VOTE ON ONLINE GAMBLING BEFORE HOUSE TODAY

[HUSKER'66]

The House of Representatives are voting today on the future of online gambling again today. They we're suppose to vote on Tuesday, but did not have enough support. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif I heard that they are going to put it in front of the house again today hoping to get better results. How does everyone feel about our government "protecting" us from ourselves???? With the WPT having touneys on the Travel channel and the recent explosion of poker interest, I hope and pray that they would squash this bill and let us be......I don't live within 200 miles of a B&M and would not be able to enjoy playing online for "fun". Sound off fellow 2+2 er's, let me know how you feel. /forums/images/icons/confused.gif

[Stew]

Honestly, I think it's assanine that these ignorant F'ing A-Holes have the audacity to attempt to legislate what I do with my time and money under the guise that they are actually attempting to "protect us from those that run off-shore gambling sites." F-YOU and let me do what I wish with my time and money when I'm not hurting anyone else who chooses to do the same. I know the risks involved and I've choosen to take that risk. Go do something legitimate with the powers you've been voted into by less than the majority of people that live in this country.

I'm off my soapbox now, thanks!

[bentlyman]

Land of the free??

This post makes me want to get all Lyndon LaRouche on Washington's ass /forums/images/icons/mad.gif . Hopefully, the south will rise again and the States will go back to confederacy, minus slavery of course. That would be sweet /forums/images/icons/cool.gif .

[Emperor]

Well HR21 doesn't outlaw internet gambling per se. It prohibits funding any gambling estblishment from a US Credit Card or Bank. You can still fund your offshore account (Neteller) and then fund your gaming account. It WILL however make it difficult for new fishies to fund thier internet poker accounts via thier credit/debit card.

I can't imagine the bill ever passing, they included an amendment to include all of the "legal" existing state run gambling sites inside the US already. Currently those sites have an exemption from the Wire Act of (1492?) This new bill would shut them down. So no state rep is going to vote that his own state lose a chunk of tax revenue over some Baptist HillBilly's Quest for Purity.

Regulation is the only way to go, bring those casino's back inside the US and the competition will go through the roof. Read Ton o FISH, better bonuses and lower rakes.

All of the current online casino's have lobbyists pushing for regulation.

[HUSKER'66]

Emperor, You mentioned Neteller...is Firepay an offshore account as well? By lawmakers limiting the ability to fund these accounts through a credit card as well as a checking account, they are attempting to kill the snake by cutting off it's head. I'm also confused by your reference to "all the "legal" state run gambling sites INSIDE the US". I may be showing my a** on this one, but I didn't think that there were any online gaming sites inside the continental US...am I way off here? I too am for regulation, but how do we get there????

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

NETeller shouldn't be affected. It isn't a gaming site and is used for all sorts of online transactions.

[Emperor]

Well, the bill SHOULDN'T affect Neteller and Firepay, but it already is. Some banks will no longer let you fund Neteller/Firepay with a credit card because of their association with gambling.

To answer your question on "all the "legal" state run gambling sites INSIDE the US".

Check out

www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/2206991 (http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/2206991)

I don't know the addys of the sites, but obviously they exist (I think they are State Licensed horse and dog tracks)

Regulation will only come by showing your support for House Bill # (Crap I'll have to go look it up) Anyways there is a bill that is now getting more support that includes regulation.

While watching The McGlaughlin Group on sunday they talked about this. They showed Golden Tiger Casino on the show. The consensus was its impossible to regulate and un-American to ban. Even Buchannan agreed!

[Emperor]

Oh and to all those freakin' Congressmen who say the offshore online casinos aren't safe, they need to check out the national news story a couple months back where one of those "legal" state run gambling sites INSIDE the US" Websites was HACKED.

Some Techno Weenie tried turning in a winning $3million ticket he bought over the internet. Turns out he tricked the computers into thinking he bought it before the race started and he actually bought it after the race was over.

The Track was trying to make the payoff, but the FBI got involved because it was suspicious.

Sure sounds safe to me...NOT!

I don't know maybe this IS a case for regulation. Depends how you look at it.

[HUSKER'66]

I remember hearing about the controversy but never heard the conclusion. So it was proven that he minipulated the system? /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

[happyjaypee]

Neteller is based in Calgary, Canada, and won't be affected by any US voted laws or bills or whatever.


-Happy /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[Emperor]

I think it went something like this:

He was picking a combo of 7 races, paying $3Million to win
He waited until 3 of 7 of the races were complete, hacked the system, and then bet on the 3 winning horses and EVERY horse in the final four races.

It was completely obvious that something funny was going on.

[RiverMel]

Wrong, wrong wrong. The whole point is that the bill is going to stem the flow of funds from US financial institutions to non-US companies assocaited with online gaming.

It seems that people on 2+2 like to make assupmtions about the current situation, because I have seen people post this same misinfored opinion about Neteller in the past.

Personally, I like to avoid basing my posts on assumptions, so I did some research into the matter a few months ago. What I learned was that the bill allows for the "flagging" of non-US entities as "gaming related." Any "flagged" entity will not be allowed to receive funds from any US financial institution. Neteller will most certainly be flagged, despite the fact that it has other legitimate uses.

So, how exactly is Neteller going to be ok? You are going to need to open a non-US bank account to be able to get any of your funds to them.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Maybe people are saying that because most every lawyer who weighs in on this subject is convinced that NETeller, the vast majority of whose business is *not* associated with gaming, will not be affected.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen anything else to verify what you say.

[HUSKER'66]

[RiverMel]

I don't know of whom you speak, but perhaps they were going on assumption as well, and haven't actually read the propsed bill. It's quite simple really. Funds can't go directly to online gaming or an online gaming funding source.
I can't see how Neteller, which would be the big funding source left if this bill for some reason didn't apply to it, would be exempt. I don't care how much other business they do in other areas.

[XlgJoe]

I have a question for you(or anyone that understands) regarding money coming from neteller to your bank. Is that money just as likely to be blocked, or is it only money leaving your bank being blocked.

Just trying to understand the full implications if it passes.

[RiverMel]

It would prohibit US financial institutions from sending funds to designated targets. It doesn't prohibit them from taking receipt of funds.

[ARC171]

very interesting, thank you...

[GrannyMae]

"May your enemies run from you in fear." Klingon benediction

please take your clingon-ass elsewhere. how dare you knock me out of the tourney with a small pair and not go on to win it??
(me and catfish gonna snuff ya anyway)

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/n/puke.gif

[HUSKER'66]

[NutJob]

The horse racing scam mentioned was NOT online and then hacked. It was an employee of the company that programmed the tote board at the track, and he figured out how to past-post the early races.

As far as legislation is concerned, leave things the way they are now...please! They have no ready control of offshore sites, and if they legalize it onshore, it will only lead to taxation either of the sites, winners, or both. They can make funding your account difficult, but not impossible. In my more paranoid days I used Western Union for deposits and hard checks for withdrawals...a relatively minor PITA.

Unfortunately it is likely it will be regulated, sooner rather than later. Some of the big casino companies have already invested large sums to be ready to turn it on as soon as its legal, and without them fighting it to stave off competition, its a lost cause.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I apologize. I dishonored you by not winning. I do, however, take umbrage at having my pocket aces referred to as a "small pair." /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

HR 21 is on the House calendar, but did not reach the floor yesterday.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Your concerns are real. Note the words *could be utilized*. Thus, this will be discretionary to the regulatory body to determine if a site like NETeller will be flagged. Depends on the pull of the online auctions.

( (3) DESIGNATED PAYMENT SYSTEM DEFINED- The term `designated payment system' means any system utilized by any creditor, credit card issuer, financial institution, operator of a terminal at which an electronic fund transfer may be initiated, money transmitting business, or international, national, regional, or local network utilized to effect a credit transaction, electronic fund transfer, or money transmitting service, or any participant in such network, that the Secretary, in consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Attorney General, determines, by regulation or order, could be utilized in connection with, or to facilitate, any restricted transaction.

[HUSKER'66]

[GrannyMae]

I do, however, take umbrage at having my pocket aces referred to as a "small pair."

you were using those as HIGH ?!?!?

oh, never mind then.

http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/violent/sterb123.gif