ONLINE SPORTSBOOKS

Go Back   MajorWager Forums > MW - Online Sportsbooks > Mess Hall
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Mess Hall Online Sportsbook Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-07-2007, 04:46 PM
Rogthedodger Rogthedodger is offline
Editor-in-Chief, MajorWager.com
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,887
Default What Does Online Gambling Have to Do with Terrorism?...By Hartley Henderson

From the many emails I receive, the one question that comes up over and over is the question in the title of this article: What does online gambling have to do with terrorism? Perhaps a better question would be: "when did online gambling become linked to terrorism?" Looking at the history of the online gambling bills in the United States it seems pretty clear that terrorism was never really a concern for the online gambling bills original sponsors. Upon introducing the Gambling Prohibition Act of 1997 Kyl outlined four reasons why he wanted online gambling banned. These included: 1) concern over whether the games were fair and the offshore sites were legitimate, 2) the possibility for underage betting, 3) the concern of serious addiction, 4) and the loss of revenues to state run casinos and sports betting. Nowhere was terrorism mentioned. The following are some of the more famous quotes as to why Kyl and eventually Goodlatte and Leach wanted gambling banned:

"Harvard Medical School's Division of Addictive Studies likened the internet to new delivery forms for addictive narcotics. As smoking crack cocaine changed the cocaine experience, I think electronics is going to change the way gambling is experienced. And that is especially true with regard to youth, who are particularly at risk. (Kyl 2001)."

He also stated:

"Children can access Internet gambling sites on the family computer, wager with Mom's credit card, click the mouse and bet the house" (Kyl 1999)

Rob Goodlatte chimed in with this quote in early 2001:

"The negative consequences of online gambling can be as detrimental to the families and communities of addictive gamblers as if a bricks and mortar casino was built right next door."

I can fill pages with similar comments by the sponsors; prior to 2002 terrorism was never mentioned. In all fairness, there was the concern about money laundering expressed, but those concerns were more about tax evasion, certainly not terrorism. This was a direct quote from Kyl's office in 2001: "Gambling on the Internet provides remote access, encrypted data, and most importantly, anonymity. Because of this, a money launderer need only deposit money into an offshore account, use that money to gamble, lose a small amount of that money, and then cash out the remaining funds. Through the dual-use protection of encryption and anonymity, much of this can take place undetected."

Unfortunately for the bill's pundits, they could not get the 2/3 majority needed to pass the bill and moreover as the issue started to get more play in the media opposition to it started to grow. Media outlets and Democratic opponents like Shelley Berkley pointed out the hypocrisy and obvious protectionist aspects of equating offshore operations as evil while labelling the land based casinos offering the exact same product as legitimate. As well, much of the general public were starting to become acquainted with the pleasures and ease of offshore wagering, and in particular online poker. Thus the "family values" arguments which helped get George Bush elected became harder to sell to the public. Consequently, by 2001 it seemed inevitable that all online bills relying on using this tactic to get passage would fail.

Then came 9-11, and with it came renewed hope for the bills creators. While the world mourned for a country which saw thousands of people lose their lives in one of the most cowardly acts ever enacted on a nation, the Republican government saw this as an opportunity. On October 26, 2001 George Bush passed the PATRIOT (Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act. Part of the act made it a crime to accept funds from illegal activity and the government argued that applied to online gambling. Consequently, the DOJ charged PayPal with violating the Patriot Act by processing transfers to offshore sportsbooks and casinos. Initially PayPal was prepared to fight the charges, but then decided to settle without admitting fault. Shortly thereafter, Paypal sold the business to eBay. That was the first time online gambling was linked to terrorism, but it wasn't the last. The following year in a letter on why the Republicans wanted the Democrats to ban online gambling Lawrence Lindsay wrote the following in a letter to Tom Daschle:

"Internet gambling serves as a haven for money laundering and organized crime and, potentially, for international terrorism."

It was a cheap tactic given Daschle's scare with anthrax the year prior. The National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling put out a pamphlet called Destructive Economic Policies in the Age of Terrorism where they argued that online gambling would lead to money laundering by terrorists and the destruction of economies around the world. The DOJ, in conjunction with politicians who wanted online gambling banned, all of a sudden started linking online gambling to money laundering by terrorists. If anyone questioned the argument, they were reminded of the dangers of terrorism and subsequently avoided speaking out for fear of being labelled soft on terrorism. Media scrutiny of the gambling bills dwindled as well. Plus, on numerous occasions attempts were made to shove the online gambling bill into terrorism bills. It appeared in spite of this that saner minds in Congress would prevail and the bill would never get passed. Then in September of 2006 Bill Frist attempted to attach the gambling bill to the Department of Defence Authorization Bill which was a bill designed to give more money to the armed forces for their fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. The leak of Frist's plan caused him to back down. However, one month later prior to Congress convening for the mid term elections, Frist managed to attach the bill to the Safe Port Act without the provisions being discussed by Congress. The Safe Port Act was already approved by Congress, so unfortunately the attached bill was automatically approved well. It should be noted that in his speech on enacting the Safe Port Act, Bush never mentioned online gambling. Here was his direct quote:

The SAFE Port Act will build on progress and help us protect our ports in three key ways. First, the SAFE Port Act will strengthen physical security measures at our ports by helping us harness the power of technology. The bill authorizes the development of 21st century inspection equipment, so that Customs agents can check inside cargo containers for dangerous materials without having to open them. The bill also requires radiation detection technology at our 22 busiest ports by the end of next year. America has the best technology in the world, and with this bill we will apply that technology to make our ports the safest in the world.
Second, the SAFE Port Act provides legislative authority for key elements of our port security strategy. The bill codifies into law the Container Security Initiative, which we launched in 2002. Through this initiative, we have deployed American inspectors to dozens of foreign ports on five continents where they are screening cargo before it leaves for our country.

The bill also codifies into law the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, a joint effort between the public and private sectors to improve cargo security. Under this partnership, private shippers agree to improve their own security measures, and in return, they can receive benefits including expedited clearance through our ports.

And the bill provides additional authority for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, which we established to guard against the threat of terrorists smuggling a nuclear device into our country.

All these efforts are smart. They're working. And with this bill, they're here to stay.

Finally, the SAFE Port Act requires the Department of Homeland Security to establish a plan to speed the resumption of trade in the event of a terrorist attack on our ports or waterways. This bill makes clear that the federal government has the authority to clear waterways, identify cleanup equipment, and reestablish the flow of commerce following a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent an attack, but if the terrorists succeed in launching an attack, we'll be ready to respond.


So what does online gambling have to do with terrorism? Terrorism was never on the minds of politicians when they attempted to ban online gambling, it just became a convenient buzz word to use by the Evangelical part of the government to inflict its morality on the American public. However, in the process they created a great disservice to all the military personnel fighting overseas, and of course to all those who lost loved ones in 9-11. With all due respect to Raymond Baker, his quote to me: "It's the ability to use any form of money laundering that can facilitate terrorists financing, which can parade as some other form of illicit proceeds... is problematic" just doesn't wash. If policies are enacted for fear of possible terrorist attacks then indeed the terrorists have won. Obviously it's important to be alert and not provoke terrorism, but if a nation sets its policies and laws based on fear of what might happen, rather than what is best, then the people of that nation lose in the long run.

Furthermore, it must be noted that the United Kingdom has not banned online gambling, but have actually endorsed it. The UK has had more terrorist attacks in its country's history than the United States has, and recently they had the subway poisoning incident. They are on Al Qaida's hit list, have far more terrorist cells operating in their country than the U.S. does and have a similar banking structure to the United States. Plus, as everyone will recall in his speech to the nation prior to attacking Iraq, George Bush stated: "America has no closer friend or ally than Great Britain". And in spite of opposition in his country, Tony Blair went to war with the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clearly Great Britain is as concerned about terrorism as the United States is, but there was never a call to somehow link online gambling to terrorism in that country and money laundering by terrorists was never an issue despite being told so by a U.S. DOJ agent at a 2002 conference in England. And in 2006 when Britain invited the U.S. to attend a conference related to regulating online gambling, the U.S. government could have attended and reiterated their concerns about terrorism and money laundering being attributed to online gambling, but instead they essentially told their "closest friend and ally" that they weren't interested and to mind their own business. Clearly the government knew their arguments would have been seen for the sham they were by a country that was lured into a questionable war and were sceptical of anything coming out of the mouths of U.S. politicians.

So to answer the question: "What does online gambling have to do with terrorism?", just ask the U.S. government.

03-07-2007
Hartley Henderson
Majorwager.com
henderson@majorwager.com

http://www.majorwager.com/frontline-447.html
__________________
Editor-in-Chief
MajorWager.com
editor@majorwager.com
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 03-07-2007, 05:48 PM
(sportman) (sportman) is offline
Three Star General
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,439
Default

What Does Online Gambling Have to Do with Terrorism?...

It serves as a subliminal political move to pass things on.

terrorism,terrorism,terrorism,terrorism,online gambling,terrorism,terrorism

Ah hell YOU get it
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 03-07-2007, 07:51 PM
Mjulian Mjulian is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,838
Default

What Does Online Gambling Have to Do with Terrorism?...




Slow week? What is this, the fifth, the sixth article that regurgitates the same basic premise (The US sucks, Bush sucks, Republicans suck, Politicians suck, Christians suck, Southerners suck, Red staters suck, etc.)?

Really, so you spend, what, 5,000 words answering a rhetorical question?

Here's a newsflash: GOVERNMENTS SUCK.

My advice to you Hart, MOVE TO CANADA.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 03-07-2007, 09:37 PM
Hartley Hartley is offline
5 STAR GENERAL
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 8,637
Default

My advice to you Hart, MOVE TO CANADA

Umm. ok.

Actually the article was written in response to Minnow's question and similar ones I received by email.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 03-07-2007, 09:54 PM
Minnow Minnow is offline
Four Star General
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 18,608
Default

Thanks Hartley. I wanted to avoid sending the thread with your last article into tangent territory, and so started a seperate thread asking about money laundering.

It seems as though using terrorism and funding terrorism as an exscuse for making it difficult for people to fund gambling accounts is just too good a scare tactic to pass on. I assume it will be a buzzphrase not just while this administration is in power, but anytime the government wishes to step on personal freedoms in the future as well.
__________________
minnow@ majorwager.com
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2007, 12:03 AM
blogguy blogguy is offline
MW Writer, S.H. Austin
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,632
Default

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

"The following year (2002), in a letter on why the Republicans wanted the Democrats to ban online gambling Lawrence Lindsay wrote the following in a letter to Tom Daschle:

'Internet gambling serves as a haven for money laundering and organized crime and, potentially, for international terrorism.'

It was a cheap tactic"


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.

"With all due respect to Raymond Baker, his quote to me: "It's the ability to use any form of money laundering that can facilitate terrorists financing, which can parade as some other form of illicit proceeds... is problematic" just doesn't wash."

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

"Furthermore, it must be noted that the United Kingdom has not banned online gambling, but have actually endorsed it."

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.

"The UK has had more terrorist attacks in its country's history than the United States has, and recently they had the subway poisoning incident."

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.

"What does online gambling have to do with terrorism?", just ask the U.S. government."

No, Wolf Blitzer or Chris Matthews would explain that the issue isn't online gambling, it's unregulated offshore financial vehicles. A lot of the crooks running offshore places wouldn't mind taking a commission as money was creatively transferred from one agent to another. Many offshore establishments are of course legitimate businesses. Some aren't. Some are run by Central American interests that would have questionable loyalty when it comes to alerting the US to potential trouble. As the offshore industry evolved in the Caribbean, one could imagine a gradual influx of South American drug money coming into play as well. Without the law, what would the industry have looked like in 2009, 2011? Clean as a whistle?

It is possible to make the case that online gambling, particularly poker and sports wagering....the games that aren't just outright scams like roulette, internet blackjack, and the like...could be regulated online in the US in a way that would address all the concerns.

*It would be a boost to the economy, particularly in the form of taxes collected. States concerned about losing revenue that was currently going to their lotteries, horse tracks, etc...might find that they were making more money with poker and sports betting.

*If it's regulated, it's hard for organized crime or terrorists to launder appreciable sums of money without getting detected. Brick and mortar casinos do have mechanisms in place to at least notice suspected laundering when it happens. Those can be in place here as well.

*If it's regulated, safeguards can be put in place to stop problem gamblers from going overboard. If we're not even allowing the scams like roulette, online blackjack and the like, this isn't as big an issue. Time or deposit limits could be put in place that restrict how much damage a problem gambler can do. Again, the model of brick and mortar casinos could be followed here.

*Safeguards can be put in to make it difficult for children to play as well. That could involve more complicated passwords, more complicated sign up processes, any variety of hurdles that are difficult for a kid to clear, but not that difficult for a motivated adult to clear when first signing up with a place. Man, I had to remember what cars I bought in 1994 when signing up with Neteller a few years back. Think a kid knows when a mortgage was signed? There are ways.

The positives are presented, the concerns are addressed, and it's done quickly in understandable fashion so that people who agree can easily state the case in arguments. Pundits on TV can easily state the case. Opponents who go off on tangents can be exposed because the plan addresses their concerns.

Regulated online poker and sports betting would help the economy, and would have safeguards that discouraged children, gambling addicts, organized crime, and yes, even terrorists from involvement.

We can make this case. We NEED to make this case. Or, WE need to make the case. If not us, who? As MJulian said above, we've spent several articles whining and name calling, and none laying out a vision.

Let's come up with a vision...debated by posters here until we get something that comes close to something workable (not, we have a right to gamble, get the hell out of my business...I don't care if organized crime is taking my money to fund the drug or arms trade...I don't care if scammers are just pocketing my money outright, or promoting games that slowly drain it from my pockets...I just want people to leave me alone! That train left the station. We need a vision that can get passed into law). Then we can make that vision the centerpiece of MW's players advocacy in 2007 and beyond. Here's what we're doing for sports wagerers, we're encouraging a workable solution that fully addresses the concerns of the other side.

Can we try that?

blg
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2007, 01:55 AM
indio indio is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,979
Default

if tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceeds debts and taxes;and armies,and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad.
- James Madison
( father of the US Constitution)
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2007, 02:56 AM
Mike Brennan Mike Brennan is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 781
Default

blogguy - great post, but I doubt it will get much play here. Easier to just howl at the moon and do nothing constructive.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2007, 04:26 AM
count zero count zero is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: marin county california
Posts: 4,353
Default

"Let's come up with a vision...debated by posters here until we get something that comes close to something workable (not, we have a right to gamble, get the hell out of my business...I don't care if organized crime is taking my money to fund the drug or arms trade...I don't care if scammers are just pocketing my money outright, or promoting games that slowly drain it from my pockets...I just want people to leave me alone! That train left the station. We need a vision that can get passed into law)."

The idea of MW posters debating an issue and gathering together to get their "vision" "passed into law" is naive. Further, if intellectual honesty matters to you, you should be embarrassed by the paragraph above.
__________________
I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2007, 12:59 PM
Hartley Hartley is offline
5 STAR GENERAL
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 8,637
Default

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!!

Last edited by Hartley : 03-08-2007 at 01:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2007, 01:47 PM
Minnow Minnow is offline
Four Star General
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 18,608
Default

For me there is nothing like a good point/counterpoint debate, and this is an excellent one. Blogguy makes some very good points. I will admit to whining about my loss of freedom, but that was brought about more from the changes to my state gambling laws than the UIGEA.

Perhaps the governments intrusion into areas of personal freedom is justified in some cases, but I can't help thinking that these *powers that be* might "enjoy" further acts of terrorism in order to justify more and more restrictions by continually playing the fear factor card.
__________________
minnow@ majorwager.com
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2007, 02:44 PM
buddyboy buddyboy is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,453
Default

Here are some more great subjects that need to be discussed:

If corn oil comes from corn, where does baby oil come from?

Why do they put Braille on the number pads of drive-through bank machines?

How did a fool and his money GET together?

How do they get a deer to cross at that yellow road sign?

If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot them?

What's another word for thesaurus?

Why do they sterilize the needles for lethal injections?

What do they use to ship Styrofoam?

Why is there an expiration date on my sour cream container?

Does fuzzy logic tickle?

Do they have reserved parking for non-handicap people at the Special Olympics?

Why do they call it a TV set when you only get one?

Do radioactive cats have 18 half-lives?

What was the best thing before sliced bread?

When someone asks you, "A penny for your thoughts," and you put your two cents in, what happens to the other penny?

Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

Why is a person who plays the piano called a pianist but a person that drives a race car is not called a racist?

Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?

What hair color do they put on the driver's licenses of bald men?

How come no one ever says, "It's only a game" when their team is winning?

Ever wonder what the speed of lightning would be if it didn't zigzag?

Why isn't phonetic spelled the way it sounds?

Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations?

If 7-11 is open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, why are there locks on the doors?

If nothing ever sticks to TEFLON, how do they make TEFLON stick to the pan?

Why is it that when you transport something by car, it's called a shipment, but when you transport something by ship, it's called cargo?

Why is it that when you're driving and looking for an address, you turn down the volume on the radio?
__________________
Source: Internet
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2007, 02:45 PM
blogguy blogguy is offline
MW Writer, S.H. Austin
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,632
Default

Sorry...internet was out all day until moments ago (single worst day of the basketball season it could happen!, lol). Now I've got to play catch up all afternoon.

Quick things....

Count, I'll need some clarification on the intellectual honesty part. Waiting to hear exactly what you meant by that.

Hartley,

*The current US government may not want to hear it, but the one that wins in 2008 might be more disposed to thinking favorably about our cause. If we start making the case coherently in public now, a new regime might smile on us...paricularly if we're addressing the concerns of the other side regarding addiction, fair games, and children's involvement.

*There are clearly many reasons behind being opposed to internet gambling other than pushing morality. I'm opposed to internet roulette because it's a scam. That's not pushing morality. Internet gambling has helped organized crime be even more organized. I don't like it that criminals are having their lives streamlined by using an unregulated system. The fact that this site keeps saying its about morality makes us look like idiots to the people who are opposed to gambling for non-churchy reasons.

*Hard to know for sure what the guys you listed had to do directly with organized crime. I've heard through the grapevine that the guys in Britain did have some sort of possible connection to British mobsters (heard that from a guy who lived over there for several years). I don't know that this has come out in the press or in legal discussions. Obviously neteller was a tool that organized crime could (and very likely) did use to facilitate what they were doing with offshore sportsbooks. We'll see what the case brings out in the future. It would be a shame if they were in trouble for basically just building a freeway that bad guys drove over. I think the DOJ's case is more about knowingly violating what the DOJ considered to be illegal, as was referenced in the prospectus neteller sent out to investors when they went public.


*It's not "playing a card" if it's the truth. Unregulated offshore financial vehicles can potentially be used by terrorists to shuttle money around in a way that is dangerous to US interests. This possible development came to light as the world changed. Yes, it was an additional reason those opposed to gambling could use to make their case. That's what you do when trying to convince people of something. I hate what the conservatives did to our rights as much as anybody...but THIS IS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH. Even if it hasn't happened yet it very easily could happen in the future. That's why we all want things regulated.

*There is probably an 80-100% chance that terrorist organizations would eventually figure out a way to shuttle money around via unregulated offshore financial vehicles, and a 0-1% chance that little green men are going to come out of a spaceship. Ludicrous comparsion. It's not legislating out of fear to play defense, any more than playing a conservative strategy in chess is done out of fear. You play defense to counteract possible attacks. So, yes you base it on probabilities and the best interests of the country. That phrase proves my point, not yours.

*What do I think we're trying to advocate for? I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T COHERENTLY ADVOCATED ANYTHING. We haven't come out and said quickly and coherently what we want...what our vision is. We've repeatedly said the same things over and over again about how horrible and stupid religious conservatives are. I understand that you're in favor of regulation. I haven't seen you make the points in an article yet about what all the specific benefits are in a way that doesn't go off on a tangent that bashes the government. We need to provide an alternative vision that the new government can pick up on.

*For the life of me, I can't figure out what the Nazi attacks, the IRA, or the 2005 subway bombing have on this discussion. Britain wants regulated online gaming...the US acted to make sure that the Caribbean didn't have unregulated offshore gaming, and that American financial vehicles didn't assist unregulated places in transferring money. Terrorists aren't likely to use regulated onshore gaming in a place that's hostile to their cause, they're very likely to use unregulated offshore gaming in places that are either neutral or hostile to the US politically.

*Ask Wolf Blitzer to call you? No...it's not up to those guys to find us. We need to have a coherent vision...then we need to find them. We need to be pounding the drumbeat for whatever that vision turns out to be in a way that's easily understood and easy to remember. If we find them with a coherent vision, they will make room for the debate; particularly if it could influence the upcoming election. Poker exploded on TV, which provides an in that suggests to news organizations that the public is interested in this issue. If we can show that the government would make a lot of new money via regulation, while showing that concerns will be addressed regarding addiction, fair games, etc...then our point will resonate in the election and with those who are elected. If we devote all of our energy to bashing the current US governement, we'll just be in the same boat as the other 65% of citizens that generate the low approval ratings. Once Bush is gone, hating the US government won't make much sense as a rhetorical strategy. It's a waste of time now if we want real change.

What's reasonable to try to get?
How do we go about getting it?

That's the political process in action...

And, what subway poisoning are you referencing?
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2007, 03:20 PM
Don Eagleston Don Eagleston is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,148
Default

The bookmakers were the ones with the most funding and self-interest to engage in lobbying. They didn't do it. And can't say I blame them as it likely would have been a waste of money for a losing cause. For the bettors to do it now probably is too little too late. There aren't enough of us.

Hartley is right in that much of this is about morality. But would you want gambling dollars flowing to terrorists on your watch! This is what some gov't officials fear. It is a cover your ass game!
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2007, 03:22 PM
Minnow Minnow is offline
Four Star General
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 18,608
Default

I assumed Hartley was referring to the horrible poison gas incident on the Tokyo subway several years ago.
__________________
minnow@ majorwager.com

Last edited by Minnow : 03-08-2007 at 03:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2007, 03:31 PM
Hartley Hartley is offline
5 STAR GENERAL
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 8,637
Default

Interesting you should say that blogguy. One of my upcoming articles is going to be about why regulated online gambling should be a platform of the 2008 Democratic candidate. But it doesn't change the fact that the current government is using a scorched earth policy to pass various laws before Bush has to leave office. The UIGEA is one of them. If it was such an important piece of legislation why couldn't it pass on its own merit in the usual way. What has upset most in the online gambling community is that it was attached to an unrelated legislation and not debated. If it was passed like any other bill with the required # of votes in the usual way people wouldn't be nearly as upset and disillusioned as they are.

And also I wasn't comparing 9-11 to the IRA or Nazis. What I said is that Britain which is used to terrorism has all the same fears as the United States does but realizes that online gambling is not a realistic threat in that area. If money laundering by terrorists was a real concern do you not believe Britain would have outlawed online gambling? Britain tried to explain to the US at a meeting related to online gaming why they believed it wasn't an issue and the US said that they weren't interested in listening to the reasoning. How do you debate someone who makes a point and then plugs their ears when the other side responds?

Last edited by Minnow : 03-08-2007 at 04:04 PM. Reason: Hartley was attempting to post from a PDA
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2007, 03:33 PM
blogguy blogguy is offline
MW Writer, S.H. Austin
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,632
Default

I don't know Minnow...he said "recently" and "UK". That horrible thing in Tokyo was more than a decade ago I think...and Tokyo's got no connection to the online gaming debate at this point. There was a bombing there in 2005 though. Great to see Britain is embracing regulation. Think we all agree on that, lol...

Don...I think a lot of bookmakers come into the discussion with "dirty hands" so to speak. That element isn't likely to approach the government. I could see the poker sites doing it...but they seemed to think they were already legal and nothing was going to happen.

I think it's possible to at least advocate for a vision. Not advocating for a non-vision has zero chance of getting us what we want...
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2007, 03:40 PM
count zero count zero is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: marin county california
Posts: 4,353
Default

It's intellectually dishonest because a) you pretend to be soliciting a "debate," but you begin by effectively excluding from consideration the only real alternative to your own (craven, IMO) position; and b) you represent that alternative with an egregious and insulting straw man, essentially portraying anyone who disagrees with you as being in bed with organized crime, scam artists and drug dealers.

IMO, a substantial majority of posters here do not accept the legitimacy of the federal government on this issue. They believe that an activity that has been universally practiced in virtually every human culture for 10,000 years is beyond the proper purview of government. They do not share your impulse to beg inferior people to give them what is already theirs. You do not have to agree with these people, of course, but to smear them as the fellow travelers of criminals and scum while pretending to invite them to a "debate" from which their views have already been excluded seems intellectually dishonest to me.
__________________
I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather. Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 03-08-2007, 03:52 PM
blogguy blogguy is offline
MW Writer, S.H. Austin
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,632
Default

Appreciate the clarification Count.

Don't think I did that. Don't think I implied that anybody who disagrees with me is in bed with organized crime. I disagree with Hartley about some things, but I sure don't think he's in bed with organized crime. I don't think the people that are whining because the government made it much more difficult to bet have connections to organized crime. The whole point is to come up with a statement that outlines how the system can work in a way that benefits the community and takes organized crime out of the picture.

Don't see how addressing the concerns of opponents is craven, egregious, insulting, or dishonest. It is a way to move toward regulation. Refusing to accept the legitimacy of the federal government is extremely unlikely to get us what we want. 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?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is the NETeller Money Gone?...By Hartley Henderson Rogthedodger Mess Hall 37 03-07-2007 03:30 AM
Since 2003 Antigua Has Done Everything Right...By Hartley Henderson Rogthedodger Mess Hall 3 02-27-2007 03:01 PM
Family Meeting...By Hartley Henderson Rogthedodger Mess Hall 4 01-19-2007 06:52 PM
So You're Considering Moving to Canada, Eh?...By Hartley Henderson Rogthedodger Mess Hall 32 01-19-2007 03:06 PM
No wonder the feds associate online gambling with terrorism The Actuary Mess Hall 1 08-10-2003 01:25 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:41 AM.

Please be advised that if you are wagering over the internet, this is illegal in many jurisdictions. A wagering site may be operating legally at their location but it may still be illegal for you to wager from your location. We suggest you check on the legal situation from any jurisdiction in which you may wager.
 

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6