Legislation Update and some other stuff
So never in my life have I voted democrat, but my future in-laws are elated that this online gambling legislation has brought about a paradigm shift in my views. Honestly, it's forced me to re-evaluate my previous stance on the Bush administration as a whole - including, but not limited to, the war in Iraq. There are some other "sleeper" issues that I've chosen to ignore (such as GW's stance on stem cell research) that help fuel this new anti-Bush, anti-religious right sentiment...and yes, it all started with their attempts to take away online poker. Pathetic? Maybe...but I'm not ashamed to admit it.
My new hero is Shelly Berkley (D-NV). I've gathered these comments from around the web, where I first saw them on ZeeJustin's blog and also a site I found called CardSquad.com. I thought many of you would enjoy reading some of her comments:
"It was more important to the Republican leadership to keep people from playing poker on their computers in their homes, than passing a defense bill . . . [so they attached it to the port security bill.] What does a ban on Internet gaming have to do with port security? Absolutely nothing. This section was added in an attempt to fire up the far-Right anti-gamingelement of the Republican party in time for this year's election. They couldn't sneak it into the defense bill, so they put it into the port security bill. What does banning Internet gaming have to do with port security? I can't think of a single thing. They actually prevented the conferees from meeting and offering amendments. That is taking partisanship to a new low, even in this congress where partisanship is the rule, and not the exception."
From her website:
"I continue to be amazed by the members of this body who constantly rail against an intrusive federal government, and yet, when it comes to gaming, they are the first to call for more government intrusion," Berkley said. "A man's home is his castle unless he chooses to participate in online gaming. Then his home becomes the province of the federal government."
"The vast majority of states allow gaming and regulate it, whether it be lotteries, racing, card rooms, or casinos. This bill would make a legal activity illegal in those same states solely because it is done online rather than in a casino. In reality the intent of this bill is to attack and undermine legal gaming in our nation," said Berkley.
The word on the street is that Bush is going to sign this bill on Friday the 13th (no I'm not making that up, lol). It looks like some lines have been drawn in the sand as to which sites are going to keep US business and which aren't. Most notably, Party Poker isn't. There's been a lot of talk about who the next major player will be, and many think it's going to be Full Tilt Poker.
Now that things have settled a bit since last week when all this madness was announed, I'm feeling much better about the state of online poker. I'm pretty sure it's here to stay and somehow it will survive (yes, even for the casual gambler - the most important piece of this entire puzzle). It appears things with intermediary banking services (ie Neteller, Firepay) will be unhindered. If that's the case, I don't think much will change. Gamblers will find a way to gamble...and I want to make sure there's a seat open for them at my table.
Aaron
My new hero is Shelly Berkley (D-NV). I've gathered these comments from around the web, where I first saw them on ZeeJustin's blog and also a site I found called CardSquad.com. I thought many of you would enjoy reading some of her comments:
"It was more important to the Republican leadership to keep people from playing poker on their computers in their homes, than passing a defense bill . . . [so they attached it to the port security bill.] What does a ban on Internet gaming have to do with port security? Absolutely nothing. This section was added in an attempt to fire up the far-Right anti-gamingelement of the Republican party in time for this year's election. They couldn't sneak it into the defense bill, so they put it into the port security bill. What does banning Internet gaming have to do with port security? I can't think of a single thing. They actually prevented the conferees from meeting and offering amendments. That is taking partisanship to a new low, even in this congress where partisanship is the rule, and not the exception."
From her website:
"I continue to be amazed by the members of this body who constantly rail against an intrusive federal government, and yet, when it comes to gaming, they are the first to call for more government intrusion," Berkley said. "A man's home is his castle unless he chooses to participate in online gaming. Then his home becomes the province of the federal government."
"The vast majority of states allow gaming and regulate it, whether it be lotteries, racing, card rooms, or casinos. This bill would make a legal activity illegal in those same states solely because it is done online rather than in a casino. In reality the intent of this bill is to attack and undermine legal gaming in our nation," said Berkley.
The word on the street is that Bush is going to sign this bill on Friday the 13th (no I'm not making that up, lol). It looks like some lines have been drawn in the sand as to which sites are going to keep US business and which aren't. Most notably, Party Poker isn't. There's been a lot of talk about who the next major player will be, and many think it's going to be Full Tilt Poker.
Now that things have settled a bit since last week when all this madness was announed, I'm feeling much better about the state of online poker. I'm pretty sure it's here to stay and somehow it will survive (yes, even for the casual gambler - the most important piece of this entire puzzle). It appears things with intermediary banking services (ie Neteller, Firepay) will be unhindered. If that's the case, I don't think much will change. Gamblers will find a way to gamble...and I want to make sure there's a seat open for them at my table.
Aaron
posted by WiltOnTilt at 1:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment