Online Gambling Not Banned Yet

For the moment, the rush to legislate the ban on online gambling has been slowed. Senator John Warner, (R) from Virginia, has refused to allow a ban on online gambling to be tacked onto an upcoming defense bill. Opponents of online gambling were hoping to tack their measure on to a "must pass" bill but will apparently be forced to delay. Congress recesses in one week, giving only a few days left if this measure is to be passed before the November 7th elections.

Man, I just won $240 today

[CrazyJim1]

I play poker, but I'm not using my own money. I bankrolled money from a freeroll. Now I am freerolling my way up the stakes ladder. If they ban online gambling, I'll have to get a Swiss Bank account or something.

Re:lame

[JavaBrain]

My understanding is that online gambling can never be fair, since multiple PC's can be used to play networked games at the same table (in poker, for example) sharing their cards with each other and improving their odds over the "honest" players.

So yes I think that is a problem.

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills?

[Lehk228]

what we really need is a single subject law, so any bill may only refer to one subject, any passed with multiple subjects would be considered void and must pass again as single parts

Re:The US is not a Democracy

[Bing Tsher E]

Part of the problem some of us have with the idea of 'A Democracy' is that government should not be far reaching. Basically, government should be limited in scope, and a lot of society and social constructs should be untouched by government. Making a country a 'Democracy' implies that people vote on all sorts of issues about everything. In particular, they vote on issues that some of us feel goverment should not intrude.

There are a class of people who are really into government. Let's call them politicians. Some are 'left' and some are 'right.' They want government meddling in all kinds of areas where it's unnecessary for goverment to be. The notion of 'Democracy' as decried by some of these people implies that we should all do a lot more voting on a lot more topics. Which is the opposite of a 'mind your own business' philosophy.

Did you know that one of the first coins minted by the new US Goverment in the late eighteenth century has the legend 'Mind Your Business' printed right on it?

Re:Bravo John Warner

[sideswipe76]

WOAH! Hold on now, he rebufed the bill not because he doesn't feel the idea is right, just that it has no bussiness in a defense appropriations bill. And, it's gonna take more than a last minute show of independence to convince me he is worthy of his seat. Let's not kid ourselves -- he and the other 2 "independents" buckled after only a week; Hardly a show of iron will.

Re:Bravo John Warner

[Anonymous Coward]

Warner (and McCain and Graham) did cave to Bush on torture. Their so-called compromise was in fact capitulation after apparently merely putting up a show. The bill specifically does not ban, for example, waterboarding.

Mindboggling to an European

[Eivind]

Your legislative process is, frankly, mindboggling to most Europeans. It is not clear to me why it makes sense to make a single vote on issues such as: "Should we spend $500 million more on the war in Iraq and ban online gambling ?"

To any sensible observer these would appear to be two completely separate questions, thus it'd make sense to vote on them separately, I *completely* fail to see the supposed benefits of this "rider"-system.

You even frequently see semi-controversial stuff "attached" to the most obscure nobody-cares piece of legislation in existence, hoping that it'll get passed before somebody notices or something. Hello ? The entire *point* of a democracy is that people *should* notice the controversial issues, debate them, and then vote on them.

Can somebody with an insigth please explain what the benefits are ? To outsiders, frankly, it just seems completely ridicolous.