moved there, the local arabs' first response was to try to kill them, just for being Jewish.


The middle east is real simple to understand. The Jews are the good guys, the arabs are the bad guys. Period.

For the record, I live in the Northeast, vote Libertarian or Republican, and am a non-practicing Zen Buddhist. And if you say I sound like a Zionist, I'll take it as a compliment.

[Mac]

Up until now, the 2+2 board had been the only board I've been a part of not infiltrated by the tired "Israelis vs. Palestinians" debate. Kurns, let it drop, man, we discuss poker here, not listen to your incredibly naive commentary on Middle Eastern politics.
- MAC

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Currently, almost no US Bank issued credit card will make the direct transfer (Although I can actually deposit money at Party with my Debit Card). Worst case scenario, you'll have to Fedex a money order to make your deposit, although I seriously doubt they'll be able to stop US Banks from allowing transfers to NETeller. Besides, this didn't get to the Senate last year and probably won't get there this year.

[lorinda]

Up until now, the 2+2 board had been the only board I've been a part of not infiltrated by the tired "Israelis vs. Palestinians" debate

Well, unless you look at the other topics forum that is.

Lori

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I didn't initiate the issue. Talk to Emperor. However, your goading language notwithstanding, I agree that this board should be about issues germane to poker, and will let this debate drop.

[Emperor]

I agree, check my post at the bottom titled "hypocritical".

[Mac]

Thanks, Kurns, didn't mean to bait you to come back over the top - GL in the tourney tonight.

- MAC

[ACPlayer]

These are frequently quoted by parties who want Congress to not do something that the party wants to do. The argument is irrelevant to the legality or not. IMHO.

[ACPlayer]

I wonder why the founding fathers chose to put the words

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state

In the second amendment, rather than simply saying:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[Emperor]

They did this because a population of unorganized armed citizens can be ineffective when need to overthrow a corrupt government, and they can be dangerous as hell.

So what is needed is a well regulated militia in case the government becomes corrupt. Just like they said.

Too bad that the militia they were talking about never developed and as the government became more and more corrupt, the government made sure that this militia could never develop. (via anti-terrorism laws, although they weren't called that 200 years ago.)

I love when anti-gun politicians insist that the amendment says "Well regulated Militia" and not "right to bear arms"

I want to say, "Then where the Heck is my militia at?"

[ACPlayer]

The second amendment has to be one of the dumbest on record (rates up there with the one that gave us federal taxation).

Well regulated militia - regulated by whom the government that this militia is supposed to be policing. HA!

It has basically given every kook NRA member the ammo (pun intended) to say he/she has the right to buy assault rifles, howitzers etc, without any govt oversight. If that was the intent, they should have just said people have the right to buy the guns.

Bush finally has done something right in supporting the extension to assault rifle legislation due to expire next year.

[Emperor]

Well if the government is not going to provide the people a well regulated militia per the 2nd amendment, then I think that EVERY Citizen should have not only an assault rifle, but a certain percentage should have Tanks, planes, and artillery.

I can name you 10 countries off the top of my head that the population was unarmed and taken control by a government/army/minority population that was armed. It could happen in the US and there would be nothing the citizens could do about it.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Now if I can only avoid snapping at the bait in the tourney /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Just my opinion, but I view this as being the constitution defining that the several states cannot restrict the right to bear arms.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The problem is, that when you make guns illegal, other than the government, only the kooks and criminals will have them. Law-abiding citizens, by definition will not have guns, and criminals, by definition, won't care that they're breaking the law.

Read "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott - U. of Chicago

To date, *every* state that has passed a concealed-carry law has experienced a drop in violent crime.

[ACPlayer]

Please note that i have not stated that guns should be legal or illegal.

I have stated that the amendment is one of the the worst precisely because it does not state what the intent is.

I have also stated that it has given the kooky NRA types ammo to try and prevent any type of restrictions on gun ownership.

As in any debate (as opposed to advocacy) my personal view points are not important - i am certain i can argue both sides equally passionately.

I tend to see more advocacy and little debate in these forums or in general political discourse.