I say stop foreign aid and let me gamble my hard earned money. GOVT already takes most of it so let me enjoy the rest of it otherwise they will raise taxes to spend it on a highway that goes NOWHERE.

I hope it does not get repealed. Not because I am against adults gambling, but rather to see the money lost, and taxes paid to stay in the US. Some are addicted to gambling, but that is not the issue. It might cut back on underage gambling and will hopefully result in dollars staying here. We already give enough foreign aid. If gambling stays here in the US it has to follow our laws and not laws that change daily like in some of these countries.

Agreed.

The addiction argument does not work-- we could apply it to just about anything in society(with good particular reasons / intentions i might add): credit, shopping, revealing clothing, alcohol, tv, non-marital sex, porno literature, flipping houses & daytrading w/o proper knowledge, etc. until we become Talibanesque...and try to outlaw actions that MOST folks will continue to do anyway.
We're trying to block forms of gambling on the web that are specifically permitted in the majority of the world's countries...

Also, it's not just about foreign books, but more importantly about our own illegal restraint of trade among the states: Vegas can't book US-wide bets online, horseracing commissions block some states from betting but allow others, etc. ad nauseam.
A precedent example occurred when wine began to be sold online-- states were restricting other states until the Supremes nixed that.

And re following our laws, we need to ensure they're not overly restrictive(once gambling is permitted online) as compared with the rest of the world.
For example, an unmentioned problem(in this bill)re gambling and as well securities investing-- is that of tax collection & funding / credit methods: onerous Big Brother has killed whole indutry segments thru curtaining / severely-limiting margin & credit + funding; combine that with having to prepay taxes(even on total combined losses sometimes) rather than being allowed to compound ones profits for the year(then paying taxes on the much larger net would be a win-win for both sides).
No industry can thrive with such draconian impositions & petty rules like: one funding method / game of chance being legal but not another similar one, betting a particular racetrack being legal in some states but not in others who in turn permit gambling but only on the tracks of their choice, etc. ad nauseam.
Imagine an investor having to fund accounts in different states & exchanges in order to blanket all the different investment segments / companies of his / her choosing. Most folks will either skip the BS and fund off-shore accounts and/or if they invest mega beaucoup funds, rules will be secretly skirted for them-- so drug czars & Al Quaeda will still be able to bet & enrich themselves while the law-abiding middle class continues to get shafted.
Even if gambling were to be somehow legalized, it will only exist in a moribund state similar to daytrading until both are afforded the same considerations & privileges as other investment vehicles & industries.
Barring that gambling will follow the example of online & daytrading:

1. Few or only large competitors will enter the arena, resulting in unfavorable fees / commissions & other necessary benefits like free / cheap data / software / hardware provided, because:

2. The bulk of funds being gambled will gravitate overseas towards more favorable terms & larger array of products offered.

Foxfyre:

you like to spout off as the college professor who 'theoretically' knows a lot about a business / market segment BUT 'in practice' either never started his own business and/or would fail miserably at that.

If you had ever attempted to gamble professionally(NOT recreationally) for a living, you'd know that the 'practical' effect has been to kill off 90+% of serious opportunities...yes, one can still gamble a bit here and there-- usually where unfavorable odds are offered, while dodging the law(and even more overt restrictions by each book or money transfer institution that go way beyond any law but serve to allay their fears of civil & criminal action from our DOJ) and waiting days/weeks/even months for funds to move from place to place after having payed transfer rates so usurious they blunt most profit.

Though for slightly different / additional reasons daytrading was similarly killed-- now only those with a lot of money can make enough to be worth the time, and most set up shop overseas- where they can take advantage of more liberal rules...allowing for a fair day's profit.

The government has every right- nay duty, to protect us...but let them properly investigate & detect individual perpetrators INSTEAD of killing off entire industry segments AND turning financial institutions/businesses/isp's into government spies/collaborators.
The right way to do it is to- in Libertarian / Democratic fashion- individually investigate & request from judiciary specific permission to monitor/eaves drop each and every time...NOT in Fascist / Stalinist fashion to arbitrarily curtail / prohibit specific businesses and/or confiscate huge dossiers of personal date in Gestapo / KGB fashion.

Otherwise, what in heck did all the soldiers fighting colonialism, fascism, communism suffer torture & die for?

First, I have done just fine in the entrepreneurial area after experience in the mainstream corporate environment. Thanks.

Second, if I had ever tried to be a "gamble professionally", I guess you mean other than in the entrepreneurial market, why in the #%$@ would I waste my time doing that doing it online and eliminate so many additional facets that work in my favor?

And you can't day trade with low prices transactions online? No wonder YOU aren't a day trader!

And I love your lumping of Libertarian and Democratic in one tradition! You may desire one, but the fact is that what you are complaining about is a result of 2 democratic parties, one almost totally dominated by(the Democrats), and the other less so but still dominated by similar folks (the Republicans) who have used the democratic process to do exactly what you abhor!

Unfortunately both harbor a large contingent who feel that it is appropriate to use the government and the democratic process to impose their beliefs on others via social engineering, and both lack fiscal responsibility, and neither believe in a strictly defined limited central government. The only difference being that one side are left wing liberals and the other is comprised of right wing liberals - their rationalizations may vary, but their methods are exactly the same.

And you equation of the Libertarians with the Democrats is absolute BS. The irony is that the Democrats have about as much in common with democracy as the Fascists and Stalinists do. In fact, they share quite a similar ideological base...well, that is until one of them gets caught with their pants down or yelling at their 11 year old daughter...or was that 12 year old...gee, its so complicated to keep track of your own daughter.

What did folks die for? I would hope not to have to play victim to the moral imperatives of Either camp.

But I suspect that they would also be a bit confused at actions such as the ban on domestic and foreign intelligence operations sharing information as it constitutes such a grievous imposition on social liberty (you know, the Dem's 'reform' in the mid 70s) as you simultaneously mount investigations as to why they did not cooperate in sharing intelligence (you know, the Dems in 2004 on!).

You might want to do a bit more research into racketeering and the methods employed in conducting business. But ignorance is indeed bliss as you demonstrate. But then, you probably still think that all the animals, carnivores and herbivores, large and small get together and have tea parties and all exist as concerned friends as in Bambi.

It's useless debating with you...you made it in one business & now use that to talk about a different business you don't have experience in.

1. I have "started" & run different businesses: restaurants & nightclubs- both upscale & fast food, retail computing, business & financial consulting, RE rehab, etc. among other things. And I have degrees in: casino/hotel/rest. mgmt., business administration, economics, foreign languages, computer science.

Of course, that all means jack squat if i feel i can now open a new business in a different field & expect to easily repeat past successes-- chances are i would get my behind handed to me: whether i want to opine on or participate in any given field, i better learn about it & get some working experience before running my mouth / opening my wallet.

2. No, i have not failed in daytrading-- the point is that the access has to be open and fair to ALL, not just a select few deeep pockets.

3. btw I am also familiar with racketeering-- i have both Mafia & Drug cartel relations: both past ancestors & current relatives.

Again, take a few months & try making money at both daytrading & gambling-- then come back and supply us with your changed insights.

And another thing-- please reply with respect: don't treat the rest of us like punks.

Foxy,
This is one of the best ways we have of channelling funds, which would otherwise be considered illegal by the g**d*** Dem's!

I really hope this gets repealed. The government should be allowed to tell its citizens what they can and can't do with their own money. Especially if you are over the age of 21.

And here we go again! The purpose of the ban was NOT to ban gambling or to tell citizens what they could do with their money!

The purpose of the ban was to attempt to restrict a very 'open' avenue for money laundering, used for among other things, financing terrorism.

What would be really nice, and a big change, would be if folks stopped reacting to the same emotion appearances and attempted to learn more about the mechanism which they were attempting to restrict.

Again, the target was money laundering and the illegal activities it facilitates, NOT gambling! If they had wanted to ban gambling, they would have simply banned gambling!

But I guess it is perhaps too much to ask that instead of ranting about gambling, that some would actually attempt to familiarize themselves with the nature of the real target that is a fundamental part of organized crime and terrorism.

And another thing that would be a welcomed, although probably unrealistic change, would be if the government stopped the petty party politics and actually attempted to define a comprehensive effective measure targeting money laundering via the online transfer of assets.

Maybe we should start with this, rather than Internet gambling, if supporting terrorism is the problem:

"The United States ranks top among the world's arms exporters and in developing countries, a majority of its arms are sold to regimes ''defined as undemocratic by our own State Department.''
Reference: Arms Trade Resource Center Report

Okay, now please take your head out of the sand... your position that the bill was put in to stop laundering is absolutely laughable - it was a specific attempt by the far reicht to stop morally reprehensible (to them) behavior (i.e. gambling). The language and comments uttered by Bill Frist after the bill had passed prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the goal was to limit gambling.

The ironic thing is that what the bill has actually succeeded in doing is forcing the gambling economy even further underground into areas where money is MORE likely, not less, to fall into questionable hands. The big players, amongst others, in online poker prior to the ban were Party Poker and Neteller (as a payment processor). Both of these companies were publicly traded on the London Stock Exchange - hardly a place where you'd find your criminal money launderers!

If anyone really thinks that they can prohibit gambling by passing laws, they really need to look no further than Prohibition as a lesson. The U.S. needs to get over itself and allow it's majority to actually dictate how and what they want to spend THEIR money on. I'm sick and tired of being told that I can or cannot do something based on someone ELSE'S "moral" standards. There certainly is NOTHING moral about telling someone else how to behave. People in glass houses should not throw stones.

I really don't care about Bill Frist nor your hangup with party politics.

Every group has their particular agenda, but I guess that seems to amaze you as you overly simplify the "reicht" which is comprised of more than the religious right wing liberals calling themselves conservatives who have more in common with the liberal left who believes that it is a legitimate function of government to social engineer!

It must confuse you to no end that the more libertarian ranks of the conservative camp not only disagree with the liberal spending patterns of the 'moral right', but also disagree with the growth of he central government long embraced by the left.

And as a result, much of what has been incorrectly been labeled a s*** to the left was actually many conservatives who are sick of the religious right's, including Bush's, agenda who sat the election out or who voted for gridlock. But they are by no means supportive of the liberal left!

And I love your analysis that because a company is publicly traded, that it cannot be involved in money laundering. The irony is that most money laundering is conducted using legitimate companies as intermediate agencies using unverified sources of the funds - exactly what the Justice Department was attempting to stop.

And it is laughable as Barnie Franks hides behind the 'libertarian' position when it comes time to justify his sexual proclivities when he is not busy furthering the liberal left's positions that have NEVER supported fiscal responsibility nor the limitation of the government's intrusion into any aspect of one's personal life - except in so far as it effects their own personal business! Otherwise their calls for a limited government are anything but deafening.

But for someone who claims "I'm sick and tired of being told that I can or cannot do something based on someone ELSE'S "moral" standards. There certainly is NOTHING moral about telling someone else how to behave." That must make you part of the fiscal right (which actually includes the minuscule isolationist 'libertarian party'), as they are the only group that supports a more limited and strictly defined government and is opposed to the government's attempt to use the rule of law to coerce behavior or thought via social engineering and fiscal responsibility in the form of a balance budget amendment that the Dems (oh, right, Al Gore) defeated by 1 vote.

But lecture us on social responsibility. Gambling Was and Is legal in controlled establishments. The law NEVER banned gambling. Period. You just had to do it on premises or to use non-electronic forms of money transfer.

What would be really nice is if people stopped using the "terrorism" card to take away the rights of people and businesses.

That would be nice.

Mechanism allows for terrorism financing? Great. Require better tracking methods for online transfers of funds.

You're right on there. Politicians love buzz words and "terrorism" is the buzz word for this time in history. They merely mention "terror" and the sheep are willing to give up anything in exchange for a false sense of security. The world isn't a perfectly safe place, never has been and never will be. It's almost as idiotic a concept and manufacturing a product with which someone can't figure a way to injure themselves while using it.

We've lived through "War on Drugs," "War on Poverty" and a few dozen other political campaigns....all of which have been unsuccessful, unless you judge success by the creation of another level of bureaucracy.

I want to gamble on a site in Costa Rica, I should be able too. This bill makes it to where I can't do that...

Get the picture?

Gee, and we just listened to the hordes of idiots tell us how the bill rendered online gambling illegal.

But NOW we read "While the attached text did not explicitly ban Internet gambling in the US, it eventually took on the name Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) - presenting the appearance of having made Internet gambling unlawful."

And now we find that it was only the "interstate transmission of funds connecting with wagers" and that it only "present(ed) the appearance of having made Internet gambling unlawful".

Go figure!

So where are all of folks who told us that online gambling was declared illegal???? ...And who talked of all the poor victims in jail for this...

Ironically, the net effect, as they mention, will be to hurt the offshore gambling establishments who brought the complaint, in favor of domestic gambling establishments.

The irony is hilarious. So is the ignorance that was displayed.

But what will be more interesting will be to see what techniques are developed to help prevent online techniques facilitating money laundering.

Whether you like gambling online or not, this needs to be repealed to stick to our WTO commitments. Let's get this one done.