Shrink and JC, RE: Barney Frank
- Thread starter shoebox
- Start date
O'Royken
EOG Dedicated
Re: Shrink and JC, RE: Barney Frank
Website operators don't want a bill that will end their relationship with the offshores and force them to develop new relationships with US based companies.'
The bill was written for gamblers and not for gambling portal operators.
US gamblers just want to play poker and bet with some regulation and safety that they wont get ripped off. It's OK for them.
Website operators don't want a bill that will end their relationship with the offshores and force them to develop new relationships with US based companies.'
The bill was written for gamblers and not for gambling portal operators.
US gamblers just want to play poker and bet with some regulation and safety that they wont get ripped off. It's OK for them.
Re: Shrink and JC, RE: Barney Frank
A Friend of mine had this to say and I agree...
You are being fooled by Barney Frank's misleading language. Nothing in this bill repeals the UIGEA, all it does is add more legislation. Here, read the whole act yourself:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/21frank_004_xml_(2).pdf
It repeals nothing. It is a hoax. This whole thing from the passing of the UIGEA, to the arrests of the Neteller founders has been about crippling the world wide gaming network so that the big cats in the US can take over.
Expect to say goodbye to Full Tilt, hello MGM.com. You can also expect to pay taxes on each session, pay fees to the government for allowing you to play, and have the fat cats get fat while we pay for the cream. This is a typical political stunt. Like calling something the Patriot Act that takes away all of your liberties. Do not be fooled. This will not be good for any of us. We are better off as things are now.
Plenty of sites open, and none of them are under an obligation to turn over all of their customers records (one of the requirements of the new Act). Don't thank the fox for guarding us hens. It won't be good for us. Plus, any ewallets that agree to work with the new sites will have to agree to be subject to US jurisdiction and will have no chance to operate in the US with any unlicensed sites.
Read the whole act. It is terrible.
A Friend of mine had this to say and I agree...
You are being fooled by Barney Frank's misleading language. Nothing in this bill repeals the UIGEA, all it does is add more legislation. Here, read the whole act yourself:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/21frank_004_xml_(2).pdf
It repeals nothing. It is a hoax. This whole thing from the passing of the UIGEA, to the arrests of the Neteller founders has been about crippling the world wide gaming network so that the big cats in the US can take over.
Expect to say goodbye to Full Tilt, hello MGM.com. You can also expect to pay taxes on each session, pay fees to the government for allowing you to play, and have the fat cats get fat while we pay for the cream. This is a typical political stunt. Like calling something the Patriot Act that takes away all of your liberties. Do not be fooled. This will not be good for any of us. We are better off as things are now.
Plenty of sites open, and none of them are under an obligation to turn over all of their customers records (one of the requirements of the new Act). Don't thank the fox for guarding us hens. It won't be good for us. Plus, any ewallets that agree to work with the new sites will have to agree to be subject to US jurisdiction and will have no chance to operate in the US with any unlicensed sites.
Read the whole act. It is terrible.
wrigley
2
Re: Shrink and JC, RE: Barney Frank
And the mainstream media reporting like it would allow internet gambling
wish they could read between the lines. This was in USA Today
House bill would allow Internet gambling
House bill would allow Internet gambling - USATODAY.com
By Marcy Gordon, AP Business Writer
WASHINGTON ? The ban on Internet gambling enacted last fall would be overturned under legislation proposed Thursday by a senior House Democrat, but the bill faces long odds in Congress.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said the law preventing the use of credit cards to bet online "is an inappropriate interference on the personal freedom of Americans, and this interference should be undone." More bluntly, he has called the ban "one of the stupidest things I ever saw."
Because traditional forms of legal gambling exist in nearly every state, Frank said, a continued prohibition on Internet gambling for Americans leaves those who choose to gamble online "without meaningful consumer protections." He said his bill includes safeguards to ensure that gamblers are at least 18 years old and live in a jurisdiction that permits online gambling, and to prevent compulsive gambling and fraud.
The $12 billion Internet gambling industry is based outside the United States ? most of the companies are British ? though about half of its customers live in America.
Supporters of the U.S. ban maintain that Internet betting can be addictive and potentially drain people's savings, a risk they say is especially acute for young people who are frequently online.
Frank acknowledged that the Democratic leadership of the House likely would not support his legislation. The Bush administration also could be expected to oppose it.
The vote for the ban in the House, for example, was 317-93 last year. Lobbying for it were the horse racing industry and professional sports leagues, which argued that Web wagering could hurt the integrity of their sports.
No comparable measure has emerged in the Senate.
And the mainstream media reporting like it would allow internet gambling
wish they could read between the lines. This was in USA Today
House bill would allow Internet gambling
House bill would allow Internet gambling - USATODAY.com
By Marcy Gordon, AP Business Writer
WASHINGTON ? The ban on Internet gambling enacted last fall would be overturned under legislation proposed Thursday by a senior House Democrat, but the bill faces long odds in Congress.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said the law preventing the use of credit cards to bet online "is an inappropriate interference on the personal freedom of Americans, and this interference should be undone." More bluntly, he has called the ban "one of the stupidest things I ever saw."
Because traditional forms of legal gambling exist in nearly every state, Frank said, a continued prohibition on Internet gambling for Americans leaves those who choose to gamble online "without meaningful consumer protections." He said his bill includes safeguards to ensure that gamblers are at least 18 years old and live in a jurisdiction that permits online gambling, and to prevent compulsive gambling and fraud.
The $12 billion Internet gambling industry is based outside the United States ? most of the companies are British ? though about half of its customers live in America.
Supporters of the U.S. ban maintain that Internet betting can be addictive and potentially drain people's savings, a risk they say is especially acute for young people who are frequently online.
Frank acknowledged that the Democratic leadership of the House likely would not support his legislation. The Bush administration also could be expected to oppose it.
The vote for the ban in the House, for example, was 317-93 last year. Lobbying for it were the horse racing industry and professional sports leagues, which argued that Web wagering could hurt the integrity of their sports.
No comparable measure has emerged in the Senate.
WildBill
2
Re: Shrink and JC, RE: Barney Frank
Fat chance of that. Wait that is giving it too much credit. No chance of that. This bill is doomed I believe, but if it did make some movement if anything it would get even further from the WTO in dictating some more ridiculous requirements on who is license worthy, ie. those the horse racing industry deem is worthy.
Fat chance of that. Wait that is giving it too much credit. No chance of that. This bill is doomed I believe, but if it did make some movement if anything it would get even further from the WTO in dictating some more ridiculous requirements on who is license worthy, ie. those the horse racing industry deem is worthy.
O'Royken
EOG Dedicated
Re: Shrink and JC, RE: Barney Frank
Here is Alfonse D'Amato and Howard Lederer on Card Player TV on the bill:
CardPlayer.com - TV
Here is Alfonse D'Amato and Howard Lederer on Card Player TV on the bill:
CardPlayer.com - TV
WildBill
2
Re: Shrink and JC, RE: Barney Frank
Sean have you gotten any comments on what you are doing from your banks? I have heard through the grapevine that US banking authorities are putting some pressure on the Canadians when it comes to doing what you are doing. Problem seems to be some wires are going through a NY clearing location that is working to rid itself of offshore gambling exposure.
Sean have you gotten any comments on what you are doing from your banks? I have heard through the grapevine that US banking authorities are putting some pressure on the Canadians when it comes to doing what you are doing. Problem seems to be some wires are going through a NY clearing location that is working to rid itself of offshore gambling exposure.
Woody
EOG Veteran
Re: Shrink and JC, RE: Barney Frank
What can they do, close down the $1.4 billion daily trade flowing across the US/Canada border with probably most/all of it settled by bank wires?
What can they do, close down the $1.4 billion daily trade flowing across the US/Canada border with probably most/all of it settled by bank wires?
WildBill
2
Re: Shrink and JC, RE: Barney Frank
Specific businesses they target. In other words say you won't talk with shady people, but your buddy will. Now say you hold a party and invite your buddy and he brings a person you think is shady as his guest. What do you do? That is what the clearing banks are faced with at the moment. The only solution is for Canadian banks to start using clearing banks in the UK or other places because few of them have direct relationships with many of the banks used by offshore companies. I'm just curious how Canada's banks will deal with this potential issue if it is indeed coming up.
Specific businesses they target. In other words say you won't talk with shady people, but your buddy will. Now say you hold a party and invite your buddy and he brings a person you think is shady as his guest. What do you do? That is what the clearing banks are faced with at the moment. The only solution is for Canadian banks to start using clearing banks in the UK or other places because few of them have direct relationships with many of the banks used by offshore companies. I'm just curious how Canada's banks will deal with this potential issue if it is indeed coming up.