Internet Gambling Ban Passes And Will Be Law In USA!

[BoyAlley]

Bill Frist attached it to a Ports Security Bill late last night and it got passed at around 12 midnight. A version has already passed congress, so this means it's headed to the president's desk for signing.

http://www.eog.com/news/index.aspx?id=9320

[LiveDose]

What a surprise. Those assholes.

[FuqALot]

that doesnt mean shit yet

[BoyAlley]

that doesnt mean shit yet

Hrm. It:

1. Makes It Illegal For US Citizens To Gamble Online
2. Has passed both the house and senate
3. Bush has already said he's going to sign it

How does that "not mean shit yet" exactly?

[FuqALot]

Just wait...

[mardigras]

They also want to slip net neutrality into an unrelated bill when they come back for November's "lame duck" session.

[BoyAlley]

You know, I've honestly never gambled online using real money before. I probably never would either. Gambling just isn't entertaining to me.

That being said.

I find a prohibition on it VERY disturbing. It's perfectly legal to gamble on Indian Reservations, in Vegas Casinos, our own state governments run lotteries to generate revenue. Yet gambling online is just this horrible cancer on society and needed to be banned outright?

The bill even allows for online gambling in the US if it's on horse races, and allows In-State online gambling too (so states can bring their lotto system online and the like).

Cripe Mighty! The hypocrisy!

[Sosa]

yeah they are just stupid, make it legal and tax the companies and make more money for the gov. dumb fucks. Scared of people getting addicted? The ones addicted will still figure out ways to do it.

[CaptainHowdy]

yeah they are just stupid, make it legal and tax the companies and make more money for the gov. dumb fucks. Scared of people getting addicted? The ones addicted will still figure out ways to do it.

!!

[FuqALot]

yeah they are just stupid, make it legal and tax the companies and make more money for the gov. dumb fucks. Scared of people getting addicted? The ones addicted will still figure out ways to do it.

indeed.. also if it is not legalized and the bill gets signed, which i really doubt, then all it takes is a 4th party processor to solve this... i.e Neteller. but Neteller is well known so visa might block neteller.. so all you need is an offshore billing method that is not only involved in gambling.

[polle54]

that doesnt mean shit yet

Then you don't know shit!

This means everything in the online gambling industry!!

Online poker as we know it will be complete destructured.

partypoker has 80k online gamers in peak hours, that number will be reduced to 20k.

[viva celebs]

how the hell can someone "attach" a bill to another totally unrelated bill so it gets passed, thats fucked up in itself!

[FuqALot]

Then you don't know shit!

This means everything in the online gambling industry!!

Online poker as we know it will be complete destructured.

partypoker has 80k online gamers in peak hours, that number will be reduced to 20k.

[Penthouse Tony]

i thought online gaming was already illegal.

[mardigras]

yeah they are just stupid, make it legal and tax the companies and make more money for the gov. dumb fucks. Scared of people getting addicted? The ones addicted will still figure out ways to do it.

They don't give a shit about anyone's addictions. It's to preserve the "good ole boy" networking that gives certain areas legalized gambling. If you want to gamble on poker would you rather fly to Mississippi or hop on your favorite online site?

[GeorgeM]

shit..so what will happen with all US online casinos now ???

[BoyAlley]

how the hell can someone "attach" a bill to another totally unrelated bill so it gets passed, thats fucked up in itself!

Welcome to the fucked up ways laws are created in the USA!

[mardigras]

how the hell can someone "attach" a bill to another totally unrelated bill so it gets passed, thats fucked up in itself!

Happens regularly.

The minimum wage increase bill didn't pass because the final version had repealling the tax cuts for the rich attatched.

[DateDoc]

This was probably pushed through with a lot of donations from Casinos that do not want to lose business to online competition. Here in NV they have pushed for a state lottery like 4 times and everytime the casinos lobby hard enough to get it shut down.

[Milkmans World]

how the hell can someone "attach" a bill to another totally unrelated bill so it gets passed, thats fucked up in itself!

No shit, it's the biggest load of undemocratic bullshit you could imagine. Make a bill that everyone wants to pass, then attach a shitty law onto that to increase the chances of it being passed. If it wouldn't get passed on its own then it shouldn't get passed at all. (I'm not even American)

Online poker kicks arse, this is a balatant case of the US government saying, we don't mind you playing poker but not if the money is going to leave our country.

[woj]

i thought online gaming was already illegal.

was thinking the same

[RawAlex]

It is one of the biggest problems of the so called democracy of the US... in order to get bills past, they often tack on unrelated issues to get people to vote for it. In this case, they take a bill that cannot help but get passed, and tack on a totally unrelated piece of legislation/

Why does this work? It's the shame factor. Nobody is going to vote against a "ports security" bill, nobody is going to want to look like they are weak on homeland security or against supporting the troops or anything like that (hey, the flip flop on troop support did John Kerry in by itself!). So they tack on unpopular extremely partisan riders on the side, and when the bill gets passed, those other riders come right along with it.

THis is one of the reasons why there was such a big fight about presidential line-item vetos, which would allow the president to not only veto an entire bill, but veto certain parts of it, typically these tacks ons and pork projects.

I hope that the democrats take this legislation and jam it down the republican's throats in November... Frist is an asshole above and beyond the call of duty.

Alex

[DateDoc]

i thought online gaming was already illegal.

It is this just makes the penalties a lot stiffer I believe.

[RawAlex]

was thinking the same

Online gaming IN THE US is illegal. But online gaming in other countries is not, and the moving of money to those other countries for the purposes of online gaming has been, well, a nice grey area.

My bet is that all the poker advertising on TV, radio, and all their sponsorships and whatnot are done for, and the WSOP will slowly trundle back to being a bunch of guys in Vegas who all know each other.

[polle54]

yeah that was stupid just did a readup

under 20k

You fucktard

you don't know a fucking thing about this subject.

I share my apartment with a guy earning $20-30k/month on playing on partypoker (hit me up in icq and I will provide you username so you can see for yourself if you are in doubt)

I found out about this ealier today when he smashed his printer in the wall.
He foundation of income is ruined, the people puttin money in the pots are gone. 80% of the pokersociety has been eliminated, this will leave mostly pro's at high levels and too much competition to bother.

It means a lot to all kind of people and it means the world to the people collection from fishs.
Some pokersites has devalued to something like third of their iroganal value caused by this.

You are absolutely clueless.

[Penthouse Tony]

Online gaming IN THE US is illegal. But online gaming in other countries is not, and the moving of money to those other countries for the purposes of online gaming has been, well, a nice grey area.

My bet is that all the poker advertising on TV, radio, and all their sponsorships and whatnot are done for, and the WSOP will slowly trundle back to being a bunch of guys in Vegas who all know each other.

Why was David Carruthers arrested in July?

[mardigras]

THis is one of the reasons why there was such a big fight about presidential line-item vetos, which would allow the president to not only veto an entire bill, but veto certain parts of it, typically these tacks ons and pork projects.

I think the reason line the item veto hasn't been approved is because thinking members of the legislature know it would be used to appease those who want certain bills by attatching them to bills certain to pass then the president could veto the unrelated. Example: The minority party wants to raise the minimum wage. To end debate the party in charge agrees to it in order to get the minority party to agree to a budget bill they weren't happy with. The bill goes to the president, he vetos the minimum wage part and approves the budget only the party in charge wants. The party in charge gets to say, "Well, we tried", knowing all along what was going down.

Line item veto would be abused in any administration, let alone a single party one.

[RawAlex]

Hang on... they guy is making 20k-30k a month and he shares an apartment?

How metro!

[Penthouse Tony]

It is one of the biggest problems of the so called democracy of the US... in order to get bills past, they often tack on unrelated issues to get people to vote for it. In this case, they take a bill that cannot help but get passed, and tack on a totally unrelated piece of legislation/

Why does this work? It's the shame factor. Nobody is going to vote against a "ports security" bill, nobody is going to want to look like they are weak on homeland security or against supporting the troops or anything like that (hey, the flip flop on troop support did John Kerry in by itself!). So they tack on unpopular extremely partisan riders on the side, and when the bill gets passed, those other riders come right along with it.

THis is one of the reasons why there was such a big fight about presidential line-item vetos, which would allow the president to not only veto an entire bill, but veto certain parts of it, typically these tacks ons and pork projects.

I hope that the democrats take this legislation and jam it down the republican's throats in November... Frist is an asshole above and beyond the call of duty.

Alex

yeah line-item vetos were suppose to take care of this. You have to assume that if a line-item veto isn't used then the President is okay all aspects of the bill otherwise he would have a) not signed it or b) line-item vetoed it.

[baddog]

Guess I should cash in my chips before it is too late.

[baddog]

Hang on... they guy is making 20k-30k a month and he shares an apartment?

How metro!

that is a little strange

[Penthouse Tony]

I think the reason line the item veto hasn't been approved is because thinking members of the legislature know it would be used to appease those who want certain bills by attatching them to bills certain to pass then the president could veto the unrelated. Example: The minority party wants to raise the minimum wage. To end debate the party in charge agrees to it in order to get the minority party to agree to a budget bill they weren't happy with. The bill goes to the president, he vetos the minimum wage part and approves the budget only the party in charge wants. The party in charge gets to say, "Well, we tried", knowing all along what was going down.

Line item veto would be abused in any administration, let alone a single party one.

As far as I know line-item veto is a reality since clinton was in office. He even used it a few times. Bush I don't think has used it (probably because his party controls both houses of congress).

[mardigras]

As far as I know line-item veto is a reality since clinton was in office. He even used it a few times. Bush I don't think has used it (probably because his party controls both houses of congress).

Then why does Bush keep asking them to approve line item veto?

[mardigras]

Bush Calls on Senate to Pass Line-Item Veto

[Fizzgig]

No shit, it's the biggest load of undemocratic bullshit you could imagine. Make a bill that everyone wants to pass, then attach a shitty law onto that to increase the chances of it being passed. If it wouldn't get passed on its own then it shouldn't get passed at all. (I'm not even American)

Online poker kicks arse, this is a balatant case of the US government saying, we don't mind you playing poker but not if the money is going to leave our country.

I agree completely.

[directfiesta]

I think I will become gay ... would help ...

GOP aims to crack down on Web gambling directfiesta Today 11:21 AM

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=661009

[polish_aristocrat]

fuck gambling, we are in porn


http://www.gfy.com/showthread.php?t=660297

[C H R I S]

This sucks -- honestly though do you think they will try to enforce on consumers? They have no jurisdiction over the foreign online casinos, so there only viable enforcement option is going after consumers. What a joke that would be, Feds coming after individuals playing 1.00 poker games online - silliness!

[directfiesta]

Online gaming IN THE US is illegal.

Although it is not illegal under U.S. law for Americans to make online bets, federal prosecutors maintain that it is illegal for online operators to solicit or accept them, even when their operations are not in the U.S.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...adlines-nation

[Burridge]

that's some bullshit, although it can't be that bad...

[Penthouse Tony]

Then why does Bush keep asking them to approve line item veto?

Interesting looks like it was around for awhile but later declared unconstitutional.

The President of the United States was briefly granted this power by the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, passed by Congress in order to control "pork barrel spending" that favors a particular region rather than the nation as a whole. The line-item veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget by President Bill Clinton.

However, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998 that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.

A constitutional amendment to give the President line item veto power has been considered periodically since the Court ruled the 1996 Act unconstitutional.

[Zuss]

porn is next.

[biskoppen]

I read that the law easily can be avoided by moving the cash to the poker sites using Neteller - and the same way back..

But ofcourse the IRS might have some questions when the amounts gets up there

[Klen]

One more reason why USA sucks.

[Drake]

What's wrong with gambling... I still don't see what the hangup about that is.

[Daruma]

Measure to curb internet gambling falls short of applying existing laws to web
Much of the internet gambling community woke up to what could be best described as a bad hangover following last minute successful passing in Congress of a measure to restrict many forms of online gambling shortly after midnight Saturday morning. The piece of legislation itself failed to pass on its own merits but instead hitched a ride on a very popular port security bill, much to the chagrin of many lawmakers.

Even House Homeland Security Committee Peter King Chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., who headed House-Senate negotiations on the port security bill seemed taken aback by the internet gambling measure.

When a number of Democrats complained they were denied the right to offer amendments to restore rail security language contained in the original Senate bill even though Republicans found time to tack on the internet gambling measure, King stated he had only learned about the internet gambling provision attachment that evening.

The bill falls short of adding clarity to an already existing 1961 Wire Act that prohibits betting via phone across state lines and failed to apply that law to gambling on the web. This is being viewed as a slight victory for the online gambling community as it is now unlikely such revisions will ever be added in the future.

Instead, the measure focused on curbing online gambling transactions via banking institutions.



Bill Frist got the internet
gambling measure stuck
in the port bill last minute

Representative Shelley Berkley
of Congressional District number 1 of Nevada slammed Republicans for adding an extraneous provision to limit internet gambling


Poker Players Alliance vows
to keep fighting

Banking Sector not in favor of provisions
The powerful banking industry is opposed to the language contained in the online gambling prohibition bill.

The banking sector has voiced strong opposition to provisions that require banks to block electronic funds transfers or e-check payments to online gambling sites. These provisions are essentially broad and unenforceable, the banks claim; moreover, even if it were possible to surmount technical obstacles, prospective gamblers could easily use alternative means to finance such transactions.

Credit cards transactions for the purpose of online gambling have been difficult ever since the Patriot Act came into being. A number of internet gaming firms have gotten around this by using processors from outside the US, some of whom are not without risk. Over the years, offshore gambling operations are estimated to have lost millions of dollars as a result of keeping funds with "dubious" processors.

Next Phase

Representative Shelley Berkley of Congressional District number 1 of Nevada - presumably speaking on behalf of many in the Vegas casino industry now opposed to internet gambling legislation - slammed Republicans for adding an extraneous provision to limit internet gambling when they found fit not to include measures to increase security to the nation's rail and mass transit system.

"If this is all about port security then why is there a provision to prevent internet gambling?" she demanded to know.

Chairperson King at one point following her vocal discontent for the additional piece of legislation did say "extraneous measures to the bill would be reviewed".

Berkley closed her brief two minute rant by exclaiming "Give me a break!" to which some applause broke out.

Even co-authors of the original port security act expressed outrage over adding an extraneous internet gambling measure.

There are far reaching implications for inclusion of a measure to curb internet gambling while excluding provisions to make the nation's rail and mass transit system safer.

"God forbid something happens on our mass transit system and the American people find out that Republicans could not find time to add provisions to make mass transit safer yet you found time to add a measure that would prohibit internet gambling," said one representative speaking before the House.

Once signed some time this week, the law would not go into effect for nearly another year. There is the potential for litigation and delay in regard to the online gambling provision.

[FuqALot]

guy earning $20-30k/month

i make that every 3 days in revenue

[SinisterStudios]

Love my Country, but i Hate my Government.

I wonder how much money the casino lobby gave the politions to pass this bill?

[Drake]

i make that every 3 days in revenue

Wow, how much are you netting per month?

[jerseygto]

Well i guess im fucked!!!now i gotta promote more porn!!!