Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

DJofSD

10-17-2006, 01:24 PM

Nothing unusual about any of this. Putting unrelated matters into a bill is business as usual. Ever heard of pork barrel spending?

If you don't like the prohibition, call you representatives and tell them.

According to "On the Money" there apparently are ways around this -- but they did not go into detail.

PaceAdvantage

10-17-2006, 05:20 PM

Attaching two completely unrelated bills is nothing new. It's been going on forever in Washington.

Blame Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist for this particular one....

Tom

10-17-2006, 07:24 PM

John, it has the same relation to port security does as Frist does to reality.
The guy is a sack of S* from the word go. Speaking of go, I don't care who runs against him he has to be voted out of office. Frist is an embarrasment to this country.

skate

10-17-2006, 07:35 PM

ya yaya;

pork barrels, and these "holier than thou" peoples, think nothing of it.

they just adjust the name, they now call it, "ear marks". same thing.

hey, whos fault? voting public.

Secretariat

10-17-2006, 08:54 PM

My point was not that unrelated bills are thrown into one. My point is that "if" one throws the word security into anything, it seems you can pass anything.

Tom

10-17-2006, 10:19 PM

And you believe this is 2006 new thing???

highnote

10-17-2006, 10:46 PM

ya yaya;

pork barrels, and these "holier than thou" peoples, think nothing of it.

they just adjust the name, they now call it, "ear marks". same thing.

hey, whos fault? voting public.

I don't think you can totally blame the voting public. Once elected, the voting public does not have a lot of control over how a politician votes on issues -- at least until re-election time.

PlanB

10-17-2006, 11:10 PM

Sometimes I think our leaders are insane. Sometimes just delusional.
Other times just full of ***T. Why can't they just occasionally think
beyond their state or block? It's why I think the guy at the top matters most.
Behind the scenes he sets the tone & limits. That's why I think Bush has
'mostly' failed. (okay I'm cranky cause of the Mets)

46zilzal

10-17-2006, 11:32 PM

[QUOTE=PaceAdvantage]Attaching two completely unrelated bills is nothing new. It's been going on forever in Washington.

[QUOTE]Learned that one from Claude Raines in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" as he was doing this very thing for Edward Arnold.

highnote

10-18-2006, 01:29 AM

If you don't like the prohibition, call you representatives and tell them.

Thanks for the advice. I did just that. I sent the following email to a bunch of senators and the president. (I'll admit, it's not my greatest piece of literature. :D ) I must have sent to 10 or so senators. I got tired of filling out their online forms. Maybe I'll do some more later.

"In 1963 JFK revived the London bond market by imposing a tax on U.S. investment in foreign securities.

That made the international bond market move to London, allowing the city to regain its 19th century status as Wall Street's rival in capital markets.

Now U.S. regulators -- through anti-gambling laws -- are doing the same thing with online betting and gambling markets, markets that are now flourishing in London." (Financial Times)
----------------

An anti-gambling provision does not belong in the ports bill. The U.S. should regulate and tax online wagering. This would be a great boost in income for any state that takes the lead in this field.

As an aside... most of the Repub senators had "Trade" as one of the selectable topics for an email. Dems did not. I selected "Trade" as often as I could and used "Other" or "Internet" for those who did not have "Trade" as an option. You would think these people would check out each other's sites and figure out what is good and bad about the competition's sites.

ljb

10-18-2006, 06:22 AM

Don't know if any here will remember or want to remember but I had predicted this type of activity by the neocons years ago. This is an "I told you so" message and I apologize for using this method, but sometimes it is the only way to get your message through. Check out the thread "I used to be a Republican" for more clarification.

OTM Al

10-18-2006, 02:22 PM

highnote

10-18-2006, 02:52 PM

Hmmmm..... and look what the FBI wants to do. Cloak it in the name of terroism and catching pedophiles, but it will work just as well against anyone who has downloaded music or placed a bet on the web

http://news.com.com/FBI+director+wants+ISPs+to+track+users/2100-7348_3-6126877.html?tag=nefd.top

I'm usually not one to go running for the tinfoil hat, but I don't like this one bit.

It is a bit of a quandry for all of us. On the one hand if we can protect one child or catch one terrorist then it is worth it. On the other hand, we should not give up our liberties. Maybe the FBI and other law enforcement agencies need to be a little more creative and work a little harder.

We absolutely must never give up any essential liberties in the name of security. We all need to better understand the right to privacy and its relationship to the internet.

ljb

10-18-2006, 03:48 PM

Damn, I guess we will have to start posting from different sites each time we post a note showing our disgust with the neocons. Big brother is watching closely now.

PaceAdvantage

10-18-2006, 11:14 PM

Don't know if any here will remember or want to remember but I had predicted this type of activity by the neocons years ago.

What activity? Trying to prevent something that is already illegal? Big deal. Just because they don't prosecute the gamblers doesn't mean it's legal. And forget about the tax laws that are being broken by all those that don't report their winnings.

Unless the offshore entity in question is listed on some sort of stock exchange (such as London with PartyPoker), or the entity's parent company is listed on an exchange, it will be business as usual, unless of course, they can prevent you somehow from depositing money into Neteller, which I don't think they can....

So, if they can't stop you from depositing money into Neteller, and your favorite offshore entity of choice isn't listed on a stock exchange, it will most likely be business as usual....

For an example, look at FullTilt poker. They are boldly proclaiming they are here to stay for US customers despite this law. (Watch your ass Chris 'Jesus' Ferguson - there may be a perp walk for you in the future).

On the opposite side of the spectrum, PartyPoker has now banned all real money play from US customers.

PaceAdvantage

10-18-2006, 11:18 PM

Damn, I guess we will have to start posting from different sites each time we post a note showing our disgust with the neocons. Big brother is watching closely now.

Huh? They already DO record the data. How do you think they track these people down?

Law enforcement groups claim that by the time they contact Internet service providers, customers' records may have been deleted in the routine course of business. Industry representatives, however, say that if police respond to tips promptly instead of dawdling, it would be difficult to imagine any investigation that would be imperiled.

You see that....may have been deleted, meaning, it IS ALREADY BEING RECORDED. They just want it preserved longer. Stop with the "fear card"

OTM Al

10-19-2006, 09:31 AM

Yes, PA, they are required by law to have all info recorded for 90 days. Law enforcement needs to currently act in a quick and efficient manner to track down those using the net for criminal purposes. No one I would think would have a problem with the stated intentions of stopping terrorists or pedophiles but what worries me is that extending the period to 2 years however smacks of the gov't buying extra time to do some data mining type fishing explorations. While I don't like the fact that they can already look into our last 90 days worth of activity, extending that to 2 years makes it all the more troubling.

skate

10-19-2006, 01:14 PM

I don't think you can totally blame the voting public. Once elected, the voting public does not have a lot of control over how a politician votes on issues -- at least until re-election time.

Sweety;

ok ok sure thing, i know lots of people that vote and i love em.
but i'm making a point, people sit back on their rump.

told a guy the same thing on another site, bout 6 months ago and he got all excited, cause i was blaming him.

last week he's telling people "it is our fault". complete reverse, since i was not there, if you follow, if not , i am sorry.

jerry samovitz

10-19-2006, 05:47 PM

We must write letters to show our opposition to this bill. If the US had a set up plan in this country to replace offshore gambling that could be taxed that would be fine. Meanwhile, forget gamblers, many people are out of work and so much money has been lost to accomplish nothing but some political agenda.

Pork barreling should be questioned totally? If 90% of the people are against a law and it passes what kind of government is this? I know attaching unrelated laws is nothing new for our government but to enforce this law has to result in a loss of our rights. Each one of us should take this as a duty TO AT LEAST WRITE OR E-MAIL OUR SENATORS AND LEGISLATURES WHO ARE EASY TO FIND ON LINE before the final plan has beren outlined. I personally will note vote for any politician who doesn't try to soften the terms of this bill.

JustRalph

10-19-2006, 07:02 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15265338/site/newsweek/

newsweek article on the subject

Tom

10-19-2006, 08:01 PM

Jerry, since when do the people matter to politicians? :bang:

ljb

10-19-2006, 09:35 PM

Jerry, since when do the people matter to politicians? :bang:
damn Tom,
that's twice now. maybe you should put me on your buddy list.

highnote

10-20-2006, 12:38 AM

I agree with this article.

I have an idea. Let's organize a March on Washington to protest. The sooner the better.

highnote

10-20-2006, 12:41 AM

We must write letters to show our opposition to this bill.

I wrote some congressmen stating my opposition to this new bill. Who else has and what did you write? Let's pass some examples around so we can all send a unified message.

ljb

10-20-2006, 02:12 PM

What activity? Trying to prevent something that is already illegal? Big deal. Just because they don't prosecute the gamblers doesn't mean it's legal. And forget about the tax laws that are being broken by all those that don't report their winnings.

Unless the offshore entity in question is listed on some sort of stock exchange (such as London with PartyPoker), or the entity's parent company is listed on an exchange, it will be business as usual, unless of course, they can prevent you somehow from depositing money into Neteller, which I don't think they can....

So, if they can't stop you from depositing money into Neteller, and your favorite offshore entity of choice isn't listed on a stock exchange, it will most likely be business as usual....

For an example, look at FullTilt poker. They are boldly proclaiming they are here to stay for US customers despite this law. (Watch your ass Chris 'Jesus' Ferguson - there may be a perp walk for you in the future).

On the opposite side of the spectrum, PartyPoker has now banned all real money play from US customers.

PA,
Ask one of them nra dudes about the slippery slope.

Boats

10-22-2006, 02:25 PM

Maybe this law is just what is needed to get the dems in control.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/opinion/19murray.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Like Charles Murray, my sports book hasn't been affected (yet).
I just can't wait until my congressman, Nancy Pelosi, is speaker.

DJofSD

10-22-2006, 04:38 PM

Thus society is weakened every time a law is passed that large numbers of reasonable, responsible citizens think is stupid.

Let's discuss gay marriage.

Valuist

11-16-2006, 04:17 PM

A good article on the subject:

http://www.slate.com/id/2153352/?nav=tap3

highnote

11-16-2006, 08:29 PM

A good article on the subject:

http://www.slate.com/id/2153352/?nav=tap3

WE need to let the politicians know who is in control. It is us. NOT them. We, the people, ultimately decide which laws are just.

When, we, the gambling people, decide we have had enough and will not vote for any anti-gambling pols, they will begin to see things our way.

----------

As an aside...

I was at work today at a Public TV station in NY and one of the executives flew in from L.A. last night. He said he sat next to a young man who he thought was Muslim. He said the man was obviously very wealthy. He worked on Wall Street. They struck up a conversation about Public TV. The young man said he liked a lot of the programs the local PBS station produced. The executive said that obviously he must be a member of the station. The Wall Street man said absolutely not. He never gives money to PBS.

When asked why, the young man said because you can't influence politicians through journalism -- you can only influence politicians with big money contributions.

Unfortunately, a lot of people feel the only way to get political influence is with large campaign graft as we found out recently with Abramoff, Ney, Nordquist, Reed and Delay.