House Passes Internet Poker Ban

[Nation]

via pokerplayersalliance.org


House Passes Internet Poker Ban

Washington, D.C.(July 11, 2006) - Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance, released the following statement after the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that would prohibit Americans from playing poker on the Internet.

"We are disappointed that the House of Representatives would assail the rights of Americans to enjoy the great game of poker on the Internet. It is unconscionable that a skill game like poker gets swept into the net of prohibition, while online horse betting and Internet lotteries get free passes," said Mr. Bolcerek.

"The United States should follow the lead of the United Kingdom by regulating and taxing online poker, not banning it. An economic analysis just released by our organization shows that U.S. regulation of online poker has the potential to raise more than $3.3 billion in annual revenue for the federal government, in addition to another $1 billion for state coffers. We hope that this analysis will give a fresh perspective for U.S. Senators about the benefits of regulation.

"The Poker Players Alliance is undeterred in its mission to promote and protect the game of poker and we will continue to advance the cause on behalf of poker players in the United States."

______________________

The bill itself is disgusting and unenforceable, and it represents truly how far out of touch politicians are with America. Poker is a game of skill, a popular hobby for millions of Amercians, and this bill will make CRIMINALS out of the tens of millions of online card players throughout the nation, including myself.

Some of you may not like gambling in particular or even care for poker, but if you hate government treading where  they shouldn't tread, write to your senator about this bill. This could be regulated and taxed like  in the UK, and bring in large sums of money for the government, but no, instead they have to "ban" it, like fools.

[opebo]

This is classic theocracy, Nation.  It is what the Religious Party is all about (and about half the Democratic Party as well).

[adam]

"The United States should follow the lead of the United Kingdom by regulating and taxing online poker, not banning it. An economic analysis just released by our organization shows that U.S. regulation of online poker has the potential to raise more than $3.3 billion in annual revenue for the federal government, in addition to another $1 billion for state coffers. We hope that this analysis will give a fresh perspective for U.S. Senators about the benefits of regulation.

A f-ing men. I am glad to see more people setting morals aside to look at the economic benefits of something that many people enjoy. Gambling is a great source for government revenue (as well as fun) and it's a shame to see our congress pass on this golden economic opportunity to push their morals on us all.

I guess it is just one thing that Britain does better.

[Bono]

What a bunch of fascists.. Luckily, all the companies will justr delocalise to the CaymanIslands and that'll be the end of it.

[Alcon]

Who voted what?

[Nym90]

I agree that this is a bad piece of legislation. Tax and regulate it, don't ban it.

[MasterJedi]

I agree that this is a bad piece of legislation. Tax and regulate it, don't ban it.

^^^^^^

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Even the Freepers are damn pissed about this.

Oh, Mark Kennedy voted for this. Thank you dumbass! Keep trying to prove you aren't a GOP hack...

[Lunar]

I already know the argument in favor of the bill without reading further:
"But what about the children!"

I've already ranted enough about victimless crimes though.

[minionofmidas]

Isn't this legislation unfair to stem cells?

[Citizen James]

I'd like to have more information (from either a neutral source, or the actual text of the bill itself) before passing judgement.

I'm still confused as to how anyone could be so dim as to hand out a CC# and gamble online with it.  I mean how naive  do you have to be to actually trust such places with your financial information.

[adam]

Isn't this legislation unfair to stem cells?

Bah!

[YRABNNRM]

It's a shame Harding isn't president. He would DEFINITELY veto this.

[nini2287]

What a horrible bill.  Is there a list of who voted for it?

[Nation]

I'd like to have more information (from either a neutral source, or the actual text of the bill itself) before passing judgement.

I'm still confused as to how anyone could be so dim as to hand out a CC# and gamble online with it.  I mean how naive  do you have to be to actually trust such places with your financial information.

H.R. 4777, sponsored by Rep. Goodlatte, would force U.S. financial institutions to cooperate with federal law enforcement authorities in closing illegal gambling sites based outside the U.S. Existing U.S. gambling entities, such as horse racing, sports betting (Nevada) and state lotteries are not the target of this legislation. The Federal Wire Act of 1961 would also be updated to include new wireless forms of communication. Language in this bill is specific for Internet gambling - not other forms of gambling.

H.R. 4411, sponsored by Rep. Leach, would make it unlawful for credit-card companies to collect payments for transactions with online-gambling sites.


Second, James, most legitimate online poker sites and the online forms  of Western Union, such as FirePay or  Netteller, are the safest and most reliable methods of transferring money to these sites. You're ten times worse off just giving your credit card  number to some online store for the purchase of a Christmas present.

[AkSaber]

Yeah. This, as we all know, is the greatest threat to American national security. And not the thousands of tons of drugs being smuggled across the border, or terrorists attacking our soldiers in Iraq. So this is what they should focus their attention on. Not catching criminals, or balancing the budget.

[Lunar]

Yeah. This, as we all know, is the greatest threat to American national security. And not the thousands of tons of drugs being smuggled across the border, or terrorists attacking our soldiers in Iraq. So this is what they should focus their attention on. Not catching criminals, or balancing the budget.

Politicians love to create criminals, because it makes the government bigger and more powerful.  Enforcing this bill would undoubtably cost money, intrude more upon ordinary citizens' financial transactions, and expand certain government agencies.  Of course, legislating, investigating, enforcing, and prosecuting crimes like this distract all three branches of the government from real rights-crimes, but our lawmakers don't really care about that stuff.

[Bono]

Yeah. This, as we all know, is the greatest threat to American national security. And not the thousands of tons of drugs being smuggled across the border

Actually, that is no threat at all.

[Bono]

Yeah. This, as we all know, is the greatest threat to American national security. And not the thousands of tons of drugs being smuggled across the border, or terrorists attacking our soldiers in Iraq. So this is what they should focus their attention on. Not catching criminals, or balancing the budget.

Politicians love to create criminals, because it makes the government bigger and more powerful.  Enforcing this bill would undoubtably cost money, intrude more upon ordinary citizens' financial transactions, and expand certain government agencies.  Of course, legislating, investigating, enforcing, and prosecuting crimes like this distract all three branches of the government from real rights-crimes, but our lawmakers don't really care about that stuff.

I liked this new pissedoff!Lunar.

[Alcon]

I'd still love to see a list of the idiots who voted for this.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I've already ranted enough about victimless crimes though.

Gambling is hardly victimless... but this does seem like a... er... let's see... "brave"... yes... I think that would be the appropriate euphamism... piece of legislation.

[Lunar]

I've already ranted enough about victimless crimes though.

Gambling is hardly victimless... but this does seem like a... er... let's see... "brave"... yes... I think that would be the appropriate euphamism... piece of legislation.

If I enter into a consensual agreement to risk X amount of dollars for a potentially higher return, then there is no victim.  Sure, I might have a family, but how would that be different from any other way I could spend my money? 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'd still love to see a list of the idiots who voted for this.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll363.xml

[nini2287]

I'd still love to see a list of the idiots who voted for this.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll363.xml

Allyson Schwartz voted for this...tsk...tsk...

[YRABNNRM]

FREEDOM FIGHTERS

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson
Clay
Conyers
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
Dingell
Dreier
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Flake
Foley
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Holden
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kolbe
Kucinich
Lee
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Mack
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Miller, George
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Olver
Owens
Pastor
Paul
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Rangel
Reyes
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Solis
Stark
Tauscher
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Velázquez
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Woolsey
Young (AK)