Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Al D'Amato: Online Freedom Fighter

Posted by Hemos on 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. "

63 comments

  1. libertarian by mastershake_phd · · Score: 0

    I fancy myself as someone who supports the rights of the individual, but is this the place to start? Maybe its as good a place as any...

    --
    Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
  2. Freedom Fighter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought we had all agreed to call them the Terrorists?

    1. Re:Freedom Fighter? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Depends on whether they win. I mean, do you have a faint idea what outcry you'll get when you call George Washington a terrorist?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Freedom Fighter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George Washington Carver? The Peanut Butter guy was a terrorist? Well that explains the whole salmonella thing, now doesn't it.

    3. Re:Freedom Fighter? by komokda · · Score: 1

      In the words of George Carlin -
      "If crimefighters fight crime and firefighters fight fire, what do freedomfighters fight?"

  3. Where we often part ways by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Taxing vice is bad policy for a few reasons:

    1) It gives the government financial incentive to keep vice going, rather than let private citizens be the sole determining factor in what happens to it.

    2) It often gets carried away, recreating the black market. Cigarette smuggling between states is a good example of this. If every state imposed a modest tax, it'd be non-issue but many jurisdictions can't help themselves.

    3) It has no demonstrated tendency to reduce the consumption of or participation in a vice.

    The best way to go is to hit vice with existing taxes, such as sales tax for drugs, liquor and sexual services and the income tax for gambling. That way you still get the revenue without getting much bureaucracy involved or encouraging the vice.

    1. Re:Where we often part ways by sholden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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 example - with actual documents rather than just hoping a US player will tell the IRS they won $20,000 on a server in another country operated by a company whose directors will be arrested if they accidentally step on US soil and hence aren't likely to be filing forms with the IRS for fun.

    2. Re:Where we often part ways by speardane · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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

      --
      if "Faith" could be proved with facts - would it still be faith? So why does "Faith" try to present beliefs as fact? -
    3. Re:Where we often part ways by superwiz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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 offshore and hiding... this puts back a certain level of fairness into the taxation system.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    4. Re:Where we often part ways by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      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 to use vice taxes for revenue, it's a shame we don't levy a vice tax on low fuel-economy vehicles not needed for work.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    5. Re:Where we often part ways by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      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 distribution -- and troubling to me is that they are disproportionately levied on the uneducated and the poor.

      If we are going to use vice taxes for revenue, it's a shame we don't levy a vice tax on low fuel-economy vehicles not needed for work.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    6. Re:Where we often part ways by Merkwurdigeliebe · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:Where we often part ways by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      (Don-Corleone-Voice)

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

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Where we often part ways by maxume · · Score: 1

      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.)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:Where we often part ways by Lockejaw · · Score: 1

      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.
      --
      (IANAL)
    10. Re:Where we often part ways by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      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 vehicle not registered as a work vehicle.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    11. Re:Where we often part ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has no demonstrated tendency to reduce the consumption of or participation in a vice.

      The government has no business trying to reduce "vice" in the first place. Most vice laws arbitrarily criminalize behavior between consenting adults. It's pseudo-religious fascism.

    12. Re:Where we often part ways by m0rph3us0 · · Score: 1

      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.

    13. Re:Where we often part ways by Dekortage · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    14. Re:Where we often part ways by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      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 excessive gas use, which might violate some libertarian principles so prevalent here on slashdot.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    15. Re:Where we often part ways by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
      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 just gave.

      Nothing is put into the economy through this activity,

      Oh really? How do you think the folks who work at casinos get paid? What about the folks who operate the online servers? Where do you think they get the money to pay for those servers and bandwidth?

      If you think that nothing is created via gambling, you might want to go back to Econ 101.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    16. Re:Where we often part ways by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    17. Re:Where we often part ways by antizeus · · Score: 1

      Your comment suggests to me that you are unaware of the meaning of a zero sum game. 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.

      --
      -- $SIGNATURE
    18. Re:Where we often part ways by TXG1112 · · Score: 1

      Gambling isn't a zero sum game. See vigorish for why this is so. You pay for the privilege of playing. The house always makes money.

      --
      I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.
    19. Re:Where we often part ways by sholden · · Score: 1

      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 the code and admins to look after the machines. Real physical casinos employ dealers, waitresses, etc. That helps money to flow around which is a necessary part of a working economy.

      So what does a cinema do to put into the economy? Their profits should be tax free?

      Seems a good way to provide a rather large incentive to do things which don't "put into the economy" which seems a like a silly thing to do.

    20. Re:Where we often part ways by sholden · · Score: 1

      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".

    21. Re:Where we often part ways by antizeus · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      -- $SIGNATURE
    22. Re:Where we often part ways by superwiz · · Score: 1

      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 the purpose of acquiring something of value equal (to you) to the resources given up. No sum-total growth can occur. When you build a factory or a railroad (or any productive company), you create more resources than were put in. This does not happen with purely-chance gambling (stock market is something else, but whatever). And since the only part of the gambling that IS economic activity is the services provided by the casinos, casinos based on other territories (not US) should not subject to the US law.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    23. Re:Where we often part ways by antizeus · · Score: 1

      I hope that one day you will be able to accept criticism with more grace.

      --
      -- $SIGNATURE
    24. Re:Where we often part ways by superwiz · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  4. Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poker? But I just...

  5. Special Interests by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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! :)

    --
    Anything is possible given time and money.
    1. Re:Special Interests by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

      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...
      --
      Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
    2. Re:Special Interests by Aceto3for5 · · Score: 1

      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?

    3. Re:Special Interests by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Special Interests by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's in the Declaration of Independence (the Constitution came 11 years later). Though the Second Amendment is still there, too.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    5. Re:Special Interests by Wateshay · · Score: 1

      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 to our current constitution) and the convention attendees decided to just throw the whole thing out and start over again.

      --

      "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."

    6. Re:Special Interests by sconeu · · Score: 1

      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!!! :-)

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  6. D'Amato's a Cheater by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Informative

    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, 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.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:D'Amato's a Cheater by khallow · · Score: 1, Informative

      I agree here. He also hooked up during the Wedtech scandal (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.

    2. Re:D'Amato's a Cheater by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      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?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:D'Amato's a Cheater by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      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?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:D'Amato's a Cheater by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Yes, NY State Attorney General Robert Abrams called D'Amato a fascist, bringing D'Amato to (crocodile) tears.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:D'Amato's a Cheater by khallow · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:D'Amato's a Cheater by tansey · · Score: 1

      So he knows how to get things done in DC. Good.

    7. Re:D'Amato's a Cheater by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Who did you vote for in 2004?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    8. Re:D'Amato's a Cheater by Raenex · · Score: 1

      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.

  7. The US doesn't own the Internet by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  8. Get rid of vice laws by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Most are just Victorian era bullshit that mindlessly criminalizes selected behavior between consenting adults, and gives cops and politicians someplace to get their jollies becuase they just like to mess with people's lives. You think cops would rather bust up violent street gangs or stake out an Asian massage parlor?

    Alcohol? That's OK. Mary-Jane? Oh noes! The reefer madness will pwn you! Two adults trading money for sex? Tsk tsk! Add a camera crew and sell the video? Oh, well, it's OK now. Huh?

    Go build a road or a bridge or something, G-Man, and leave me and my poker and my pot and my whores alone. It's none of your fartsucking business beyond taxing them.

  9. Did I say anything about banning? by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    No, I didn't. Maybe you want to read between the lines there instead of jumping back and forth between boolean situations. The reason I oppose vice taxes is that I support decriminalization of vices. Heavy taxes are a barrier to enforceability and end up getting the government right back into the system in a bad way. No special taxes makes it easier to enforce, discourages a black market from returning and gives the bureaucrats less work to do, justifying their employment even less.

  10. It's a BLUFF? by Dekortage · · Score: 1

    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 problem with some folks, it's all just a game....

    (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.)

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    1. Re:It's a BLUFF? by tansey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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 like a win-win to me.

      Poker is a form of entertainment like any other. You should have the right to waste your time and money on it just like strip clubs, pornography, or slashdot. (No matter how sleazy and disgusting slashdot may be.)

  11. Al D'Amato by senatorpjt · · Score: 1

    He's also the only Republican senator I know of who admits partying with Satan.
    http://imdb.com/name/nm0195051/

  12. In Soviet Russia... by mindriot · · Score: 1

    ...they'd be called French Fighters.

  13. Re:Fuck the mods by mikkelm · · Score: 1

    Half of them grew out of puberty, and most of the rest of them got tired of uttering their opinions on the internet to no avail. The internet isn't the secret fortress of idealistic basement-dwellers it used to be. It has opened up to the public, and like any other fortress, it proved that it was easily overrun given the appropriate amount of people.

    Welcome to the general public; where only the most radical are heard, and the minority are ridiculed and drowned out.

  14. Online Gambling is BAD by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

    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 effort trying to beat each other their lives are going to crap.

    In conclusion thanks Slashdot for posting something I truly disagree with, it's actually refreshing.

  15. "Traditional" casinos want it legal! by Myria · · Score: 1

    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 level playing field, but not what the "traditional" casinos wanted.

    --
    "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
    1. Re:"Traditional" casinos want it legal! by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      You have a citation for this counterintuitive claim?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  16. Re:Fuck the mods by Pokerstars+com · · Score: 1

    I think it's good to finally have a charasmatic leader for the Poker Players alliance. Nothing against Michael Bolcerek, but he was a little hesitant sometimes in front of cameras. I'm sure D'amato will be completely the opposite and won't let anxiety get in the way of what he really wants to say. It's sad that we're even talking about this. The only comments you ever read on the subject are always negative. That's the problem though, the only people who pay attention or even care about the subject are poker players. The people who don't play poker could care less whether it was made illegal or not. Most people are sympathetic when you tell them the reasons it got banned, but hell they could care less. There was a glimple of an interview with D'Amato at Cardplayer about what he plans to do, yada yada yada. The first section didnt' go into much depth but hopefully the second interview has more of a plan of action for US poker players.

    The only real way to make any dent in my opinion would to launch a campaign that showed how the bill was passed etc. Although the passing of bills in the same manner occur all the time, it's ludacrious if you ask me. I was talking to my friend at Cardschat.com about what most players were doing these days. Things slowed down dramatically after the Neteller incident but hell, people are beginning to play again and gain confidence in the new payment processors that come out.

    Anyways, it will be interesting to see what comes out of this whole mess. You never know, this just might make the poker sites even more powerful as they expand into different countries and go global.