Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

Al D'Amato: Online Freedom Fighter 63

Posted by Hemos from the like-adam-eterneum dept.
netbuzz writes "Former New York Sen. Al D'Amato is giving lobbying a good name by providing an insider's political savvy to a fledgling group called the Poker Players Alliance, which is attempting to overturn the federal prohibition against online poker. The New York Times has the details, including an enlightening look at D'Amato's passion for the game. As with all forms of gambling, online poker should be legal, regulated and taxed. Go, Al. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Al D'Amato: Online Freedom Fighter More

Al D'Amato: Online Freedom Fighter

Comments Filter:

  • Freedom Fighter? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05, 2007 @08:56AM (#18236612)
    I thought we had all agreed to call them the Terrorists?

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday March 05, 2007 @08:58AM (#18236642)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sholden ( 12227 )
      1. Is surely a desirable thing coming from poker player?

      2. Is what we have now - players transferring money via less straight forward mechanisms to poker sites. Taxing is less likely to make a black market than outlawing.

      3. Is not the goal - the gamblers are the ones who want this...

      Existing taxes is what is being asked for... Let online gambling be run in the US just like casino's are allowed to operate - subject to all the exiting taxes/regulations/etc that those casino's are. Income tax on player's for e

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by superwiz ( 655733 )
        Gambling is a zero sum game. Why should IRS get any part of the pot in the first place? When taxing economic activity (production and ownership of property) the theory goes that the government protects it and facilitates it so it has the right to collect fees on it. But why should the government get any part of transfer of money based on chance? Nothing is put into the economy through this activity, so no government assistance is required to maintain it. I say, it's actually better to have them offshor
        • (Don-Corleone-Voice)

          Well, you know, it would really be a shame if something terrible happened to your tubes...

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by maxume ( 22995 )
          If gambling doesn't put anything into the economy, then neither does any other recreational activity.

          (But bike riding creates a market for bikes! Well, gambling creates a market for cards, dealers, and venues.)
        • Gambling is a zero sum game.

          No, it's not. If you lose $500 playing blackjack, the casino, whether online or off, took in revenue of $500. They have to pay taxes on that revenue.

          For your part, if you keep track of your winnings and losings, you can deduct any losses from your winnings on your taxes. After all, if won playing blackack, you have now received income and must report that income.

          But why should the government get any part of transfer of money based on chance?

          See the example I j

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by antizeus ( 47491 )
            Your comment suggests to me that you are unaware of the meaning of a zero sum game [wikipedia.org]. Also, I find that your response to be mostly irrelevent. Government tax policy has no bearing on whether something is a zero sum game, and the fact that government taxes something is not a compelling argument for why government should tax that thing. And you fail to address the question of whether anything is put into the economy with anything other than mere assertion that it does.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by TXG1112 ( 456055 )
              Gambling isn't a zero sum game. See vigorish [wikipedia.org] for why this is so. You pay for the privilege of playing. The house always makes money.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by antizeus ( 47491 )
                Casino gambling is a zero sum game if you consider the house to be a player. Of course, then you could add the government as a player when you consider taxes.
            • Yes, that's exactly what it is. You got me. I hang around slashdot because I don't understand what zero-sum-game is. I, further, don't understand economic activity is. Because you happen to want to define it in such a way that ANY transfer of property qualifies. Well, it isn't. I will define economic activity as people transacting. Exchange of money based on mostly random circumstance (like loosing your wallet and someone else finding it) is not an economic activity. Resources are not exchange for t

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by antizeus ( 47491 )
                I hope that one day you will be able to accept criticism with more grace.
                • I have no problem with legitemate criticism. It's the personal attacks which boil down to "you must not understand a simple concept xyz just because you are disagreeing with me" that set me off. When you put a person on defensive, don't expect to be graciously thanked. If you believe an argument with which you are presented is faulty, point out the fault and move on.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sholden ( 12227 )
          Because the IRS treats gambling winnings as income. Feel free to take it up with them/congress/the courts. Of course if they didn't there would be a pretty damn simple way to avoid tax. Pay your staff $1 a month which they spend on a you run which amazingly everyone wins and gets whatever their monthly salary was.

          And things are put into the economy from this, as much as is put in from say the showing of a movie in a cinema. Online casinos employ people to answer phones/emails/etc and programmers to write t

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sholden ( 12227 )
            It should be noted, the IRS is in the minority in this I think (I haven't done an exhaustive study or anything). I know gambling winnings are not taxable in Australia - as long as you are not a "professional gambler".

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by speardane ( 905475 )
      and banning vice works?

      Alcohol = prohibition & Mafia

      Drugs = DEA & trafficking

      put it in clear view, like Amsterdam and cannabis, most people will get bored and ignore it

      • Perspective:
        "They" have not banned gambling outright. "They" have banned "online" gambling, as it were. All vice has not been banned or outlawed either. Moreover, as evidenced by other countries' content filtering abilities (not infallible, but quite good) it is feasible to control online activities to a given extent, then a negligeable amount over that cannot effciently be controlled. "They", it would appear, would be satisfied with similar results.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • While I agree with all your points, I think they address the stated purpose of vic e taxes, not the true purpose.
      Vice taxes exist as a source of revenue that is acceptable to the public. Raise the general income tax, and you'll be voted out. Raise a vice tax, and the complaints are minor.

      As I see it, vice taxes are just a means of raising revenues that lead to an inequitable tax distribution -- and troubling to me is that they are disproportionately levied on the uneductaed and the poor.

      If we are going
      • Oops. My html-fu and typo-avoidance-fu are weak this morning, I need my caffeine. Let me repost that little more cleanly:

        While I agree with all your points, I think they address the stated purpose of vice taxes, not the true purpose.

        Vice taxes exist as a source of revenue that is acceptable to the public. Raise the general income tax, and you'll be voted out. Raise a vice tax, and the complaints are minor.

        As I see it, vice taxes are just a means of raising revenues that lead to an inequitable tax d

      • it's a shame we don't levy a vice tax on low fuel-economy vehicles not needed for work.
        Every state I've ever lived in has had a gas tax, which certainly hits owners of fuel-inefficient vehicles harder.

        • Every state I've ever lived in has had a gas tax, which certainly hits owners of fuel-inefficient vehicles harder.

          Sure it does. But it doesn't provide an exception for those who need the vehicle for work (other than a slight increase in deductible expenses). It also isn't nearly high enough, IMO. And it's an inobvious tax on fuel economy -- people who buy gas-guzzlers don't see it directly at purchase time.

          Hike the gas tax, and charge an assessment at time of registration for any low-fuel-economy vehicl

          • People who drive vehicles that consume large amounts of fuel ALREADY PAY MORE FOR FUEL.

            What is so magical about gasoline that it needs to be taxed?

            It is a scare resource with alternative uses just like any other.

            • What is so magical about gasoline that it needs to be taxed?

              Two reasons:

              (1) Much of the infrastructure for gas distribution is publically subsidized; this cost should be recouped.

              (2) Also from an economic standpoint, gas consumers get a free ride on the environmental impact of their gas consumption, which is a shared cost. The price consumers pay at the pump should reflect the true cost of the gas, not just the production cost.

              Notice that I'm not even mentioning the positive impacts of discouraging exc

          • Hike the gas tax, and charge an assessment at time of registration for any low-fuel-economy vehicle not registered as a work vehicle.

            Sure. Then 99% of the vehicles in the U.S. will become registered as work vehicles.

            • There are ways to reduce that. For example, make everyone pay, and then allow those who claim the vehicle as a work vehicle on their taxes take a credit against their taxes. The penalties for lying on a tax return are pretty stiff, and the audit system for taxes is fairly sharp. Do you think John Q. Officeworker is going to take the risk of huge penalties in order to claim that his F-150 gas guzzler is used primarily for work and is necessary to that work?

  • Special Interests (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RedHat Rocky ( 94208 ) on Monday March 05, 2007 @09:25AM (#18236900)
    Wow, torn I am. As a poker player who no longer plays due to the legal situation, how do I feel about a lobbyist?

    The same why I feel about the rest of them: Bad.

    As much as I would like to restart playing online legally (yeah, I know I could do the offshore bank thing but not on my bankroll), a lobbyist is not the way I'd like to get it back.

    Special interests are what got our government where it is today; unfortunately, I don't see a way out. Does anyone else? Argue with me, I need some hope! :)

    • Special interests are what got our government where it is today; unfortunately, I don't see a way out. Does anyone else? Argue with me, I need some hope! :)
      Unfortunately I can't argue with you, because I agree. Upon reading the words "Former New York Sen. Al D'Amato is giving lobbying a good name" every one of the voices in my head chorused "no he isn't, he really isn't." And they so rarely agree on anything...
    • Special interests are interests of specific people. If you enjoy playing poker online then that is your special interest- nothing wrong with that in my book!

      Supporting the interest of one entity over another is when special interests create problems, such as healthcare, energy, and dare I say patent law?
    • I think it's even in your constitution that you're allowed to kick your government to hell and back if it's gone corrupt or unfit to serve The People. I would say that your founding fathers would agree the situation is already there.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sconeu ( 64226 )
        Actually, that's in the Declaration of Independence (the Constitution came 11 years later). Though the Second Amendment is still there, too.
        • Actually, in a way he's right. There is a mechanism in Article V of the U.S. Constitution that allows for 2/3 of the states to call for a constitutional convention that would have the power to throw out the entire constitution and rewrite it from the ground up. Then, upon ratification by 3/4 of the states it would become law.

          In fact, it's exactly that mechanism that got us our current constitution. A constitutional convention was called to fix the problems in the Articles of Confederation (the precursor

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sconeu ( 64226 )
            You're correct, I had forgotten about that. However, the OP's comment about the rationale for doing so was in the Declaration. The Constitution provides mechanism, the Declaration provides policy.

            Hey... the Founding Fathers anticpated the X-Window system!!! :-)

  • D'Amato's a Cheater (Score:5, Informative)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Monday March 05, 2007 @09:56AM (#18237244) Homepage Journal
    Al D'Amato was a crooked senator from NY. Not only did he help his brother scam military contracts using his Senate office, but he ran the Housing and Urban Development agency as his family's interest-free mortgage office [google.com], while cutting housing for the poor. Among other swinish career moves.

    I'm not surprised he's hooked up with the poker players: no strangers to compromise and bedfellows to win the pot. I hope they can use him to free Internet gambling from the hypocrisy of D'Amato's Republican heirs, who ban it as competition for their more traditional casino mob (and their "Indian" fronts). But don't deify D'Amato: he's a cheater. Count your money before leaving the table.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by khallow ( 566160 )
      I agree here. He also hooked up during the Wedtech scandal [wikipedia.org] (a notably messy bribery and fraud scandal involving the DoD, Small Business Administration, and a few members of Congress) by receiving campaign contributions from Wedtech. I guess it didn't stick. I suppose this group isn't so picky about who it hires, but they better keep a hand on their wallets while they're around this guy.
      • Moderation 0
            50% Informative
            50% Flamebait

        How is calmly mentioning that D'Amato is crooked, with citations, "Flamebait"? Does D'Amato's staff mod Slashdot?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by khallow ( 566160 )
          Heh, I'm still wait for the flames that I'm supposed baiting. :-) But if D'Amato's staff is modding slashdot, then they're getting paid too much.
    • Moderation +2
          50% Informative
          30% Interesting
          20% Offtopic

      Who can say that D'Amato's cheating ways are "Offtopic" to a story about "Al D'Amato: Freedom Fighter"? An anonymous cheater mod?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Raenex ( 947668 )

        Who can say that D'Amato's cheating ways are "Offtopic" to a story about "Al D'Amato: Freedom Fighter"?

        A poker fanboy without principles.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tansey ( 238786 )
      So he knows how to get things done in DC. Good.
    • The "traditional" casinos are on the side of legalization. They all want to set up gambling sites online. The reason that they never did is because of the previous laws that forbade online casinos. When the casinos whined to Congress about the offshore casinos, what they wanted was a level playing field: casinos could be set up offshore, but could not be set up here. The offshore companies had an advantage.

      Instead, the far right got involved and shoved through a law to ban it entirely. Now there's a le
  • and that is precisely what they get in to their heads... its one thing to help prevent murders, and other such nastiness by using the internet, its quite another to attempt to block something which is legal in certain areas of the US! Hypocrisy, it seems, is becoming the norm.

  • FTA:

    ...one of his trademark tactics is throwing around numbers that might or might not be considered, well, a bluff. He talks of the million players who have already joined the poker association -- a misstatement that prompted his handler, presidential style, to clarify that what the former senator meant is that the group hoped one day soon to have that many names on its rolls.

    So as long as you frame everything in terms of playing a game, this is a "bluff". To everyone else it is a lie. Maybe that's the

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tansey ( 238786 )
      Aside: the Poker Players Alliance actually solicits donations to support its cause. Wow. Give them money so they can fight for your right to lose money.

      Exactly. They are a realistic lobbying organization that understands you need muscle in Washington if you want your voice to be heard. Also, the donations they solicited from people was normally done in conjunction with poker sites. The poker sites would request you sign up and pay a $20 membership fee in exchange for a $25 deposit bonus. That sounds lik
  • He's also the only Republican senator I know of who admits partying with Satan.
    http://imdb.com/name/nm0195051/ [imdb.com]
  • In Canada for years we've had restrictions on ALL types of gambling, no gambling machines, almost no casinos etc.

    Then recently we started to get casino's and now we have online gambling.

    Already it is becomming an epidemic of addiction and it's destroying people's lives.

    We have about 3-4 channels on basic cable showing poker each night.

    It seems to mostly be hitting young people (some with young children who they will leave without the funds for University), and while they waste their creativity and e

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close