Poker Players Tell The GOP To Keep Their Hands Off The Internet
By RICH MUNY, aka “TheEngineer”
August 24, 2008
Poker players, enthusiasts, and freedom lovers from across the country are storming the 2008 Republican Party Platform site, at www.gopplatform2008.com, to demand that the 2008 Republican Party Platform not include a call for a ban on Internet poker (as the 2000 and 2004 platforms did). As of August 24, 10:45 am, there are 198 pro-poker comments, versus only one against!
Here are the pro-poker comments posted to the GOP site:
Values : Other
(Anonymous) August 21 - 11:53 AM
Whatever happened to protecting personal liberty and promoting personal responsibility? I was outraged by the passing of the UIGEA, banning online gambling. Why is the government forcing me to live by someone else’s morals? Why must the poor choices by a few (problem gamblers), result in the freedom of millions being taken away? Just because people make bad choices that harm themselves, doesn’t mean that activity should be prohibited. America is supposed to be a free country. If you are only free to make the right decisions, you are not truly free. After the passing of the UIGEA, I no longer vote republican.
Values : Other
(Bruno - Westminster, CO) August 18 - 1:24 PM
As a long time Republican, I am very disappointed in the fact that the UIGEA law was pushed through and passed by Rebulicans. This law simply takes away another right from us as Americans. Rather than spending the time to evaluate the different forms of gambling and gaming that are available, they push through something that really did not make any sense. I am a Republican and I am a poker player, but if the Republicans continue to push through legislation like this, I will seriously have to consider my affiliation. Yes, it’s that big of a deal! Poker, as a game, is not gambling, it is a game of skill. Yes, there is some luck involved, however, there is luck involved in every game or sport. Please consider removing the legislation that was put into place with UIGEA. Thank you.
Values : Other
(Craig - Lake Orion, MI) August 17 - 10:02 AM
Online poker and sports betting. Let’s keep it legal. One of the great American past times 
Values : Other
(Anonymous) August 15 - 2:25 PM
I used to vote Republican until the under-handed passage of the UIGEA in 2006, now I will not vote Republican until this party stands up for TRUE conservative values and protects my individual freedom to do what I want with my money, including playing online poker. Until the GOP rectifies this problem they have lost me as a voter and when they crushed in this years congressional elections you’ll know why.
Values : Other
(James - Greenfield, IN) August 14 - 5:51 PM
My suggestion for the Republican platform is to end the hypocrisy in the party that began with the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. If some members of the Party don’t believe I have the personal responsibility needed to prevent going bankrupt playing online poker for pennies in my own home (click you mouse, lose your house!), then who’s to say I won’t do the same with horseracing, state and multi-state lotteries, fantasy sports, or shorting stocks on Wall Street? Why are these forms of gambling explicitly exempted from the UIGEA? If gambling is so immoral, then make ALL gambling illegal. There are more than one million members of the Poker Player’s Alliance. WE are your constituents. Stop catering to the right-wing extremists who have taken the Party off-course from the Reagan glory years. Legalize online gambling, regulate it, and GENTLY tax it if you must, but end this prohibition. It is no more effective than the last.
Values : Other
(William - New Britain, CT) August 13 - 10:29 PM
I want you to support my right to play online poker. This is abillion dollar industry and there is no reason whey it can not be regulated.
Values : Other
(Mitch - Colorado Springs, CO) August 13 - 9:35 AM
The Republican Party platform should legalize online gambling and not prohibit it. Banning online gambling is inconsistent with the republican principles of freedom, small government and personal responsibility. I play poker online and live in Christian conservative Colorado Springs just miles away from Focus on the Family headquarters and New Life Church. I tell everybody I know that I play poker online and frequently go out in public with clothing advertising online poker sites and nobody has ever said a bad word to me about it. If I can’t find anybody here who opposes online gambling then where are these people? Trust me, you will not alienate your base by supporting online gambling.
Economy : Trade
(Dennis - Framingham, MA) August 10 - 9:26 PM
I find it deplorable that we have legalized lotteries, horse & dog race betting, bingo, lotto, casinos everywhere, but we can’t have legalized online poker. All we’ve done is drive the online poker sites offshore. Foreign countries are reaping the tax & business revenues of this flawed ploicy.
Values : Other
(George - Peoria, AZ) August 9 - 9:03 AM
I wanted to express my opinion, and that of my friends, about online gaming. I am an online poker player and would be deeply troubled if I were to lose this freedom. It is a cheap form of relaxation for me. It lets me talk to people all over the world while allowing me the freedom to sharpen my intuition and increase my skill in decision making. I would like to see some legislation to regulate online gamine and the UIEGA amended as this is not a game of luck. I personally have been playing regularly for about three years now and I am a better player then when I started. As Doyle Brunson states it’s a game of decisions. The better you get at the decisions you make the better player you become. As in life if you keep making poor choices you go broke. Thank you for letting me express my opinion George Robinson
Economy : Other
(Todd - Streetsboro, OH) August 8 - 10:36 PM
Please do what you can to ensure online poker remains legal in the U.S. I am all for making sure under age kids are kept from playing, but that should never make it difficult on legal aged adults from enjoying poker online. Please do what you can to make sure Online poker stays legal and remains that way. Thanks
Values : Other
(Dean - Newark, DE) August 8 - 7:30 PM
Allow Americans the freedom to play poker on the internet. It’s embarrassing that certain segments of the republican party are imposing their morality on the country. If I choose to play poker or another game of skill on the internet, what business is it of the governments? Please take us back to the republican party of limited government. This issue will be the deciding factor in who I vote for in the upcoming election. Please support bills like HR 5657. “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” -Ronald Reagan 1981
Values : Other
(Susan - Alexandria, VA) August 8 - 5:21 PM
I am both a lifelong Republican and an avid online poker player. I appeal to the Republican Party to change its stance on prohibiting gambling over the Internet. Please don’t take away my freedom as an American to enjoy this game of skill.
Values : Other
(Toni - Foreston, MN) August 8 - 12:12 PM
I am a member of the Poker Players Alliance. Please change the Republican party stance with regard to online poker. Poker is a game of skill. Legal and regulated online poker could generate revenue for a variety of poorly funded national needs (especially given that the country’s money has been spent on this stupid war). The original bill which passed this unconstitutional legislation was done covertly and should be rescinded. This is not the way the government of the United States of America should handle any issue. Please make correcting this legislation a part of the Republican party’s platform. Thank you.
Values : Other
(William - Cambridge, MA) August 7 - 8:34 AM
Internet gambling should be treated the same way as any other form of gambling. That is, if it is legal to have a poker game in a cardroom, it should be legal to have one on the internet. It would also be reasonable to make them both illegal. But it’s not reasonable to discriminate! The same goes for other forms of gambling.
Economy : Other
(Douglas - Artesia, CA) August 7 - 5:57 AM
I am a proud American and also a professional poker player. It is a shame that the GOP continues to vote against the legalization of online poker. Poker is a skill game just like golf, tennis, baseball, etc. In every sport there is the element of “taking a chance”. In golf, for example, should I “go for the green” or “lay up”. In fact, in business or in life there is an element of chance. That does not take away the skill needed to find success in both. I am a winning professional player who is proud of his occupation. In these difficult financial times, it is a shame that the GOP would want to take away thousands of jobs from professional poker players, especially when it is hard enough to find a decent job these days. I also find it incredibly foolish to not allow legal American casinos the opportunity to enter the online poker market. Imagine the tax money the US government could collect if they allowed US casinos this chance instead of letting an overseas company make huge profits. Let’s bring these profits to our American companies and bring even more jobs to the American people. My hope is that the GOP would rethink their position on online poker and realize that it is a game of skill and a legitimate profession whose participants work very hard to hone their skills, just as much as Tiger Woods works very hard at his profession. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Economy : Other
(Chase - Wheelersburg, OH) August 7 - 12:32 AM
Hello, I am a poker player, and would just like to submit my outrage at your attempts to block a skill game while allowing pure gambling like the lottery to continue to pad your pockets. Listening to Focus on Family instead of following The Constitution and allowing us to do what we want with our money(especially in a skillful way to increase our capital) is exactly what you should never even CONSIDER stopping. Stop trying to come into our household and tell us what to do and work on actually stopping the deficits and spending and finding some revenue(like the billions poker brings with it).
Values : Other
(Ryan - Selah, WA) August 6 - 5:27 PM
The issue of whether online poker should be permitted in the U.S. is one of great importance to a number of people, myself included. I have the ability to freely engage in a poker game at my local casino as often as I see fit. As a married father of two, I must first decide how to balance my time and finances so that my choice to play poker is a responsible one. I encourage you to develop effective legislation that would allow me to make the same choice in an internet based environment. At the same time, our federal and state governments could collect some much needed tax revenue. People will continue to play poker online and it seems that we have two choices from here. We can choose to help regulate and protect the industry and the vulnerable participants (children and problem gamblers). The alternative is that we can continue to restrict the personal freedoms of millions of responsible adults and make no meaningful strides toward protecting the integrity of the game or its participants.
Values : Other
(Matthew - Sugar Grove, IL) August 6 - 1:47 PM
Repeal the UIEGA Act and start regulating online poker. As Americans we pride ourselves on being home to the land of the free, but over the past years, the Republican Party has limited our personal rights and freedoms, specifically the right to play online poker. Passing laws against online poker will only drive it underground. Millions of Americans love the game and will continue to play online. Poker players like myself are open to regulation and regulation will increase government revenues by billions. Passing ambiguous laws “against” online poker is not the answer.
Economy : Other
(Damon - Silver Spring, MD) August 7 - 5:12 PM
Gambling issues should be handled on the state level not by the federal government.. Each states governor should be allowed to have a referendum as to whether or not the citizens of that particular state want to allow gambling. That way those states or counties that do not want gambling in thier area will not have it. On the other hand those counties or states that DO want gambling will be allowed to have it. This is a much better solution I feel than an all out ban on gambling by the federal government.
Values : Other
(Donald - Tucson, AZ) August 6 - 3:57 AM
Allow on-line gambling. Prohibition does not work. There are tens of millions of people involved in this recreational activity. I am a Viet Nam Veteran currently serving as an advisor in Iraq. I play on-line for recreation. Bring the games and income back to the US from the off shore havens which protect them. Let them work out of Las Vegas. It is futile to try and legislate morality and stampout on-line gambling.
Values : Other
(Jeffrey - Springfield, VA) August 5 - 9:45 PM
The idea that the Republican Party would support a ban on online poker is ridiculous. It has been well documented that poker is more than just a game of chance. What is wrong with adults playing poker online with other consenting adults? I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Barney Frank has it right on this issue.
Values : Other
(John - Waterford, MI) August 5 - 6:54 PM
I would like to express my feelings regarding online poker. Poker is a game with a deep tradition in America. For those of us not able to frequent a casino or have a game with friends, online poker is the answer! I would like to see online poker recognized as a game of skill not just gambling. This form of poker whether regulated or not, should be legal to practice! Please support online poker
Values : Other
(Edward F. - Pine Bush, NY) August 5 - 11:14 AM
As an avid on line poker player, I resent my Party interfering with my right to play. Repeal the ban on internet gaming. Edward F. Crawford O.C. Committeeman.
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 6:01 PM
Are you convinced yet? Are the previous sixteen pages of overwhelming opposing views by your constituents, colleagues, and allies against terrorism still not convincing? While I am in no way qualified to deal with the daily decisions you must face, I feel I am able to at least help open your eyes on this one simple issue so that you can concentrate on things of much more importance. All I am asking for is your approval in regulating and taxing us poker players who wish to enjoy our game online. I may be only one voice, but being a member of the Poker Players Alliance that one voice is magnified by over one million. While my vote may count only once, the Poker Players Alliances votes count over a million times. Imagine what the taxes from just us of the PPA would collect and pay for once you and your fellow members of Congress finally started regulating our industry. Maybe it would even cover the amount you owe to Antigua!
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:56 PM
Maybe it is too late to do something about the UIGEA, but it is not too late to support one of four bills currently stuck in limbo that would support playing poker online. As recently as Dec. 10, 2007 there were forty-four co-sponsor’s to Barney Frank’s bill. Would it kill you to make it forty-five? Or lend your support to the others as well? The list of members of Congress who are now co-sponsors of Barney Frank’s bill, which would essentially make online poker legal at a federal level in the United States, has grown to 44. The bill would provide for the licensing of Internet gambling facilities by the director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and would allow states to choose if they want to allow online gambling. Recently, representatives from New Jersey, Washington State, and Connecticut became co-sponsors to Frank’s Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 (H.R. 2046). They are Rep. Robert E. Andrews, Rep. John B. Larson, and Rep. Adam Smith. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection at the end of April, where it remains. This is one of four bills in Congressional committees that deal with the subject of online gambling and poker. Rep. Robert Wexler’s Skill Game Protection Act (H.R. 2610) would allow people to play games of skill online (poker included), has 20 co-sponsors, and has been referred to several House committees this summer. Rep. Shelley Berkley introduced H.R. 2140 on May 3. This calls for the National Academy of Sciences “to identify the proper response of the United States to the growth of Internet gambling.” It has 68 co-sponsors and is also in referral in several House committees. Rep. Jim McDermott’s Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act of 2007 (H.R. 2607) calls for the United States to tax and regulate online gambling. It was introduced June 7, 2007, and has one co-sponsor. It was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means, wh
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:52 PM
Is it not time for you to come out of your cave and join the rest of the educated world that sees the benefits of a legalized and regulated internet gambling system? A companion bill to Barney Frank’s Internet Gambling and Regulation Enforcement Act was introduced in the House of Representatives last night by Washington State Congressman Jim McDermott. McDermott’s Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative would tax 2 percent of a person’s online poker or gambling deposits. The licensed sites would be responsible to pay the government the 2 percent of all deposits made for real-money play. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network would be responsible for licensing the sites. According to the Safe and Secure Gambling Initiative, a lobby organization that’s fighting for online gambling’s legality, between $6 billion and $25 billion would be raised from McDermott’s bill through taxation in the first five years. Nevada Congresswoman Shelley Berkley is the bill’s co-sponsor. Berkley is also sponsoring a bill that calls for an intensive study on Internet gambling to determine if current technology could be used to taxed, regulate, and provide protection for minors. Frank’s bill would legalize online gambling, including poker, in the United States. It would provide a regulatory framework to tax and regulate online gambling. (June 8, 2007)
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:51 PM
Here are the CRE’s conclusions on the matter: • The Treasury Department has not provided a specific, objectively supported estimate of burden as required by the PRA. • The Treasury Department has not provided a record supporting the certification that they have reduced the burden on businesses to the extent practical, with a particular emphasis on small businesses, as required by the PRA. • The Treasury Department has not made the further efforts to reduce the paperwork burden on small business with fewer than 25 employees as required by the PRA. And here’s the CRE’s recommendation: • Since the Information Collection Request does not substantively comply with the PRA, the Office of Management and Budget should send it back to the Department for revision and correction. The revised ICR should be provided to the public for comment prior to approval. (Nov 13, 2007) While it appears it is “too late” to correct your error on the UIGEA, it’s not too late to give your support for H.R. 5767 to create an exemption for properly licensed operators. Perhaps you might also conSider Skill Game Protection Act: The Skill Game Protection Act had been introduced by Representative Robert Wexler (D-Fla.). The bill would make several games, including poker, mah-jongg, bridge, and chess, exempt from current laws aimed against online gambling. Basically, the bill aims to clarify which games are skill games and which games are not. The bill specifically calls poker a game of skill, and if passed, also calls for a system to be in place that would tax and regulated all real-money games of skill to ensure that both the games remain fair and that minors and compulsive gamblers wouldn’t be able to play. The bill would add language to existing laws - including the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act - that would define poker and the other games mentioned as games of skill. It would allow adults 18 and older to play real-money skill games online.
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:48 PM
One of your other stated fears is that “this activity serves as a vehicle for money laundering activities.” Perhaps if the United States were to do what other countries are doing in regulating the activity of those of us wishing to participate in playing poker over the internet, you would be able to clamp down on your fears. Antigua is successful in doing this: The Antiguan regulatory scheme recognizes the potential for the existence of money laundering. Therefore, the government has developed rules and regulations for its prevention by knowing one’s customers, having user profiles, having the ability to analyze a transaction in real time, recording deposits and withdrawals and analyzing any suspicious behavior including but not limited to large sums of money changing hands, and analyzing betting behavior on the site to make sure one person is not money laundering by passing off money to another under the guise of a bet. The Antiguan regulatory system seems to run smoothly and efficiently. All of the people I spoke to in the Antiguan government agreed that morality cannot and should not be legislated. Prohibition didn’t work; similarly, banning gaming is just not an option. It exists and conscientious well thought out regulation is the only sensible answer. (Jan 9, 2007)
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:46 PM
This has a societal underpinning. It is good for all nations to have the benefit of the intelligence from other nations. That’s how societies advance. So, if one country has an excellent product or service, it is allowed to offer that product or service to the world. The exception is that every country has the right to outlaw anything it so chooses. For example, if Prohibition were still in effect, other countries would not be allowed to sell liquor in the U.S. Now, let’s revisit the Antiguan case. When the WTO first ruled that the U.S. was violating the fair trade rule with Antigua, the U.S. said it needed time to comply. The U.S. was given a year and did nothing. It will go to Geneva to defend itself. The only position it can take, which, by the way, it has previously taken and abandoned, is that it is illegal to play poker online in the U.S., so Antigua has no right to offer that service to U.S. citizens. What is wrong with that position is that it is not illegal to play poker online in all jurisdictions of the U.S. Furthermore, the U.S. position crumbles when we take a look at the newly passed Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. That Act specifically permits a state to house an online gaming site; it permits other forms of online gaming (horse racing); and by its terms, the Act recognizes that appropriate regulation is possible in order to achieve the goal of protecting citizens. Therefore, since it’s not illegal to have an online gaming site within the jurisdiction of the U.S., our government cannot assert illegality as a defense to the WTO ruling. And how much more hypocritical can the United States Government be? It allows games of chance to wagered upon remotely yet wants to make a game of skill illegal. What protections are you providing in the horseracing and lottery industry to insure children are not participating, money isn’t being laundered, and terrorists are not exploiting?
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:40 PM
U.S. Gaming Prohibition Violates WTO Agreements The United Kingdom is one of more than 60 nations in the world that passed laws to allow, tax, and regulate online gaming, including poker, on its soil. The WTO has already ruled against the US for attempting to ban online gambling, and now that anti-online gambling legislation has made it through Congress, more WTO complaints will probably be filed. The U.K might find itself in that line. The WTO was set up to protect fair and free trade among its members, and it has ruled that it conSiders online gambling to be a product that should be freely traded. It’s hard to believe that the US won’t face more lawsuits now that it has taken a stricter approach at curbing online gambling. A precedent has even already been established. (Oct 3, 2006) Congresswoman Shelley Berkley said, “What could be a greater invasion of privacy than government telling you cannot play Internet poker in your own house?” she said. “This was a breathtaking abuse of exercise of war power. A ban on Internet gaming in the Defense bill? How ridiculous is that? At a time when we have brave American men and women fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Republican leadership is more worried about Americans playing poker online than protecting our troops in the field. “The ban on Internet gaming was part of the Republican family values agenda. They passed it to pound their chests and talk about how they’re protecting America’s youth,” Berkley said. “You got a bunch of ideologues running Congress. They’re not interested in anything that has a modicum of common sense; they’re only interested in a very narrow moral position.” (Oct. 17, 2006)
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:37 PM
A study commissioned by the Poker Players Alliance shows that online poker would generate more than $3 billion in federal and state tax revenue a year if online poker were regulated and taxed. The study, prepared by Judy Xanthopoulos, an economist with Quantria Strategies, examined the existing Internet poker market and concludes that the U.S. government would collect a significant potential source of revenue if it were to incorporate this industry into the U.S. economy. “This study validates that the benefits of regulating online poker in the United States far exceed the value of prohibiting the activity,” said Michael Bolcerek, preSident of the Poker Players Alliance. “Internet poker is an incredibly popular pastime for millions of Americans. Keeping Americans away from this game is not only unfair but, as this study shows, would be costly, denying state and federal coffers an important source of revenues.” (July 12, 2006) Sen. Jon Kyl believes the affect that gambling has on kids is the biggest danger. “Our kids have access to the Internet. They’re frequently not supervised. And you can run up a huge debt on your folks’ credit card very, very quickly.” But Kyl’s point was easily disproved in front of a mass audience. Nigel Payne, former CEO of Sportingbet.com, who also ran Paradise Poker, ran an experiment during a 60 Minutes segment that aired on CBS. The producer gave his son a credit card and Payne challenged the teenager to open an account with Paradise Poker. Payne was certain, with effective security measures in place, the underage visitor wouldn’t be able to gain access to the site. “That 16-year-old has got to give me four or five pieces of information about him, relative to his bank account, his personal details, where he lives, and other things,” said Payne. “I can be 99 percent comfortable that this 16-year-old doesn’t even get through my front door.”
Values : Other
(William - White City, OR) August 4 - 2:58 PM
Why should I have to go through all of this hassle to be able to play the great american game of poker on the internet. This is a game of skill and should be allowed to be played on a fair and legal enviorment. The only government involment should be to police it to make sure it is fairly run.
Values : Other
(Eric - Whitehouse, TX) August 4 - 7:13 AM
I’m a staunch conservative in all areas. I would like to leave the regulation of the internet out of our platform. I am a born again christian poker player. I play very small stakes poker primarily on the internet. I do not believe this should be prohibited by govt. I do believe it should be regulated, not prohibited. I believe we Republicans should not be limiting personal freedoms. Thank you for your time.
Values : Other
(James - Minneapolis, MN) August 3 - 6:03 PM
The Republican party needs to change its stance against internet gambling. They need to start protecting our freedoms and individual liberties guaranteed by the Constitution instead of continuing to suppressing them. It is becoming increasingly difficult to support an organization that continues to attack our personal liberties. Whether to participate in internet gambling, specifically online poker, is a choice that should be made by individuals and not the government.
Values : Other
(David - Saint Cloud, MN) August 2 - 5:54 PM
As a republican and avid poker player, I wanted to express my opinion about why these are now in conflict. My understanding is that the republican position on internet gambling is: “We support legislation prohibiting gambling over the Internet.” Someone please correct me if this is wrong. But, almost every republican on the financial services committee recently voted to support the ill-conceived Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). To me, this is nothing short of prohibition 2.0. Republicans should be the ones working to remove government intrusion and work toward promoting personal freedoms. That is why I became a republican. POKER IS NOT A CRIME. If the GOP position on this does not change, I will no longer be a republican.
Values : Other
(Kevin - Greenville, SC) August 2 - 12:44 PM
Can you drink a beer when you want to? Can you smoke when you want to? Can you carry guns wherever you go? If you said yes to any of these it’s probably because you live in free country like America. I would argue till the end of time though that NONE of these are a good influence on children. How many lives would be saved if kids weren’t exposed to alcohol, smoking and guns at a young age? The question is should adults be disallowed to partake in these because how it affects kids? I don’t think so. SO WHY IN THE WORLD CAN I NOT PLAY POKER ONLINE? Why…because you think it could harm the young children. That is the biggest garbage I’ve ever heard. Is it not up to adults to make decisions on their own and to entrust those values to our children. I don’t see why you allow such deadly things in our country but take away a simple freedom like playing poker in your own home. It makes no sense to me. In my mind nobody should be allowed to drink any alcohol. I personally have NEVER had alcohol and I think it kills people, destroys families, harms children and is a terrible thing. WHAT would happen if I tried to tell other adults that I wanted to take away their freedom of drinking? Would they be ok with that? NO, BECAUSE IT’S A FREE COUNTRY AND I HAVE NO RIGHT TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN’T DO. If you are afraid of hurting young children you could do more good if you regulated poker in the states. You could make everyone playing from the US verify social security number with a bank statement to verify age. Not only would it help the issue if it was regulated but the country would make billions from taxes on poker. It honestly makes no sense that y’all have tried to take away this freedom from us. You can debate all you want, but in my eyes the real issue out of the election is our freedom and republicans have taken it away from us. I have voted my whole life for Republicans but this year I don’t know.
National Security : Human Rights
(Barbara - Lewisville, TX) August 2 - 9:48 AM
It should not be the duty or platform of the party or the government to prohibit internet gaming - and especially we should not outlaw online Poker - which is a game of skill. While compulsive gambling may be a problem for some, those who have the problem should seek assistance - it is not for the Republican Party to limit any individual’s freedom to act as they choose in their own home, with no harm to anyone. Alcoholism is a problem for some, yet we already know we cannot legislate for all people to abstain from consuming alcohol, even though some people may have problems with this addiction. The Republican Party should protect our liberties - not unnecessarily restrict our free behavior. Let us not try to legislate a misguided sense of morality - let’s be tough on crime that victimizes others - let’s stand for enforcing the laws we have to protect others. Thank you.
Values : Other
(Norman - Issiquah, WA) August 1 - 7:27 PM
Freedom is important to me. I do not want the government telling me what to do in my own home - please repeal the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act. It is crazy to me that I can drive 10 minutes to a cardroom here in Washington State, yet it is illegal for me to play poker for nickels and dimes online. I am a responsible tax-paying citizen, and should be able to spend my money and enjoy my leisure time as I see fit. At the very least, please exclude poker from that law as it is a game of skill (and a very American game at that). In my opinion we should regulate online gambling, not try prohibition for something that millions of Americans enjoy.
Values : Other
(Johnny - San Jose, CA) August 1 - 6:13 PM
The last two platforms have taken a stand against “internet gambling.” While I support such a position in general, I take exception to including on-line poker in any proposed ban. Poker is not gambling. It is a game of skill. It is also an American tradition. I submit that, unless you are Amish, or possibly Mennonite, every one of you on the committee has enjoyed a game of poker from time to time. Please voice your support for Mike Honda’s (R-CA) bill excepting poker from any online ban.
Values : Faith-Based Organizations
(Steve - Smyrna, GA) August 1 - 6:00 PM
Being a life-long Republican, I was both dumb-founded and dismayed that the Republican Platform includes a specific directive against Internet gaming. Whoever decided this was a good idea should’ve thought twice because this does nothing but take away every American’s right to spend their own money in their own home as they see fit. It is not the Republican Party’s responsibility, nor that of the U.S. government, to enforce morality across this country. The American people don’t need the Republican Party to protect us from ourselves. We do need somebody though to start protecting our freedoms and individual liberties and not continue to try to eliminate them as the Republican Party is now doing. In the name of the millions of former Republicans who are totally disillusioned with your leadership, fiscal irresponsibility, shameful surrender to the extremist right-wing, Puritanical fringe that is shaping the Republican Party Platform, I beg you to reconSider. You’ve lost me as a Republican. You’ve lost millions of die-hard Republicans who enjoy playing poker on the Internet, along with their friends, family and relatives who can’t see the fairness of it. Of all the things the Republican Party could be doing to overcome the severe, multiple crises we face in this country, the fact that anyone of any standing in the party decided time and effort had to be spent on creating an anti-internet gambling plank indicates a complete loss of touch with reality. I implore you to respect the American people and tear this Nazi Right-Wing Extremist, anti-freedom plank from your platform and get back to being a party focused on the critical issues that threaten the well-being of all rather than continuing to cow-tow to the far right-wing with offensive, freedom-robbing garbage like the anti-internet gaming position you’ve adopted.
Values : Other
(Tyler - Ontario, NY) August 1 - 5:08 PM
I can tell you that if I hear that the Republicans are again voting to make internet poker illegal I will continue to support other candidates at every election for which I am eligible to vote. This is a freedom issue and I resent the way in which this issue has been handled by the Republican Party so much that for the first time in my life I voted Democrat and will do so again.
Values : Other
(Donald - Tucson, AZ) August 6 - 3:57 AM
Allow on-line gambling. Prohibition does not work. There are tens of millions of people involved in this recreational activity. I am a Viet Nam Veteran currently serving as an advisor in Iraq. I play on-line for recreation. Bring the games and income back to the US from the off shore havens which protect them. Let them work out of Las Vegas. It is futile to try and legislate morality and stampout on-line gambling.
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 6:00 PM
The following is a letter written after a hearing held by the Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on April 2, 2008 by Congressmen Barney Frank, Ron Paul, Luis V. Gutierrez and Peter King to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke expressing their concerns about the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act: As you know, on Wednesday, April 2, the Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic and International and Monetary Policy held a hearing entitled, “Proposed UIGEA Regulations: Burden Without Benefit?” to examine the regulations issued last year by your agency and the Federal Reserve on the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). At that hearing, the testimony of your representatives and the industry made it clear that the regulations are unworkable. Subsequently, we introduced new legislation, H.R. 5767, which would prohibit their implementation. The regulations, like the underlying legislation, fail to define the term “unlawful internet gambling,” leaving it to each financial institution to reconcile conflicting state and federal laws, court decisions and inconsistent Department of Justice interpretations, when determining whether to process a transaction. Furthermore, some of the information needed to make this determination would likely be unavailable to banks, because customers or financial institutions in foreign jurisdictions will likely be unwilling or unable to provide it. At the hearing, representatives from your agency and the Federal Reserve admitted that there are substantial problems in crafting regulations to implement the UIGEA in a manner that does not have a substantial adverse effect on the efficiency of the nation’s payment system. Your agency and the Federal Reserve have been struggling to issue these regulations, but as the hearing made clear, the underlying statute makes your job extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:59 PM
How do you enforce a law that has yet to be defined and “snuck” into law by riding on the tails of another law so many Congressional members didn’t even know that they were approving it? Because the authors of the UIGEA failed to use their bill to clarify exactly what gambling services customers in America must be denied, the UIGEA puts it to the banks to decide what is legal and what is not. If the banks get it wrong, they’re subject to punishment. The UIGEA wasn’t passed on its own and saw little debate before drawing votes; it was added to an expansive bill designed to increase security at the nation’s ports, and it’s quite possible that many Congressional members didn’t even know the UIGEA was included. The political maneuver was pulled off during an 11th hour of debate of the Safe Port bill by former Sen. Bill Frist, Sen. Jon Kyl, and Rep. Bob Goodlatte. It passed after midnight, right before Congressional members were set to go on an extended election-year recess. (Apr 2, 2008)
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:59 PM
“The payment system isn’t well-designed for this task, and that’s what we’re really struggling with,” testified Louise Roseman, the director of the division of reserve bank operations and payment systems. But it goes beyond the financial system, Roseman said: “The most prominent concern is the lack of clarity of what forms of gambling are unlawful.” Because the UIGEA doesn’t define exactly what online gambling is, the proposed rules do not, either. And, as it stands, it will be up to the banks to arbitrarily decide which transactions to allow, and which to block. The representatives of four organizations that represent bank spelled were not confident that it could be done. (Apr 2, 2008)
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:59 PM
I know I keep beating a dead horse here, but the multitude of articles in Card Player Magazine continue to point out how incredibly poorly written, conceived, and supported the UIGEA is: The Question Persists: What Exactly is Online Gambling? This morning a House subcommittee heard testimony on the proposed rules that will be used to enforce the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) and there was only one person in the room who thought the UIGEA will actually work as intended. That person was Alabama Rep. Spencer Bachus, who described gambling as a “scourge” and played a role getting it through. Others in the room weren’t so optimistic. Bank representatives warned that the proposed rules are so unclear and so sweeping that the UIGEA has a chance to cause “an erosion of the performance of the financial system,” according to Wayne Abernathy, the executive director of financial institution policy and regulatory affairs for the American Bankers Association. Even employees of the Treasury Federal Reserve System and the Treasury Department, the two federal departments charged with creating the UIGEA rules banks will have to follow, politely told the Congressional members that the UIGEA and the gambling laws it references are so unclear that they doubt it will work as intended. Not only did the Treasury Federal Reserve System and the Treasury Department have extreme difficulty writing the proposed rules, because exactly what is conSidered illegal online gambling isn’t defined by the UIGEA or the federal government, but they also warned that banks simply aren’t up to the task of examining every single financial transaction to make sure they are not for online gambling.
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:58 PM
How many sanctions can the United States absorb, and what happens to its citizens when the government is forced to pay billions of dollars to other countries? Does this money come from my paycheck with higher taxes? I cannot afford to pay for groceries and fuel now. The European Commission today launched an investigation into “United States measures affecting foreign suppliers of Internet gambling services,” effectively an inquiry into the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which prevents European-based firms from competing in the U.S. market. The Commission is acting on a complaint from the UK-based Remote Gambling Association (RGA), which says that “the U.S. should not be allowed to enforce gambling laws selectively against foreign suppliers.” EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson says, “The U.S. has the right to address legitimate public policy concerns relating to Internet gambling, but discrimination against EU companies cannot be part of the policy mix. We are interested in a constructive and mutually satisfactory solution to this issue.” Mandelson’s office says, “The challenge made by the RGA concerns the fact that laws and regulations that ban the supply of Internet gambling into the United States market were already in place at a time when the U.S. had WTO commitments allowing such services. They also claim that the U.S. is now selectively enforcing these laws against foreign suppliers, for online gambling services which they offered in the past. Industry therefore argues that the United States measures violate Articles XVI (market access) and XVII (national treatment) of the GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services).” (Mar 10, 2008)
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:57 PM
A Dec. 21, 2007 article now shows that the WTO has decided that the United States owes Antigua and Barbuda “only” $21 million a year, rather than the $3.4 billion originally sought. Do we really have that much money to throw away? And what of the other countries of the world that can and are enacting sanctions against the U.S.? A World Trade Organization arbitrary panel has ruled that Antigua and Barbuda are entitled to $21 million a year from the United States, far below the $3.4 billion that the Caribbean countries sought in its claim against the United States concerning Internet gambling. ……The European Union, Japan, Canada, India, Costa Rica, and Macao joined Antigua and Barbuda in seeking sanctions against the U.S. through the WTO. Earlier this week, the U.S. settled with the E.U., Japan, and Canada. Those countries will receive sanctions that affect U.S. postal and courier, research and development, and storage and warehouse sectors. A monetary figure was not released. Negotiations with India, Costa Rica, and Macao continue. Gambling companies, particularly the WTO powerhouse the UK, encouraged their host countries to play hardball with the U.S. and seek sanctions in the billions of dollars in order to try to force the U.S. to revisit its anti-online gambling stance. Instead, the trade representatives from these countries settled for much less, essentially letting the U.S. off for significantly less than what the gambling industry and the countries will lose (in the form of taxes) from being cut off from U.S., the largest gambling market in the world.
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:55 PM
Even some of your fellow politicians are finally seeing how ridiculous the UIGEA is and are starting to look into ways to either repeal the law or amend it to allow internet gambling to be regulated and taxed: A hearing titled “Hearing on Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Online Wagers” took place. A highlight from the hearing, which was held simply to inform the House Judiciary Committee about the online wagering, was when Tennessee Congressman Steven Cohen clashed with Tom McClusky, the vice preSident of government affairs for the Family Research Council. In his southern drawl, Cohen engaged McClusky, whose organization is one of the most powerful conservative organizations in America. On the topic of gambling, he had this to say to McClusky: “So, if it’s restricted or unrestricted, you’re against it. Is there any fun that you’re for?” And just last week, both Mass. Rep. Barney Frank, who chairs the House Financial Committee and also has a bill in committee that would clear the road for online gambling in America, and Mich. Rep. John Conyers, who chairs the Judiciary Committee and preSided over the gambling hearing, authored a letter to both PreSident George Bush and the U.S. Trade Representative office. The letter criticized the administration and the office for the way they handled the conflict between Antigua and the rest of the World Trade Organization, a conflict that could potentially cost the United States billions of dollars in sanctions. They wrote: “We are very concerned about the precedent this sets for future situations in which parties to these agreements find a particular obligation inconvenient or politically difficult.
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:54 PM
…And why Antigua and the WTO have a legitimate case: • There are at least 18 state laws that expressly authorize wagering by wire within the United States, including on a wholly intrastate basis. • The WTO Panel states that, while the U.S. originally argued that Internet gambling could not be regulated, it has changed its position because the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act 2006 explicitly acknowledges that such regulation is possible. • The WTO Panel refers to the recent prosecution of foreign Internet gaming operators but adds that it finds it “striking” that the DOJ [Department of Justice] has never prosecuted any of the U.S.-based operators of Internet horserace betting. • The WTO Panel notes that the U.S. had an opportunity to clarify that Internet gambling on horserace betting is prohibited but that the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act does precisely the opposite by deliberately maintaining the ambiguity. (June 27, 2007)
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:54 PM
With our current financial affairs, can the United States really afford to be ignoring the ruling of the World Trade Organization and giving away $3 billion annually to Antigua and Barbuda? Both the European Union and the Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda will seek monetary compensation from the U.S. through the WTO because the U.S. has failed to comply with WTO rulings that say U.S. policy to restrict online gambling violates WTO free trade rules. Antigua and Barbuda is asking for more than $3 billion in annual sanctions against the U.S. for stopping its reSidents from accessing online gambling sites located in the island nation. It’s not known exactly what the E.U. will seek. …..Instead of complying with WTO rulings, the U.S. responded by stating it will modify the agreement to reflect its current stance. U.S. officials believe that by doing this, the U.S. is now complying with WTO rules. WTO rules state that when a nation moves to revise agreements that already been signed, member nations can seek compensation if the revision directly affects companies located within their borders. Antigua and Barbuda asked all WTO members to seek compensation against the U.S. because of the maneuver. Antigua and Barbuda’s complaints were made before the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act was signed into law by PreSident George W. Bush in October. The E.U., which goes under the WTO member name European Communities, has consistently pressured its member nations to allow its reSidents to access online gambling sites that are located within the E.U. Like the WTO, the E.U. conSiders online gambling a product that should not be restricted in countries that allow gambling. This is the main reason the WTO ruled in favor of Antigua and Barbuda in its case. If the U.S. banned all forms of online gambling, particularly interstate horse betting, then the WTO would most likely have ruled against the island nation. (June 20, 2007)
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:53 PM
“The technology also exists, unlike for other forms of gambling, to allow players and operators to set limits on limits on time, wagers, deposits, as well as to exclude themselves,” Whyte said. “Clearly gambling on the Internet raises some difficult issues, but it provides theoretical opportunities for operators to deliver responsible gaming programs that meet or exceed current standards in the ‘bricks and mortar’ gaming industry.” Witnesses also addressed questions about the safety of deposits, fraud and money laundering. These witnesses, who all were from the payment processing industry, told lawmakers that technology now exists to provide complete regulation and feel that regulation is best for both the consumer and the government. “Within the United States vast amounts of credit card transactions take place on a daily basis,” said Clive Hawkswood, Chief Executive of the Remote Gambling Association. “The system is well established and well policed in order to counteract fraudulent and criminal transactions. The only circumstance in which crime can flourish is if the activity is unregulated.”
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:52 PM
Perhaps you still fear that minors and gambling addicts will have too easy an access to continue down “their road of sin.” After reading the following article printed in Card Player Magazine on June 8, 2007, I am positive your attitude will change. You will find these next two supporters quite surprising! The most compelling testimony in favor of legalizing online gambling didn’t come from the mouths of members of the online gambling industry, but from those who deal with problem gamblers everyday. Both Andrew Poole, of Online Services for GamCare, a charitable organization that addresses the social impact of gambling, and Keith Whyte, Executive Director of the National Council on Problem Gambling, pointed out how the proposed legislation would provide protection for both minors and problem gamblers. “We are satisfied that if the move towards more responsible operation continues to gather pace, as is increasingly observed across Europe and the rest of the world, that the continued legitimate development of the industry need not be off-set against significant increases in problematic gambling,” Poole said. “Robust, formal regulatory frameworks undoubtedly represent the best opportunity for achieving this.” Whyte told the committee, which is made up of more than 70 members of Congress, that Internet allows for certain controls that are beneficial is helping compulsive gamblers that can’t be found in regular casinos. “Problem gambling is a serious and even life-threatening mental health disorder,” said Whyte. “However, the graphical and interactive structure of the Internet provides a revolutionary opportunity to create informed consumers with access to a variety of information designed to encourage safe choices and discourage unsafe behavior. He also testified that technology now exists to limit and prohibit people who are compulsive gamblers, as well as minors, in ways that’s impossible to do at
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:49 PM
The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness “recently” released report on the UIGEA also states that it is a joke of a law. The CRE has several problems with the UIGEA. First, the UIGEA and its proposed banking rules are so unspecific when it comes to defining online gambling transactions that government agencies really have no idea what it will cost companies to implement. “Since the (Treasury) Department has not yet reliably determined the small business impact of the proposed rules, they do not have the record for certifying that they have met the burden reduction requirements of the PRA and will not have such a record until they develop a Revised Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget should withhold approval until the necessary record is developed and provided to the public for comment. The CRE also took the government to task for including the estimates cost of several items the UIGEA will require, such as “establishing transaction codes and merchant/business category codes that are required to accompany the authorization request.” The CRE report reads: “The complete burden associated with this very extensive labeling requirement (computer programming, coordination with tens of thousands of participating financial institutions and merchants, testing, training, software, hardware, etc.) need to be included in the PRA estimate.” And to show just how ineffective the UIGEA may be when it comes to smaller banks, the CRE warned that “Because merchants, including gambling businesses, are not included in the Information Collection Request [ICR], they may be able to exercise the ‘public protection’ provisions of the PRA and not be subject to any penalty for not complying with information collection aspects of the rule.”
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:47 PM
The World Trade Organization has again Sided with Antigua in a dispute between it and the United States concerning online gambling. The WTO panel has rejected the U.S.’s appeal of a decision it made in April of 2005 that said Antigua was right in claiming the U.S. violates WTO rules by working to prohibit its reSidents to play on online sites located outSide U.S. borders. The panel said the U.S. is violating the WTO’s general trade agreement because it allows remote gambling, particularly betting on horse races, to take place within its borders…. …….The report also noted that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), which was passed after Antigua’s initial complaint, has the same loopholes that exist in the laws that encouraged Antigua to file the complaint. These loopholes are the main reasons that the panel ruled the U.S. is violating trade laws. Because the U.S. allows certain types of online gambling transactions to take place within its borders, but actively tries to stop the same services from being offered by companies located outSide the U.S., the U.S. is violating WTO agreements. (Mar 30, 2007)
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:47 PM
Since the ’70s, U.S. wagering companies have openly offered state-sanctioned intrastate remote betting in the U.S.. Currently, 18 states have enacted licensing schemes that sanction and regulate remote pari-mutuel account wagering. Operators accept cross-border wagers from reSidents of at least 39 states. The U.S. pari-mutuel betting industry now encompasses a network of more than 1,000 wagering sites nationwide, including racetracks and off-track wagering facilities. Americans wager approximately $15 billion per year on horse and dog races. For the past few years, more than 85 percent of this total wagering “handle” was placed at off-track locations. The National Thoroughbred Racing Association estimates that remote betting makes up more than 20 percent of the pari-mutuel handle. In summary, in different places in the U.S., we have remote betting for race- and sportsbook wagering and we have remote lottery play and other types of remote gambling. Despite the existence of a multi-billion-dollar sanctioned remote gambling industry in the U.S., our government takes the untenable position that all remote gambling in the U.S. is illegal. If all remote gambling were illegal, it would also be illegal for Antigua to offer such gambling in the U.S. However, since we commonly know we can bet on a horse race or buy a lottery ticket remotely, the U.S. position could not possibly be correct. Since the U.S. joined the WTO and agreed to be bound by international rules of fair play in commerce, something is going to have to give. The U.S. is a respected member of the WTO, and its current position is untenable. Some time this month, the WTO is expected to issue its ruling as to whether the U.S. is now in compliance. I predict the WTO will rule that the U.S. is not in compliance and then we will wait to see what position our government will take. (Jan 16, 2007)
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:44 PM
ConSider the following article, printed in Card Player Magazine on Nov. 2, 2006: At the same time the U.S. government is trying to thwart online gaming, movement in other countries is embracing the concept of regulating it. The United Kingdom recently hosted a conference to discuss ways to stop criminals from defrauding online gamblers, prevent children access to gaming Web sites, and prevent money laundering. Officials from 32 nations met at Ascot Racecourse outSide London to discuss ways to implement the regulatory guidelines set forth by Britain in its efforts to regulate online gambling. The U.S. chose not to participate. Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell said Britain opposed the U.S. ban because it risks driving the industry into criminal hands, just like Prohibition. Britain was sympathetic to a complaint made by Antigua to the World Trade Organization, accusing the U.S. of protectionism of its gambling industry. In the meantime, the World Trade Organization is moving forward with hearings to determine whether the U.S. is in compliance with its ruling last year. (Of course, we all know the U.S. is not in compliance, but still, the U.S. is entitled to a hearing.) As you may remember, last year the WTO ruled in favor of Antigua and Barbuda against the U.S. regarding the online gaming issue. Antigua asserted that the U.S. was discriminating against Internet casinos based in its jurisdiction. Antigua’s position was that the U.S. government’s interference with a multibillion-dollar industry violated international trade rules and was simply a ploy to keep tax revenues within the borders of the U.S. The WTO agreed….. …….The WTO expects a ruling from the panel sometime around the beginning of next year. The issue is whether the U.S. is in compliance with the ruling that it cannot interfere with Antigua’s right to fair trade. The WTO’s rules can be broken down simplistically. No country can hamper another country’s right to fair trade.
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:43 PM
Perhaps the view of the U.K Secretary will aid you in opening your eyes at the stupidity of this law, comparing it to “how well” outlawing the consumption of alcohol went in our past. In an interview with the Financial Times published today, Tessa Jowell compared the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act to alcohol prohibition of the 1920s and said that the UIGE Act may create the equivalent of online “modern-day speakeasies. America should have learned the lessons of prohibition,” Jowell said. (Oct. 27, 2006) Even more news from the same article: The World Trade Organization has ruled against the U.S. in a case when Antigua and Barbuda, the smallest member of the WTO, complained that the U.S. government’s stance on online gambling violates WTO policy of free trade. The U.S. has kept quiet about the ruling and has done nothing except blindly stick to its guns that online gambling should not be legal to its citizens. And since the U.K. will soon join Antigua and Barbuda as a country that taxes and regulates online gambling, the U.S. stands to face even more pressure from one of the richest nations in the world, which also happens to be one of its strongest allies. (Oct 27, 2006) With so many other countries, including our allies in the fight against terrorists and organized crime, convinced that regulating internet gambling rather than banning it is the wisest thing to do, how can you continue to be so blind?
National Security : Other
(Matthew - Winona, MN) August 3 - 12:07 AM
The RNC has no right nor should any act of congress prohibt internet gambling. True it can be taxed and regulated, which is good for all. But to crimanialize it is shameful. The RNC needs to wake up to the 21st Century and move on we ar over 1 Million strong PPA, and within your ranks so listen up. before we swing to the devil Side, the dems
Values : Other
(Sid - El Cajon, CA) August 4 - 5:49 PM
And now that you have passed this joke of a law, how do you plan on enforcing it? Even the people working in the Attorney General’s Office cannot come up with any regulations that are enforceable. Although the AG’s office has little more than a month to come up with regulations, they are “still looking” at the issue. This means they are not close to fashioning competent regulations with any teeth. It is quite possible that the AG’s office is still reviewing the issue because they have taken to heart the comments of representatives of financial institutions when the UIGEA was passed. “The bill sets up banks to police a social issue,” said Laura Fisher, spokeswoman for the American Bankers Association. “It’s not something we want to encourage.” The bill passed by Congress could allow regulators to exempt checks and money transfers because they are more difficult to track. “Analyzing 40 billion checks a year would be a largely manual process,” Fisher said. “If checks are not exempt, this would break our banks as it would be too costly to enforce.” ……The bottom line is that when our government tries to prohibit citizens from spending our money, we will react badly and find a legitimate way to spend our hard-earned money as we choose. We can open a bank account in Canada, wire money, or send a cashier’s check. We can go to our favorite online site and review all the legal ways to transfer money. Whatever regulations Gonzales and his cronies construct, creative players will find legitimate ways around those regulations. (May 30, 2007)
Values : Other
(David - Washington, DC) August 1 - 3:11 PM
I believe the Republiscan party should not stand against online poker. Poker is a socially acceptably game and more importantly Republicans should not try to interfere with what an