The Poker Players Alliance asked its members to make videos for the legalization of poker ahead of a forum in DC next week. Saw this video linked off of www.theagitator.com. Amazingly compelling.
I'm at work but I'll check out the video when I get home. I haven't played online since most of the rooms started refusing US players. I'd sure like to thank my government for protecting me from earning an extra $300-$400 every month.
DVD Josh
10-17-07, 02:50 PM
This gentleman is well-spoken and sympathetic, but he does not address virtually any of the issues as to why online poker was banned in the first place.
El Scorcho
10-17-07, 03:58 PM
He does a really masterful job at appealing to emotion and doesn't even attempt to appeal to reason.
DVD Josh
10-17-07, 04:55 PM
He does a really masterful job at appealing to emotion and doesn't even attempt to appeal to reason.
Put much better than I.
Red Dog
10-17-07, 05:12 PM
I wouldn't expect this to appeal to a politician. Hell, just look at how Romney essentially told that poor guy in the wheelchair to go fuck himself last week when it came to medical marijuana.
I also find the whole poker world trying to segregate themselves from sports gambling kind of annoying. I guess they do that for strategery sake.
wildcatlh
10-17-07, 05:44 PM
He does a really masterful job at appealing to emotion and doesn't even attempt to appeal to reason.
Yeah, but considering that the whole "ban" is due to emotion (GAMBLING IS BAD!) rather than reason, it's pretty much equal, right?
DVD Josh
10-17-07, 11:29 PM
Yeah, but considering that the whole "ban" is due to emotion (GAMBLING IS BAD!) rather than reason, it's pretty much equal, right?
Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it isn't reasoned. It is.
berserker37
10-18-07, 09:14 AM
Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it isn't reasoned. It is.
What it is, is hypocritical.
DVD Josh
10-18-07, 09:41 AM
What it is, is hypocritical.
I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's neither unreasoned nor hypocritical.
das Monkey
10-18-07, 11:11 AM
I started to type a detailed response, but I'll just use your tactic and say, "Yes it is."
das
Groucho
10-18-07, 11:38 AM
This sort of thing is "preaching to the choir" and won't do anything to persuade lawmakers, I'm afraid.
DVD Josh
10-18-07, 11:59 AM
I started to type a detailed response, but I'll just use your tactic and say, "Yes it is."
das
I was waiting for this comment (and was betting on it coming from either you or Scortch).
My response is no more or less detailed than Wildcat or Berserker's. Nothing against either of those excellent gentlemen, but we all seem to be taking the Chris Young method of argument here.
das Monkey
10-18-07, 12:38 PM
I was waiting for this comment (and was betting on it coming from either you or Scortch).
Of course you were. You're trying to bait a response by making vague posts instead of explaining your opinion, and I'm not going to play along. We've already detailed many times why such legislation is inherently hypocritical. If you somehow believe this isn't the case, explain why.
das
DVD Josh
10-18-07, 01:16 PM
Of course you were. You're trying to bait a response by making vague posts instead of explaining your opinion, and I'm not going to play along.
That's just silly Das. My posts were no less or more responsive than the ones preceding it. I wasn't trying to bait anything. -rolleyes-
Gobear
10-18-07, 04:19 PM
Could someone explain the reasons for the internet poker ban? I have never understood by what right the government decided that it should deny adults the ability to spend their money as they see fit.
Jeremy517
10-18-07, 05:10 PM
Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it isn't reasoned. It is.
Oh? Do tell.
DVD Josh
10-18-07, 05:18 PM
Oh? Do tell.
1) No reliable age verification
2) No reliable regulation
3) No way to reliably protect credit merchants from fraud
4) Loss of revenue to US companies
5) Loss of tax revenue to the US govt.
Now, "do tell" how any of the above is not well-reasoned.
Jeremy517
10-18-07, 05:22 PM
1) No reliable age verification
2) No reliable regulation
3) No way to reliably protect credit merchants from fraud
4) Loss of revenue to US companies
5) Loss of tax revenue to the US govt.
Now, "do tell" how any of the above is not well-reasoned.
Banning online poker does nothing to stop any of that. <i>Regulating</i> it, however, would.
Red Dog
10-18-07, 05:34 PM
1) No reliable age verification
2) No reliable regulation
3) No way to reliably protect credit merchants from fraud
4) Loss of revenue to US companies
5) Loss of tax revenue to the US govt.
Now, "do tell" how any of the above is not well-reasoned.
So I assume you oppose gambling on horses online then?
The reason why these factors cited exist is because the US and the several states prohibited such companies from operating in the US to begin with.
DVD Josh
10-18-07, 05:42 PM
Banning online poker does nothing to stop any of that. <i>Regulating</i> it, however, would.
Absolutely correct. I totally agree with you. Was this a knee-jerk response to the total lack of regulation of the above? Most likely. In addition, the manner it was inserted into the safe ports bill was most nefarious.
That doesn't mean there aren't valid reasons behind the ban though. It's not irrational.
Red Dog - I don't oppose online gambling in the US in any format. The discussion is whether it was reasoned or rational. I am merely arguing that it was.
Red Dog
10-18-07, 05:48 PM
I don't see how reasoned or rational it can be if the government allows other forms of gambling online (not to mention all sorts of gambling in other forms). It's a totally arbitrary line they've drawn.
das Monkey
10-18-07, 06:02 PM
Don't forget hypocritical. Depending where you define "reason", it can be argued that there is reason involved here (self-interest and lobbying are not arbitrary), but those "reasons" are entirely hypocritical the way it is currently legislated. It simply cannot be neither. I'm curious to see how you dig yourself out of that assertion, <b>Josh</b>. :)
das
Red Dog
10-18-07, 06:03 PM
Well when I make the "arbitrary line" remark in any legal debate, you can assume that I'm implying said policy-making is inherently hypocritical.
Jeremy517
10-18-07, 06:06 PM
Absolutely correct. I totally agree with you. Was this a knee-jerk response to the total lack of regulation of the above? Most likely. In addition, the manner it was inserted into the safe ports bill was most nefarious.
That doesn't mean there aren't valid reasons behind the ban though. It's not irrational.
If the ban does nothing to actually fix those things, as you admit, then yes it does mean that those are not valid reasons for the ban.
das Monkey
10-18-07, 06:07 PM
Well when I make the "arbitrary line" remark in any legal debate, you can assume that I'm implying said policy-making is inherently hypocritical.
Coincidental word choice, as I wasn't specifically addressing your use of the term, but duly noted. :) We're on the same page here.
das
DVD Josh
10-18-07, 06:17 PM
If the ban does nothing to actually fix those things, as you admit, then yes it does mean that those are not valid reasons for the ban.
A total ban fixes all of those things immediately!
DVD Josh
10-18-07, 06:18 PM
Don't forget hypocritical. Depending where you define "reason", it can be argued that there is reason involved here (self-interest and lobbying are not arbitrary), but those "reasons" are entirely hypocritical the way it is currently legislated. It simply cannot be neither. I'm curious to see how you dig yourself out of that assertion, <b>Josh</b>. :)
das
Das, I think my brain cannot compute this right now. Please do me the courtesy of dumbing it down for someone who has been looking at repetitive pieces of paper with small writing on them for the last 11 hours.
Red Dog
10-18-07, 06:21 PM
A total ban fixes all of those things immediately!
Fixes what?
There is a law against minors smoking cigarettes. Does that mean that minors aren't smoking cigarettes?
DVD Josh
10-18-07, 06:32 PM
Fixes what?
There is a law against minors smoking cigarettes. Does that mean that minors aren't smoking cigarettes?
They are illegally, just like I'm sure US citizens are doing with online gambling.
You do realize that your argument applies to anything illegal though, right? Murder, shoplifting, speeding, etc...
Red Dog
10-18-07, 06:35 PM
I'm not making an argument that murder laws fixes the murder problem.
Red Dog
10-18-07, 06:37 PM
It seems to me the better way to 'fix' (address is a better word) the problems you cite is to legalize the activity rather than ban it.
DVD Josh
10-18-07, 06:38 PM
I'm not making an argument that murder laws fixes the murder problem.
I think that it's quite apparent that it doesn't.
DVD Josh
10-18-07, 06:38 PM
It seems to me the better way to 'fix' (address is a better word) the problems you cite is to legalize the activity rather than ban it.
Not legalize, but regulate.
Red Dog
10-18-07, 06:40 PM
To regulate means you have to legalize the activity.
DVD Josh
10-18-07, 06:44 PM
To regulate means you have to legalize the activity.
True. My mistake, I thought you were referring to a blanket legalization with no restriction.
Red Dog
10-18-07, 06:46 PM
I wouldn't like much gov't rule-making. Nothing more than age verification and tax reporting (for winnings over certain amounts); just like with government-run lotteries, horse racing betting, and casino betting.
DVD Josh
10-18-07, 06:48 PM
I wouldn't like much gov't rule-making. Nothing more than age verification and tax reporting (for winnings over certain amounts); just like with government-run lotteries, horse racing betting, and casino betting.
You wouldn't want some regulation aimed at fairness of play?
Red Dog
10-18-07, 06:54 PM
No because I think the word of mouth of the internet has done a great job with steering players toward reputable sites. Plus if you have internet casinos operating in the US, they would subject to civil liability for any torts (such as fraud) committed against players.
Jeremy517
10-18-07, 07:24 PM
A total ban fixes all of those things immediately!
You can't be serious. A total ban changes none of those things.
DVD Josh
10-18-07, 09:15 PM
You can't be serious. A total ban changes none of those things.
I'm open to counter argument as to how it doesn't.
Red Dog
10-19-07, 08:22 AM
It's self-evident since Americans are still gambling online.
DVD Josh
10-19-07, 10:27 AM
It's self-evident since Americans are still gambling online.
And still murdering, stealing, taking drugs and speeding. Since it's clear that no law is fully obeyed, should we just not have any at all?
Red Dog
10-19-07, 10:33 AM
And still murdering, stealing, taking drugs and speeding. Since it's clear that no law is fully obeyed, should we just not have any at all?
We shouldn't have any that restrict consensual conduct.
You have yet to discuss legal horse racing betting online. Can you explain to me the reasoning behind keeping that conduct legal while criminalizing other forms of online gambling?
DVD Josh
10-19-07, 10:58 AM
We shouldn't have any that restrict consensual conduct.
You have yet to discuss legal horse racing betting online. Can you explain to me the reasoning behind keeping that conduct legal while criminalizing other forms of online gambling?
I've never studied it. If I had to guess, I'd say that is far better regulated. Where are most of the online horse racing firms located? Are they domestic? If so, there is probably better regulation from US and local authorities, including age verification. Furthermore, they probably report winnings to the IRS and pay domestic taxes.
Jeremy517
10-19-07, 11:23 AM
And still murdering, stealing, taking drugs and speeding. Since it's clear that no law is fully obeyed, should we just not have any at all?
All of those are enforceable, so the law actually has some effect.
Red Dog
10-19-07, 11:23 AM
It is far better regulated for exactly the reason that it has been legalized. The horse racing sites are US corporations and do report taxes and such.
So the question remains, why ban the other sites; why ban them from operating in the US - it certainly isn't for the 'reasons' you've mentioned.
Jacoby Ellsbury
12-18-07, 09:25 AM
The United States said Monday it has agreed to maintain concessions for companies from the European Union, Canada and Japan who want to do business in the U.S. so it can preserve its Internet gambling ban, a ban that has been ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization.
The 27-nation EU said earlier in the day it had received trade concessions in mail services and warehousing as well as U.S. market opportunities for European companies offering testing and analysis services.
But the office of the U.S. Trade Representative said the agreement did not open any new services to foreign competition.
"The agreement involves commitments to maintain our liberalized markets," spokeswoman Gretchen Hamel said, confirming the business sectors cited by Brussels.
EU officials had said the deal would affect how Germany's DHL, the express and logistics division of Deutsche Post World Net AG, competes with U.S.-based companies FedEx Corp. and United Parcel Service Inc.
They said Washington also agreed to ease access to European providers of research and development in the natural sciences, social sciences and humanities, and companies offering technical testing and analysis services.
A FedEx spokeswoman said it was unclear what the deal would mean to the Memphis-based courier. "We're looking into this now," said spokeswoman Sandra Munos. A call to Atlanta-based UPS was not immediately returned.
In any case, the overall trade valuation of the package will fall far short of the $100 billion that European online gaming sites had claimed the United States owed. EU officials could not immediately say how much the deal was worth.
"This compensation cannot be quantified up to the euro," the EU mission to the WTO said in an e-mailed statement. "Nonetheless, it is clear that new trade opportunities are created for EU service suppliers in important sectors in the U.S."
Washington stopped U.S. banks and credit card companies last year from processing payments to online gambling businesses outside the country. The decision closed off the most lucrative region in a growing market currently worth $15.5 billion. About half of the world's online gamblers are based in the U.S.
In March, the World Trade Organization delivered a final ruling that the U.S. ban was illegal.
The commerce body found that the U.S. had the right to prevent offshore betting as a means of protecting public order and public morals. But it said the U.S. was breaking trade law by targeting online gambling without equal application of the rules to American operators offering remote betting on horse and dog racing.
"While the U.S. is free to decide how to best respond to legitimate public policy concerns relating to Internet gambling, discrimination against EU or other foreign companies should be avoided," said Peter Power, spokesman for EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson.
The WTO is expected to rule in the coming weeks on a request by Antigua and Barbuda to impose $3.4 billion in commercial sanctions against the U.S. for its failure to comply with the ruling. The tiny Caribbean nation, the smallest ever to win a WTO dispute, has threatened to target U.S. patents and trademarks.
After losing the case, Washington sought to fix the problem by rewriting its obligations under the WTO's treaty on trade in services. That allowed a number of countries to file compensation claims. The agreements with the EU, Canada and Japan announced Monday were the result of those new claims.
Costa Rica, India and Macau are believed to be still holding out.
"We now enter a 45-day period in which the remaining claimants have a right to request arbitration," Hamel said in an e-mailed statement. "We will continue to discuss this matter with the other claimants to explain how our proposal is consistent with our WTO obligations."
Buy: