What Does Online Gambling Have to Do with Terrorism?...By Hartley Henderson

[blogguy]

Thanks to Minnow for coming through with the PDA situation!

Hartley, nobody on this site is disputing how lame it was that the bill was passed in that fashion. Nobody disputed it after the first article, or the second, or the 10th, and they won't after the 30th if we just keep saying the same things over and over again once or twice a week until there's a new administration. It's like complaining about the same bad beat over and over again forever. What's the point of the constant repetition of the sermon that's already been preached many times to the choir that already agrees?

I don't know of any evidence that suggests the US government is afraid that regulated online wagering within its own borders would be helpful to terrorists. Things are getting mixed together here that are separate.

The government opposes gambling of all types in general for moral reasons (note that casino gambling is illegal in most of the country except for areas that have carved out their own exceptions in limited geographic space).

The government is concerned that unregulated offshore gambling will provide a financial vehicle for terrorists to move money around easily and undetectably.

These are two separate things, and the government had dealt with them separately.

What Great Britain is doing has nothing to do with the terrorism issue because it's regulated within their borders. Great Britain isn't endorsing unregulated offshore gaming. The fact that they're regulating sites within their own country doesn't mean they're not concerned about what happens offshore.

You could say the US goverment doesn't want gambling within the US for moral reasons, and they don't want unregulated offshore gambling to exist because of the potential for money laundering and easy maneuvering someday for terrorist entities. Sticking the two together and saying the US shouldn't be afraid of terrorists using online gaming because Great Britain isn't misses the whole point. And sticking in Nazis and the IRA doesn't even belong in the same area code.

In the world of unregulated offshore gaming, all reasonable countries should be concerned about the possibility of evil-doers using unregulated financial vehicles to their advantage.

In the world of regulated gaming, Britain's government has chosen to embrace it, while the US government is continuing what they see to be a perpetual ban that's gone on for eons in this country. The US didn't attend the conference for obvious reasons. They're not interested in legalizing online wagering right now. They don't care what Britain does.

And, what Britain does within its borders has nothing to do with the exposure to terrorism from unregulated offshore places anyway. The threat from terrorism comes from the unregulated offshore places. I'm sorry I have to keep repeating that...but your last post is still linking things together in a way that doesn't exist. Could you please at least ackowledge that you get what I'm saying here, even if you disagree. Saying WE SHOULD LISTEN TO BRITAIN, WE SHOULD LISTEN TO BRITAIN a hundred times has nothing to do with the terrorism issue. Terrorism is a threat because of the unregulated offshore places, not the regulated on shore places...

[count zero]

"Should a site that's an advocate for players advocate refusing to accept the legitimacy of government as a way to make sports betting readily available to its base?"

1) MW is not an "advocate for players." Occasionally representing the interests of players who have been, or claim to have been, wronged by sports books is not advocating for players in the sense you intend. To the best of my recollection, MW has never represented the interests of sportsbettors against governmental authority, here or in any other public venue. Having sympathy for a point of view is not the same as publicly advocating for it. If you think I am wrong, please post a link to several instances where MW did so. And, as I said above, I think it tests the limits of naivete to imagine that the 10-20 people here who have the literacy skills to participate in such an effort plus the potential financial upside to care about the outcome would be able to get the federal government to so much as take notice of them, much less reverse course on the grounds of logic and common sense. With all due respect, your impression of government and its workings are more appropriate to a 1940s civics text than to today's unfortunate realities.

2) you evidently want to reduce the issue to pragmatic considerations, i.e., which of two alternatives will work best. That is a very short-sighted view, given the manifestly illegal and unconstitutional behavior of the current administration, but since you appear to have long since bought into what they're selling, I'll give you my impression of the chances of either of these alternatives working: absolutely nil. So the question becomes: if you believed you were wrongly deprived of something you valued, and you had to choose between standing up for yourself on principle or bending over and asking nicely, and neither alternative had the slightest chance of ameliorating your situation, which one would you choose?

3) if, as you now disingenuously state, you never thought anybody here was in bed with organized crime etc, then why did you say they were? Do your words stop having meaning when you get caught out? Since I accept that you are a person of good faith, I have some advice for you: when you don't mean to characterize someone as being unconcerned about organized crime, drug dealers and arms dealers, you should avoid putting words like these in their mouths: "I don't care if organized crime is taking my money to fund the drug or arms trade..."

[drunkguy]

one thing we are all going to have to wake up to is the fact that gambling has a lot more ties to organized crime than anyone seems to want to acknowledge

we can deny it forever, but eventually we have to face the facts that, yes, Neteller could have been used to launder money for numerous operations, including terrorists, drug cartels, organized crime, etc

Of course, everyone is afraid to say that because given the choice of regulating or banning, the government will choose banning every time. So the gamblers have to stand up and pretend nothing is wrong so that they don't get internet gambling taken away from them.

regardless of whether we agree or not, the government DOES have a valid point about the current state of offshore gaming

[The Major]

Drunkguy, you make some good points.

However, I know a thing or two about gaming finance. I can tell you this. IMO it would be much easier to launder 1,000,000 in the state of Nevada than it would be online.

I just saw JC online and asked him the same question. He agreed.

So, if they want to play the laundering terrorism card , shut down Vegas first. Just another wives tale about offshore gaming.

[blogguy]

Thanks for you comments Count...

*I may have indeed misunderstood what "player's advocate" meant. I've read the phrase here many times. Yes, it's in terms of solving disputes. I didn't know that it couldn't also mean working toward what's best for players in the big picture. If management isn't interested in that, I apologize for inadvertently putting words in their mouth. I thought the point of hiring writers and posting articles was for influencing the public debate/mindset in this regard. Sorry if I misunderstood.

*I don't think there are only two alternatives. I think we should put our heads together and come up with a strategy for influencing the future. I think it's better than running multiple versions of the same article over and over again. I don't have any thoughts at all that we could influence this administration. I think there's a decent chance that the industry could influence the thinking of the next administration, particularly with the popularity of TV poker with the viewing masses.

*Saying that gamblers don't mind losing money to organized crime, or don't care whether or not the money they lose goes to organized crime; doesn't mean they're in bed with organized crime. I at no point said that anybody here was in bed with organized crime. We have a difference of opinion on that matter.

Drunkguy...agree completely with your post. I think it's the elephant in the room whenever debates like this begin.

Major...terrorists don't need to launder anything. They're not afraid of getting arrested for ill-gotten gains. Offshore financial vehicles that aren't regulated would be a very convenient way for a terrorist organization to move money to its cells. It doesn't need to be a million dollars for the projects they put together. Not saying that this is happening now. It's clearly something that governments have a right to be concerned about because of the potential. The article was about what terrorism has to do with sports betting. Laundering is more of an organized crime issue than a terrorism issue I believe.

Since your'e with us...could you clarify the advocacy role of Major Wager? Was the goal of the new emphasis on articles and such to move toward influencing the future? I may have misunderstood what the goal was from earlier posts. If so, I apolgize.

Either way...I don't think it serves the sight to misrepresent what gambling opponents are saying, or to invent London subway poisoning terrorist attacks that never happened in front page articles.

Some guidance would be greatly appreciated!

blg

[Hartley]

This is the attack I was referring to. For some reason I remember a poison gas in the incident but perhaps I was wrong

BBC NEWS | UK | London bombings toll rises to 37

[The Major]

Major...terrorists don't need to launder anything. They're not afraid of getting arrested for ill-gotten gains. Offshore financial vehicles that aren't regulated would be a very convenient way for a terrorist organization to move money to its cells. It doesn't need to be a million dollars for the projects they put together. Not saying that this is happening now. It's clearly something that governments have a right to be concerned about because of the potential. The article was about what terrorism has to do with sports betting. Laundering is more of an organized crime issue than a terrorism issue I believe.

Blogguy, by reading your posts I realize that you are one of the ones that bought into the Terrorism bullshit. Shame, I would have thought you could see past the rhetoric. Either you have no clue how international finance works or you drank the cool-aid.

Let me re-word your comments for you. It would be easier for a terrorist to go to Las Vegas and get the needed funds, untraceable, than it would be for them to do it via present and previous online gaming processing systems.

Also, laundering is no longer an "organized crime" issue, that’s more rhetoric, Blogguy. The DOJ uses money laundering charges like a 70 year old man pops Viagra. It has no exclusivity to organized crime anymore.

By making these arguments you are in fact part of the problem, not the solution. In order to fight the USG on these issues it will take public awareness but most of all public correctness, and what you are speaking of simply is not factual or correct in any way shape or form.

Dont lets yourself become another Jonestowner. Just because the DOJ says the sky is pink doesnt mean you have to argue it isnt. There is no argument with incorrect facts. Simply a correction of the facts.

Best debate I have seen on this site in years!!!!!

[bbqguy]

Great debate - I don't think it would be to hard to create a regulated Sports gambling or even online gambling industry that included online casino games and poker, but I agree that the US Gov't just wants no part of it. To make it work with all the checks and balances a government might want you could have people open an account just like they open a bank account or brokerage account, in person, with proper ID's and depositing cash/funds. They could even make rules stating that funds deposited couldn't be wagered for at least 24 hours or somthing like that to help with the compulsive agruement. You don't see these politicians running around saying we should shut down the stock market because kids might open accounts or that someone might lose their enitre savings and put themselves in finaicial distress.

My suggestion to a person that was looking to become a voice for online gambing would be to argue in favor of a structure that closely, if not exactly mirrors the stock market. Once you have established that sort of regulation and control the people arguing against the online gambling activity can no longer claim terrorism, kids, finacial ruin lack of regulation or any of their other BS reasons. At that point in becomes strictly a moral question and the people arguing against this would only have that as their point of arguement. The person arguing for the stock market/sports book set up could simply retort "so the stock market supports terrorism?" and ask the person in the discussion what their real reason for opposition is? they will bring up fixed games - you will respond with insider trading hasn't shut down wall street - and then ask - don't you think that every day people are buying stocks with inside knowledge?

The negative PR campaign has so worked against online gambling that at this point a person is trying to change established mind sets and fighting a lot of established gambling business that wouldn't want the opposition.

It will be quite an undertaking to reverse the persception of online gambling in the US, but if it were to ever happen it will only happen through a constructive solution that answer nearly all of the oppostion positions, not bashing by people that don't agree.

[JohnGalt]

The online gambling law was enacted because one politician (Frisk) was doing another politician (Leach) a favor, so that he would be endorsed for President. The ultimate irony is neither one of these people even holds public office now, and likely never will again.

[blogguy]

I appreciate you taking the time to respond Major. We seem to have a disagreement on what the facts are. And, what the word potential means.

The thing I'm bothered by in our tone is that we keep calling people who disagree with us idiots, zealots, or politicians doing the worst of what politicians do. In your response to me, you called me a Kool-Aid drinker, a Jonestowner, someone who has no clue, and someone who bought in to bullshit rhetoric. Same deal. This doesn't get anybody anywhere. And, how can it be a great debate if the person on the other side is a kool-aid drinking Jonestowner who doesn't have a clue? Great debates have valid points on this side. The math doesn't add up there at all. Either it wasn't much of a debate, or the points are valid.

Nobody's disputing that money can be transferred or laundered in Las Vegas. Maybe we could interview representatives of the casinos so they could tell us what steps they take to try and prevent this from happening on their grounds....whether those steps are working...or whether those steps are futile because it's too difficult a thing to stop.

Let me ask it this way. If an organization in the Middle East wants to get money to a pocket of sympathetic minds in Detroit, in Philadelphia, or in Florida, is it easier to try to get everybody to meet in Las Vegas? Or, is it easier to use unregulated offshore financial vehicles? Particularly in an era where so many things can be purchased online?

Before these groups learned much about the outside world, Vegas would certainly be a choice. It's common knowledge that Mohammed Atta and cohorts spent some time in Las Vegas before 9/11. As the networks grew in size and sophistication, unregulated offshore financial vehicles would obviously have the POTENTIAL to be used. That's all that was being said by anyone on the other side of the debate. That's all Hartley quoted in his article. There was a quote from a letter to Daschle that used the word potential. Hartley quoted a person he interviewed who said the same thing.

Major Wager can't possibly make the case that there isn't the POTENTIAL for something like this to happen. It hasn't happened yet? Fine. It's harder than people think? Fine. It's easier money-wise in Vegas? Fine. All that was said was that the potential exists. The potential obviously exists. What facts could we put forward that says the potential doesn't exist?

Books written about the terrorist organizations by people with no connection to the US government, or even the US because they're foreign journalists, have discussed this issue. Any study of what the terrorist organizations are doing would lead one to believe this is a possibility. It's not propaganda put out by DOJ, unless foreign journalists who have exposed how badly the US has handled the war are secretly part of the DOJ. Any study of terrorist organizations makes it obvious that this is an option.

Moving on. Laundering is no longer an organized crime issue? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that organized crime no longer launders money? Do we have any evidence for that? If we googled "money laundering by organized crime" would we get no hits? The fact that people other than organized crime are also laundering money doesn't mean that organized crime can't use unregulated offshore financial vehicles to launder money. How would the fact that others outside of organized crime also launder money mean money laundering is a red herring in the discussion of unregulated financial vehicles? That would mean a greater danger of abuse not a lesser danger.

You said: "In order to fight the USG on these issues it will take public awareness but most of all public correctness"

How can the public be made aware, and think correctly on the issue, if Major Wager treats the debate like this:

*People who are concerned about the dangers of gambling are religous zealots
*People who are concerned about gambling addictions are busy-body do-gooders
*People who are concerned about children betting don't understand anything
*People who are concerned about the games being unfair are jamming morality down our throats
*People who are concerned about organized crime involvement are idiots
*People who are concerned that terrorists could shuttle money via unregulated offshore vehicles are kool-aid drinkers

Thanks to the comprehensive approach of the site, articles posted by Clevfan and others have shown that gambling does have dangers, can be addictive, can be abused by minors, can feature unfair games, and does have links to organized crime both on land and offshore. Currently there appears to be only the potential for abuse at offshore places by terrorist groups. That doesn't mean "potential" can be part of the concerns of reasonable people.

Making the public aware so they can think correctly means explaining how regulated online gaming would deal with addiction issues, making sure children can't play, making the games fair (which limits it to poker and sports betting), making sure organized crime wasn't involved, and making sure evil-doers weren't able to skirt legal financial means to benefit their organizations.

Specifics, not name calling.

In any debate, the other side will have facts...and the moderator will have facts if its one of those TV news shows. Playing the "it's all a bunch of propaganda" card over and over again without specific evidence that it's propaganda won't win the argument. It wouldn't win a trial if this was before a jury. We have to convince people. The way the laws are now, the onus is on us to convince in order to create change so that things can be the way we hope for. They can't possibly become what we hope if we don't take those steps.

Thanks again for taking time to respond to my earlier post...blg

[bbqguy]

Very good thought out reply Blogguy. In my opinion there certainly is a potential and I certainly don't consider myself a Kool-Aid drinker unless of course the flavor is Scary Black Cherry.

[drunkguy]

i guess the real issue is this:

money laundering, terrorist funding, etc can all be done online right now

that Pandora's box is already open and there is really no way to stop the technology since it is already available

obviously the best choice from a security point of view would have been to bring the sportsbooks and money processors into it, let them operate but under a set of rules like other financial institutions in the US are subject to...reporting of large cash transfers or transfers structured to get around reporting rules, notification of suspicious activities, etc. Let them operate as long as they plug any security holes. That is a win-win situation for everyone.

Unfortunately the U.S> "moral stance" is at odds with this since it would be legitimizing a "dangerous" activity (gambling). So they will go the route of trying to eliminate everything, which will never work. Alternatives will always pop up, and they will stay underground as long as possible to avoid being shut down.

By prohibiting a harmless activity (gambling), a whole underground economy pops up which actually creates the security problems.

Stupid, but not surprising. Exactly the same as the recent story of the Afghani warlord who was assisting U.S. intelligence but got brought up on drug charges. Sometimes you have to let the little things (drugs, gambling) slide, so that the big problems (terrorist attacks) don't happen.

[bbqguy]

drunkguy - I agree, my point exactly - if online gambling were proposed as fully regulated then the only agruement is moral. I think that side could be argued against since forms of gambling are already rampant throughout the US, in fact they are glamorized such as the trucker that recent one the large lottery jackpot.

[Hartley]

Blogguy I would love to have an actual debate with you. I think it would be a hell of a lot more interesting than any debates that will take place in the 2008 presidential race.

Anyways I feel I need to respond to your last points.

*People who are concerned about the dangers of gambling are religous zealots

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said only religious zealots are concerned about the dangers of gambling. What I pointed out is that the majority of promoters of the gambling bills (Kyl, Frist, Goodlatte etc.) have a history of voting on every issue based on their religious beliefs and it just so happens they are all Evangelical Christians. And George Bush has stated his presidency is a mission from God. There are indeed some who don't support gambling that aren't very religious at all but when you have a history of voting the "evangelical line" on every single issue then IMO you are a religious zealot. Don't forget we labelled the taliban, al qaida etc. religious fundamentalists because all their decisions are based on what will please Allah even when those decisions clearly go against common decency and what is best for muslims around the world.

*People who are concerned about gambling addictions are busy-body do-gooders*

Can you please give one instance where we anyone on this site said that? Gambling addiction is a serious problem. What we have stated is that any land based casino and racetrack has more addicts than online bettors but unlike at land based places it is easier to cut people off because computers can easily identify trends that indicate problem gambling. I'd have to look for previous posts but I recall stating that gambling addicts aren't good for anybody in the industry and it's imperative that this be addressed with any regulation.

People who are concerned about children betting don't understand anything

No. Arguments like little Johnny is going to take mom's credit card, click the mouse and bet the house is an idiotic comment that shows hysteria and a total misunderstanding of what must be done to deposit at a casino or sportsbook not to mention the fact that if little Johnny steals mom's credit card he's probably going to EBay to get the latest video game. How come we don't hear politicians express concern that Ebay allows little Johnny to steal mom's credit card, place a ridiculous offer at an Ebay auction for something he doesn't need and lose the house?

*People who are concerned about the games being unfair are jamming morality down our throats

I don't even understand that comment. The morality comments are based on the fact that you are being told what to do with your money and how to do it. I would have the same concern if I was told I couldn't purchase booze, porn, cigarettes or anything that the country has deemed legal. And that is the main concern - gambling is not immoral according to the government, in fact they put commercial after commercial on telling you how you could be independantly wealthy and retire at 40 by playing the lottery. Yet in the same breath they say that online gambling is immoral. How do you argue with that type of logic?

*People who are concerned about organized crime involvement are idiots

I have yet to see the government give any proof that organized crime is involved in online gambling. They make comments like that and just expect people to believe it. So far they have arrested David Carruthers, Peter Dicks, Jay Cohen, John Lefevre and Stephen Lawrence. Which of those is in organized crime? If organized crime is rampant in online casinos how come we haven't heard of the arrests or warrants for mafia bosses or hell's angels leaders or...

*People who are concerned that terrorists could shuttle money via unregulated offshore vehicles are kool-aid drinkers

Nope. What we said is that you don't base policies and a country's vision on the remote chance of something happening. There are far easier ways for terrorists to shuttle money than online yet the government isn't interested in addressing those. Until they show a real interest in stopping money laundering in more realistic areas they can't be taken seriously in this one.

I can't speak for Major but what I recall about Jonestown is that Rev Jones, the cult leader, told everyone to go to Jonestown with him and convinced all these brainwashed followers that drinking cyanide laced Kool-Aid was best for them as they would be in a better place once they die. And like lambs to the slaughter they just did it because Jones was able to convince them that he was looking out for their best interests.

In a way it's a good analogy. The current government in charge has convinced many Americans that they are looking out for their best interests and few of those Americans have been willing to question the government because are honestly convinced that Bush et al. would never do anything that wasn't in the country's best interest be it the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act or the online gambling law. I know The Actuary has been furious with me for daring to take a stand against the current Republican government but I wasn't hired on as a writer to be an apologist for any government. When they are right I will state so but thus far I think they have given very few legitimate reasons for their online gambling position. You have attacked me on my positions but I have given reasons why I believe that the current government's arguments are not legitimate. If they want to convince me they'd better back it up with solid evidence to the contrary.

I recall when Bush wanted all nations to go to war in Iraq with him quite a few said "why?" and he just became angry and said - "you're with us or you're with the terrorists." As it turns out the reason he didn't give a concrete reason is that his purpose for going to Iraq were personal and he knew that if he said "I want you to go to Iraq to settle the score for my father" that they would have told him where to go.

I've always hated Jean Chretien but I'm going to quote him. If you want me to believe that online gambling is truly a concern to the country and particularly a terrorist threat then show me a proof. "What kind of a proof, it's a proof. A proof is a proof and when you have a good proof it's because it's proven" :)

Seriously I'll go one better. I'll post 6 articles that I'll devote the rest of March to. Each article will attempt to refute each of the "concerns" stated by Kyl and the Republican government - namely 1) that online gambling presents a better chance that games are rigged and online operators are shady, 2) That there is a bigger chance of underage betting on the internet, 3) That online gambling fosters more of a concern for addiction than do land based casinos 4) That Organized crime can flourish easier online and
5) that online gambling presents the biggest threat to America for money laundering and consequently for terrorists to move money to accounts to use in terrorist attacks against America and other free nations. I'll conclude the series with reasons why the 2008 Democratic candidate should put online gambling on the ticket as one of their policies if elected.

In return you write an article refuting my points or admit that this goverment is enacting their online gambling laws for personal reasons and not because it's in the best interest of the country.

How does that sound?

[blogguy]

Thanks for the lengthy response Hartley.

Let me first apologize for looking like I was putting words in Hartley's mouth. My listing was kind of a summation of all sorts of discussions I've been in here at the site...some with Hartley and some with people who aren't writers for the site but still post their thoughts in these lively debates. It all gets lumped together when trying to summarize something...so characterizations that Count Zero made in prior posts, or others have made all run together in a summary like that. The side of the debate that's opposite of the side I'm on have all made those types of characterizations. That doesn't mean Hartley specificially said those things on the list. Please don't think those represents Hartley's specific opinions on these issues. I was summarizing what I've heard from the other side of the argument in various formats here at the website.

Hartley does a great job of speaking for himself. If I'm referring to something he said, I'll attribute it to him and put in in quotes or italics. As he does when specifically referring to something I said.

Hartley, to me, we've already had debates, so I'm not sure what having a new one will prove to anyone, lol. I think we agree on most things actually. I do disagree with many of your characterizations of the anti-gambling side. And, I don't see how this site is going to make a contribution to the future of the online gambling with those characterizations. I've already made the key points I believe our important in this current article earlier in this thread obviously.

As you write your articles "refuting" the arguments, I'll hope you'll consider researching or pointing out:

1) the software available in the industry that has a much worse payback rate in blackjack, roulette, slots, video poker, and other games that are played in land based casinos. The odds are already against the player in those games in casinos. The reports I've seen from software providers make it clear that online casino's have worse paybacks. They are "rigged" to take people's money faster than brick and mortar casino's are. And, be sure to mention that the national government is opposed to brick and mortar casino's too. Individual states bucked the national laws against gambling to create their own windows of play.

2) You can mention that blogguy knows a minor who's been winning sit-and-go's since he was 12 years old.

3) dont' know that we'll disagree here

4) that it's been known within the offshore industry since its inception that organized crime was backing or connected to some sites. Don't say the government has no proof. Interview people in the industry (though many probably won't be willing to talk on the record) to find out the full scope. This is something that's talked about all the time amongst guys shooting the breeze. I'm just on the fringes of the sports handicapping industry...but I knew about it at the time, and I've heard stuff ever since. This is not a secret. It may not be something you've come across in your time in the industry. You may not have come across the alleged connections between the British men arrested and British mobsters either. Maybe some research of British publications could clarify that. You may not find people who want to talk about this obviously (the offshore stuff). It's not something people want to discuss unless they think you're they're buddy and you won't tell anyone.

5) Nobody said that online gambling presents the "biggest" threat to America for money laundering. And, again, terrorists shuttling money amongst each other is not money laundering. The "potential" danger from terrorists does not come from money laundering. Please make that clear in your article. Perhaps the guy you interviewed in this piece above could provide more specifics regarding why terrorist organizations might choose this "potential" route in the future.

And, as a general point...a lot of what I'm hearing from you and the Major is along the lines of the fact that the anti-gambling side isn't going after some other thing, so it's wrong that they're going after gambling. You said something about kids possibly using credit cards on ebay. Major said something about how Las Vegas casinos could be easily used.

The fact that the government isn't going after kids on ebay doesn't mean that the ease of kids gambling on line isn't a legitimate concern.

The fact that the government isn't invading Nevada because gambling exists there doesn't mean there can't be legitmate concerns about unregulated offshore places.

I'll buy that it's hypocritical. But the fact that it's hypocritical doesn't mean that the concerns about these other issues aren't legitmate concerns. We should be concerned about kids gambling on the internet regardless of what's possible on ebay. We should be concerned about BOTH. We should concerned about possibly money laundering or terrorist transfers at brick and mortar casinos. It's not a valid point in my opinion to say we shoudln't be concerned about unregulated offshore places because an individual state to allow casino gambling within its borders.

I haven't had a chance to do this already, so let me add in my thanks for all the hard work you did on the Neteller situation. I know that took a lot of legwork (getting the runaround always does!).

Like I said in my first post in the thread, I hope the website can come up with a centralized vision and plan of attack for making the case. This thread suggests we can't even agree on what's "obvious" lol.

Thanks again for devoting so much time and energy to the above post.

[The Major]

Blogguy, you are a virtual novel of myths and misconceptions. British Mobsters now? I wish I had the time to discuss this more. Next week I should have a day for odds and ends and will sit down and respond in detail to your posts.

Please add that offshore gaming adds to global warming because as far as I can see, thats about all you have missed. You should be a mouthpeice for the anti gaming groups. You would be a good one. Just please credit me with the global warming threat Thanks

R

[homedog]

Originally Posted by The Major

Blogguy, you are a virtual novel of myths and misconceptions. British Mobsters now? I wish I had the time to discuss this more. Next week I should have a day for odds and ends and will sit down and respond in detail to your posts.

Please add that offshore gaming adds to global warming because as far as I can see, thats about all you have missed. You should be a mouthpeice for the anti gaming groups. You would be a good one. Just please credit me with the global warming threat Thanks

R

Haven't you heard? We will all be underwater in a matter of days.

[The Major]

Myths and Facts About Online Gambling

[drunkguy]

Originally Posted by Hartley

*People who are concerned about organized crime involvement are idiots

I have yet to see the government give any proof that organized crime is involved in online gambling. They make comments like that and just expect people to believe it. So far they have arrested David Carruthers, Peter Dicks, Jay Cohen, John Lefevre and Stephen Lawrence. Which of those is in organized crime? If organized crime is rampant in online casinos how come we haven't heard of the arrests or warrants for mafia bosses or hell's angels leaders or...

that's a bit of a stretch


this whole thing started because the feds were going after Gary Kaplan for running a stateside bookmaikng operation in NYC and Florida

I'm pretty sure "NYC bookmaking" and "organized crime" are synonymous