[Hartley]

I think it's time that the site came up with a formal vision of what it hopes that the future holds for online gaming. If this site is going to have a voice that resonates with decision-makers, it needs to have a clearly stated vision of how regulated online gaming would provide a boost to the economy, while providing safeguards against the legitimate concerns that people opposed to online gambling hold.

The U.S. government doesn't want to hear it. Every time someone tries to advocate for regulated gambling in the United States and provide concrete reasons the government shoots them down. Again they were invited to a conference in Britain to discuss regulating gambling where they could have heard the reasoning but they essentially told Britain to f-off.

This can be done. It can be done without calling the other side idiots, zealots, or people so OBSESSED with morality that they're stomping all over the rights of everyone. This site is a player's advocate. The reason players needed advocates was because the offshore industry had many scammy elements at the beginning...in the middle...and even now according to posts currently up in the Mess Hall.

It's not about name calling but rather about showing that there is no reasoning behind the actions other than pushing morality.

Criminals and scam artists were attracted to the industry and they made their presence felt.

Many online games are scams.

Organized crime leapt at the chance to more efficiently run sports books, and still has ties in the industry. Organized crime uses the funds it wins from gamblers to finance the drug trade, arms trade, and other criminal activities. We know this from recent arrests where bookmakers also had connections to these other pursuits.

There are also many more legitimate bookmakers. What did Lawrence, Lefevre, Carruthers or Dicks have to do with organized crime?

We can't pretend these things aren't true while basically going "Waaaaah, waaaah, waaaah" like a baby that had it's rattle taken away.

Actually I would say the ones saying waaah, waaah, waaah were Frist, Kyl, Leach, Goodlatte and Bush. Because they couldn't get their bill passed through normal means they had the audacity to attach it to a bill that was meant to make ports safe. They clearly were the ones who were crying because they didn't get their way so they tried an underhanded means to get their bill passed.

If a representative of MW went on Hardball with Chris Matthews, or the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, and tried to put forward this line of rhetoric, he would get SPANKED by the host, let alone any guest from the other side.

Have Wolf call us. I'm sure someone from MW would be happy to be on the show to advocate legalizing online gambling in the U.S.

"terrorism was never really a concern for the online gambling bill's original sponsors."

Of course not, 1997 we were still four years away from being attacked on our own soil. To that point, terrorist attacks were limited to very small events on foreign soil or in foreign waters. Al Qaeda wasn't yet a growing global force with cells all over the planet that where sending money to each other to finance attacks. Of course it wasn't on the minds of the original opponents of online gambling.

Right but that doesn't change the fact that they conveniently started playing the terrorism card when it became clear that they couldn't sell their real agenda for wanting online gambling banned. It reminds me of PETA who recently announced we should stop eating meat because it is the biggest contributor to global warming (they suggest cow flatulence is causing the rise in greenhouse gasses). Clearly PETA wants us to stop eating meat because their only concern is for protecting animals. The global warming card is just a convenient way to try and convince people who wouldn't buy their real agenda to move over to their cause.

No, it was a responsible tactic given the international growth of Al Qaeda. The use of offshore sportsbooks by a terrorist group hadn't happened yet. And, it still may not have happened to this day. He used the word "potentially." There certainly is the potential for terrorists to use unregulated offshore sportsbooks as a way to transfer money to each other in a way that can't easily be tracked. The Arab world still had a lot to learn about American culture, particularly sports. I remember the reports from journalists that Osama Bid Laden was expecting the US to break apart the way the old Soviet Union did because the "states" would want independence from Bush. If they were thinking that...then comprehending baseball moneylines was surely a few years off. The point is, the POTENTIAL is there for the use of unregulated offshore financial tools to be used as the terrorist organizations became more savvy about the West. This is indisputable. Of course there was the POTENTIAL for this happening. It's a legitimate concern for people fighting terrorism.

There's also the POTENTIAL that little green men can come off a spaceship and vaporize the world with ray guns. You don't make policies based on something that can potentially happen you base it on what is likely to happen. The reason I said it was a cheap tactic is that Daschle wasn't the person to approach with their plea, he was just the Senator most open to listening due to the terrorist attack against him the year earlier.

Of course it washes, how could it not wash? Unregulated offshore financial instruments can easily be used to facilitate terrorism. Jeez!

Same comment as above - you don't base policies on fear, you base it on probabilities and what is in the best interest of the country.

The United Kingdom was endorsing REGULATED online gambling run by public companies who would have a much easier time monitoring transactions. Terrorists looking to shuttle finances around are much more likely to pursue unregulated offshore places than they are landlocked places where online gambling is legal. Don't try to make the case that Britain wanted unregulated offshore gambling. They've embraced regulated online gambling. HUGE FREAKING DIFFERENCE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

What do you think we're trying to advocate for? Antigua's regulation was seen as exceptional by various agencies that monitor that around the world including the WTO. Plus they are working with the UK to improve their regulations but the United States isn't interested in online gambling Regulated or Unregulated. Everyone is advocating for a Regulated system of online gambling in the U.S. but those in charge aren't interested in listening.

I can see Wolf Blitzer scratching his head now. Subway poisoning incident? There was a subway bombing in 2005. A former Russian spy was poisoned with Polonium recently in what looks to be a hit orchestrated by his enemies. I looked on the internet and couldn't find any references to a recent subway poisoning. But, even if there was...having regulated online gaming in your country is not an invitation for terrorists to come attack you. The fact that books are kept, are open, and subject to inspection by shareholders and legal authorities would discourage large scale involvement. Any large scale involvement would certainly send up red flags...particularly from patriotic businessmen who don't want to see their country attacked.

How about the numerous attacks on it by the IRA, not to mention Nazi Germany etc.

As for your last comments I agree wholeheartedly and we are all advocating for Regulated Online Gambling!!