Originally Posted by Willywoo

Spoken like a true libertarian.

But a healthcare bill that will put small businesses and the entire health insurance industry out of business is okay and the myriad of other government intervention that makes it harder or impossible for people to earn a living is okay too. It is only when regulation and intervention affect me that I get upset and scared.

The problem is that too many people either don't care or support the screwing of other people and don't stand up until it affects them personally. Those who favor universal healthcare have no problem putting an entire industry out of work because it is for the public good, but when you disagree with the objective, ie; limiting gambling you get scared. This is probably the best example of completely inconsistent thought on this matter that we have seen in quite sometime.

When the government favors one legitimate industry over another it is wrong. Period. End of story.

Apparently you think that this law is some type of isolated incident of the government stepping on a person's right to earn a living and keep what they make.

Please stop blaming one party or another. It is both parties. You are simply a pawn in their quest for power and control over your life.

I have my own opinions on healthcare, and yes, they differ from yours, but I'm not going to discuss that outside of OT. I could spend a long time discussing how consistant my thought process really is, and how the two issues have nothing to do with each other, but not here. Maybe sometime in OT where that crap belongs. My opinion on healthcare, or my political stance on anything other than online poker simply does not matter in the context of this thread, and I'm not going to pollute this thread will political bullshit.

I am blaming Republicans for this mess solely and completely because it's the Republican's fault. Not any other reason. Also, that's pretty indisputable. Until the Republican Party platform doesn't include language against online gaming, and Republican senators and House members aren't voting down most of our proposals, my stance towards the Republican party on this issue will continue to be justifiably harsh. I will continue to attack Kyl, Goodlatte, and Frist's legislation, and continue to praise Republicans King, Paul, and Sessions on this issue.

Anyway, BOTH parties could be doing a lot more to stop this problem, and we need to get on all their asses. Please make phone calls with me on this subject Willywoo. Regardless of our political differences, I'm sure that we can agree that online poker shouldn't be attacked.

 

Originally Posted by Jennifear

Leo, I believe Willy is right about this subject. At this time, it is not legal for banks to accept withdrawals from gambling sites. Banks have to be fully compliant with this measure on Dec 1st. Whether poker falls under that umbrella is up for debate, but the banks and governments' stance on it so far is that it does.

ok fine i stand corrected. have any of the pros checked into the overseas account thing? that seems like an easy solution if it is possible.

but a brick and mortar place would take care of everything

 

Originally Posted by Jennifear

I have my own opinions on healthcare, and yes, they differ from yours, but I'm not going to discuss that outside of OT. I could spend a long time discussing how consistant my thought process really is, and how the two issues have nothing to do with each other, but not here. Maybe sometime in OT where that crap belongs. My opinion on healthcare, or my political stance on anything other than online poker simply does not matter in the context of this thread, and I'm not going to pollute this thread will political bullshit.

I am blaming Republicans for this mess solely and completely because it's the Republican's fault. Not any other reason. Also, that's pretty indisputable. Until the Republican party platform doesn't include language against online gaming, and Republican senators and House members aren't voting down most of our proposals, my stance towards the Republican party on this issue will continue to be justifiably harsh. I will continue to attack Kyl, Goodlatte, and Frist, and continue to praise Republicans King, Paul, and Sessions on this issue.

Anyway, BOTH parties could be doing a lot more to stop this problem, and we need to get on all their asses. Please make phone calls with me on this subject Willywoo. Regardless of our political differences, I'm sure that we can agree that online poker shouldn't be attacked.

I do communicate with legislators, not just on this issue, but across the board. The reason they are able to get way with this is because of an ingrained culture of over regulation and prohibition. The restrictions of the UIGEA are a symptom of a much wider problem.

We agree that the only way to change it is to let them know how you feel and hopefully not be discounted as an artificial turf group or whatever they call protesters these days. Better to speak up and not be heard than not speak up at all.

I should not have singled you out to make that point either, at least not in this thread.

Please accept my apology.

Will one of those check cashing places cash a check from a poker site?

Once again, Willywoo is the only one with a clue when it comes to anything political.

I'm going to put myself out there to look like an idiot. I am a member of the PPA but honestly have no idea what to do with it. I've sent letters, made no phone calls, written emails, and everything else the forums have asked me to do. The problem is that most of these end up in the trash or deleted. I think mainly because they come as individual letters vs in groups. Its much harder to ignore large, cumbersome objects vs fast small ones. I think if someone set a date (every week, like Jen does) where we all send a letter, or an email, or make a phone call at the same time it would work like a virus (which there is no cure for). The problem is obvious, poker players aren't making enough noise.

 

Originally Posted by damnstraight

I can't even find words to describe how wrong that statement is. If you are wondering why the U.S government is cracking down on online poker and getting away with it, and want someone to blame you really only have to look at your self in the mirror.

Wha?? There's zero logic in your statement. How could voting only for those who are not attacking poker or more pro-poker possibly hurt this cause? That's ridiculous.

 

Originally Posted by Jennifear

Wha?? There's zero logic in your statement. How could voting only for those who are not attacking poker or more pro-poker possibly hurt this cause? That's ridiculous.

You missed the point. You said you would vote for a party that was favorable to poker even if that party was going to do a lot of other shit you didn't agree with. Basically what you are saying is that the government can get away with murder as long as they are not making laws that are harming your lively hood. But, as usually happens when people adopt such a complacent attitude towards what their government does, eventually they get around to making laws that are detrimental to yourself. You fail to see that this issue is only a small part of a much wider problem, and that is government has too much power. Where is the justice in electing a government that would allow people to play online poker but would trample on a bunch of other peoples rights and freedoms.

The only reason your government was able to make a law to go after online poker is that millions of people could care less because it does not affect them negatively. They will only whine and complain when a law is made that does. But you shouldn`t mind because you have already said you are willing to turn a blind eye to heavy handed government.

BTW your wrong to say this thread is about poker not politics. It really has very little to do with poker.

 

Originally Posted by elendil

Wow that sucks. To bad the USA isn't a free country anymore.
Its a real worry.

 

Originally Posted by mesaplayeraz

This is absolutely ridiculous. So if Obama and the Dems were against online poker and McCain and the Repubs were for online poker, you would have voted for McCain instead of Obama despite disagreeing with the Reps stances on BIGGER issues this country faces?

Voting for which party favors online poker (which btw you denied doing in OT.. contradiction much?) instead of voting on the more important issues facing this country is irresponsible and ignorant of you and anyone else who voted that way.

It comes down to prioritizing issues for yourself. I personally have/would change my vote based solely on a candidate's stance on online poker because that is something I care for strongly. Also I think it's safe to assume that their opinions on online poker would reflect their opinions on many personal freedoms across the board.

Your use of ignorant is a terrible word choice, an ignorant one imo ;). Using your voting right as a citizen to vote according to the most important issues to you, is not being ignorant.

Obviously you could cite some unlikely scenario such as a political candidate who supports online poker, but also supports ridiculous things like the death penalty for non-violent crimes and the ban of teaching science in public schools. Obviously radical candidates that support online poker may not get my vote. The thing is, most elected politicians have fairly similar opinions on many issues. I think I speak for Jen and others like her that her statement was general, and assumes the candidate is competent and conventional. Someone who cares immensely about online poker is still going to use good judgement with their vote, for them the online poker issue is just a very important one.

FWIW Three, if online poker became illegal in the USA tomorrow, I could fly up to NY and show Jennifear (providing she doesnt already know) how she can make even more money than she already does and still teach online.

The money she would make expanding her business would EASILY make up for not being able to play online and she would have to move (but still stay in the US) to play poker.

So, her lively hood wouldnt be taken from her (regardless of who is in the White House). In fact it would create her more financial profitability!

So, your argument with me that her lively hood and supporting herself/family being taken away simply isnt true.

 

Originally Posted by Jennifear

At this time, it is not legal for banks to accept withdrawals from gambling sites. Banks have to be fully compliant with this measure on Dec 1st.

First off, my apologies for confusing you with Jennifer Leigh all these years. Wow, that threw my world upside down for a few minutes. Kind of like finding out there is no Santa Claus, lol.

Back to the matter at hand, this statement by you also was an eye opener. Maybe I have been naive, but I always understood it was 100% not allowed (I shudder to use the word illegal) since the UIGEA for banks to allow transactions to online poker sites, but that accepting cashouts was still a gray area. If this is true, why would anyone bother keeping money on these sites? From what you say, it is 100% illegal for banks to accept any transactions from poker sites.

I don't know. I just wonder, if this is true, why do high stakes online American pros like Tom Dwan, Phil Ivey, Mike Matusow, Phil Helmuth keep their bankrolls full. I'm sure they must have 100s of thousands, if not millions of dollars in their accounts. Are they worried? What are they thinking about this stuff? Do they get threatening letters/ calls from their banks? They're transactions pale in comparison to ours.

One last question to all US online players- without getting into specifics, I'm curious what percentage of your typical bankroll are you keeping online come December 1? To make the math easy, say you typically keep 10k online, now you will only keep 3k, you're only keeping 30% of your typical bankroll. I'm only keeping 1/3 my typical bankroll online. I'd be curious to see some other replies.

 

Originally Posted by RI Tony

 

Originally Posted by Jennifear

At this time, it is not legal for banks to accept withdrawals from gambling sites. Banks have to be fully compliant with this measure on Dec 1st.

Back to the matter at hand, this statement by you also was an eye opener. Maybe I have been naive, but I always understood it was 100% not allowed (I shudder to use the word illegal) since the UIGEA for banks to allow transactions to online poker sites, but that accepting cashouts was still a gray area. If this is true, why would anyone bother keeping money on these sites? From what you say, it is 100% illegal for banks to accept any transactions from poker sites.

It's not true according to the legislation really. Its just that the banks are interpreting it as such because ALL of the responsibility of sorting thru, interpreting and enforcing this shitty legislation is being heaped on them and the penalties are high if they fuck up. So they are just covering their asses and just not allowing any transactions because its too risky to have that type of business in their banks.

To get informed on the issue it would be a good idea to read the bill or if you dispise that kinda language as much as I do this is an excellent summation/interpretation:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...ea-faq-627890/

 

Originally Posted by mesaplayeraz

Is Jennifear going to be able to play after Dec. 1st? 95% sure she will. Will Jennifear be able to teach after Dec. 1st? 95% sure she will be able to. In fact, Im willing to bet you three she will be able to do that a year and even 2 years from now. She has in fact said online poker is going to be around for a while.

As you know three, online poker isnt illegal. It all has to do with the banks. There are ways to work around that. She could even open up a foreign bank account if she wanted to and continue teaching/playing while living in the US. Hell, in Washington State its a felony to play online poker but look how many people do!

Will my friend who has been in the housing construction business for over 20 years be able to go back to that industry by Dec. 1st or a year from now? 95% sure he wont.
Does the poker industry help the US economy? Fractionally. Does the housing construction business bring in more than poker industry? Exponentially!

The point of my post and maybe I didnt express my opinion as clearly as I should is that online poker is not that big of an issue here in the US. If it was, it would have been a bigger issue come election time.

Jennifear's job is more than likely secure and will be secure for a while. This country has issues that need to be addressed NOW, not 3 or 4 years down the road (which is when I think online poker will be taxed and regulated here in the USA).

Another way of looking at it is this. If she would have voted for who she thought would create more jobs instead of who is in support of online poker, that in turn would allow her to have more students because people having jobs= playing poker and looking for teachers to get better.

FWIW, people lose their jobs that they have done all of their life (my friend is a perfect example), and are forced to start over in a new field. I've personally have gone through 5 career changes and in the unlikely event poker becomes illegal in the USA, well then Jennifear can actually continue her poker playing by playing live, even if she had to move she would still be able to live in the USA. She could even continue to teach if she wanted too as Im sure there are a lot of people who would take her up to be taught live instead of through a computer!

Does my friend who lost his 20+ year job in the housing construction business have that kind of option? Not so much!

So, as you see, her "lively hood" really isnt in jeopardy Three. She has options to fall back on that are exactly what she does online. Not a whole lot of unemployed people have that kind of option.

So yes, she is ignorant in voting for whoever is in support of online poker and ignoring the REAL issues in this country because no matter what happens, Jennifear isnt going to lose her job teaching/playing!

There are no guarantees that my job is stable. Like you say, it appears to be so for a couple years or so for sure. I never thought this would be a long term thing, and who knows what I'll be doing in even five years. I've planned well in case I end up having to do something else. There are a lot of things that are unrelated to this law that could severely limit my ability to do what I do, or change the profitability of poker.

The thing is that this issue is bigger than online poker. It's about the government dictating where we can and cannot spend our money. This is WAY bigger than whether some fish can deposit some $.

 

Originally Posted by RI Tony

we are paying them to attack our livelihoods.

This is it, exactly.

Poker is most likely going to be around for a long time on the internet for US players, unless something drastic happens that isn't related to this legislation.