Just saw Romney on the news (re: online gambling)

Romocide · 02-05-12, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by d2bets

I can't believe no one has chimed in yet with....RON PAUL.

Exactly. A politician who doesn't believe in a governments right to control every aspect of our lives. He has my vote. We don't need people telling grown ups what we can or can't do with and in our own lives. As long as it doesn't hurt others, anything should go.

MUHerd37 · 02-05-12, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Shaudius

The Nevada Gaming Commission approved online poker within the state 2.5 months ago. DC has also passed a similar measure allowing online poker within its borders. Now this doesn't do anything for interstate gambling(poker or otherwise) but how can the lot of you not know this?

Isn't one or more of the casinos making it possible for Nevada residents to make bets online or through a phone app or something? Thought I saw a post that paperwork was filed with the Nevada gaming commission and approved something. Still wouldn't help most of us tho.

MonkeyF0cker · 02-05-12, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by MUHerd37

Ur post made no sense. As I stated, Obama is the one who clamped down on Internet sports betting. The bill passed under Bush but wasn't enforced until Obama was in office.

Of course it made no sense to you. You're a moron.

ONCE A-FUKKING-GAIN. Neither Presidents nor Attorney Generals are allowed the liberty to selectively enforce laws. A law is a law is a motherfucking law. The law is on the books and the enforcement was enacted by the Bush administration. If a President thinks that murder should be legal, THE LAW MUST STILL MUST BE ENFORCED.

How many fukking times does this need to be said for you to get it through your thick fukking skull?

MonkeyF0cker · 02-05-12, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by mathdotcom

Monkey is right but I think guys are getting at the point that Obama is implicitly supporting the law by not reversing it

It'll never be reversed though because no one wants to champion the rights of gamblers

Barney Frank et al. tried to essentially repeal it. However, it didn't garner enough support throughout Congress.

Had Bush not finalized it in his last hours as President, Obama would have had more power to do something about it.

Shaudius · 02-05-12, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by MonkeyF0cker

Of course it made no sense to you. You're a moron.

ONCE A-FUKKING-GAIN. Neither Presidents nor Attorney Generals are allowed the liberty to selectively enforce laws. A law is a law is a motherfucking law. The law is on the books and the enforcement was enacted by the Bush administration. If a President thinks that murder should be legal, THE LAW MUST STILL MUST BE ENFORCED.

How many fukking times does this need to be said for you to get it through your thick fukking skull?

This is a gross oversimplification of the state of DoJ enforcement action. Yes, DoJ cannot choose to selectively enforce the laws of the land, but they don't have unlimited resources either. This lack of unlimited resources means that the agency must place priorities on enforcement actions. They are also under no obligation to create sting operations or anything like that to proactively enforce laws(unless specifically mandated by the law in question to do so). If they had credible evidence of a violation of a law they are under an obligation to investigate, but how long it takes and exactly what action ultimately results is not always clear cut.

Hotdiggity11 · 02-05-12, 09:12 PM

Good news is, Romney will probably flip-flop on it next week.

MonkeyF0cker · 02-05-12, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Shaudius

This is a gross oversimplification of the state of DoJ enforcement action. Yes, DoJ cannot choose to selectively enforce the laws of the land, but they don't have unlimited resources either. This lack of unlimited resources means that the agency must place priorities on enforcement actions. They are also under no obligation to create sting operations or anything like that to proactively enforce laws(unless specifically mandated by the law in question to do so). If they had credible evidence of a violation of a law they are under an obligation to investigate, but how long it takes and exactly what action ultimately results is not always clear cut.

The final UIGEA regulations reached the OMB on October 21st. Agencies had a deadline of November 1st to submit any pending measures. Pappas gives a glimpse into the forthcoming timeline: “The key date is to finalize the rules before November 19th. That way they go through the standard 60 day review process, after which they can be implemented.” The reason for the date of November 19th is that newly elected President Barack Obama will be inaugurated on Tuesday, January 20th, 2009, just outside of the 60 day review window. This means that he will not be able to intervene in this or any other regulations that are finalized before November 19th.

UIGEA Regulations Inch Closer to Being Finalized

http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/uigea-regulations-inch-closer-to-being-finalized-653/

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has received the final regulations of the UIGEA. They may be approved before November 19th.

Exactly how many resources do you think it takes to seize a domain name? 12 minutes of work for one guy?

The guidelines were already set by the previous administration. End of story.

Shaudius · 02-05-12, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by MonkeyF0cker

Exactly how many resources do you think it takes to seize a domain name? 12 minutes of work for one guy?

The DoJ can't just seize a domain name, they have to get a court order to do so. In order to get a court order they need this little thing called evidence. Evidence takes time to gather, especially in the case of internet gambling sites, which are not illegal by federal law. What is illegal by federal law is the funding of them by banks. What is also illegal is setting up false transactions in order to circumvent the law.

The DoJ could just go to a judge and say, "take down this website, it looks illegal", but pretty much every federal judges actually respect the law and wouldn't just do that without any evidence. Which takes infinitely longer relatively than your "12 minutes of work for one guy?"

MonkeyF0cker · 02-05-12, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Shaudius

The DoJ can't just seize a domain name, they have to get a court order to do so. In order to get a court order they need this little thing called evidence. Evidence takes time to gather, especially in the case of internet gambling sites, which are not illegal by federal law. What is illegal by federal law is the funding of them by banks. What is also illegal is setting up false transactions in order to circumvent the law.

The DoJ could just go to a judge and say, "take down this website, it looks illegal", but pretty much every federal judges actually respect the law and wouldn't just do that without any evidence. Which takes infinitely longer relatively than your "12 minutes of work for one guy?"

So you actually think that the provision was set up so that the banking institutions don't forward red-flagged gambling transactions to the DOJ? LOL.

Give me a break. They don't have to do fukk all to "find" evidence.

MUHerd37 · 02-06-12, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by MonkeyF0cker

Of course it made no sense to you. You're a moron.

ONCE A-FUKKING-GAIN. Neither Presidents nor Attorney Generals are allowed the liberty to selectively enforce laws. A law is a law is a motherfucking law. The law is on the books and the enforcement was enacted by the Bush administration. If a President thinks that murder should be legal, THE LAW MUST STILL MUST BE ENFORCED.

How many fukking times does this need to be said for you to get it through your thick fukking skull?

That's completely not true. Law enforcement, politicians, etc have the ability to pursue shit or not. Not all laws are enforced. These people pick and choose what laws they want to enforce all the time.

mathdotcom · 02-08-12, 12:04 PM

I'm somewhere in between on this. Whenever a new admin comes in they can the old head of the DoJ and put in one of their own. So for example the DoJ may take a harder stand on mergers under a democrat.

There are a lot of acts that exist but which are rarely enforced. The Robinson-Patman Act for example prohibits price discrimination, but it is absolutely everywhere.

Let's face it neither admin has been a friend of gamblers.

MonkeyF0cker · 02-08-12, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by mathdotcom

I'm somewhere in between on this. Whenever a new admin comes in they can the old head of the DoJ and put in one of their own. So for example the DoJ may take a harder stand on mergers under a democrat.

There are a lot of acts that exist but which are rarely enforced. The Robinson-Patman Act for example prohibits price discrimination, but it is absolutely everywhere.

Let's face it neither admin has been a friend of gamblers.

There is a big difference in the manpower and ease of enforcing the UIGEA versus the Robinson-Patman Act though...

The nature of the Bush admin's application of the UIGEA makes it very simple and essentially mandatory to enforce.

MonkeyF0cker · 02-08-12, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by MUHerd37

That's completely not true. Law enforcement, politicians, etc have the ability to pursue shit or not. Not all laws are enforced. These people pick and choose what laws they want to enforce all the time.

No President can make an order for the DOJ to implicitly ignore all cases and evidence of wrongdoing (gambling transactions) brought about by banking institutions (or anyone for that matter) ESPECIALLY when those banking institutions can be fined for not reporting them in the first place. Do you understand what type of precedent for corruption that spawns?