Online Gambling Not Banned Yet 237
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.
lame (Score:2)
Re:lame (Score:5, Interesting)
So yes I think that is a problem.
Re:lame (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:lame (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention, WTF does it have to do with a defense bill?
Nothing related to Congress and our current govn't offends me more than the unchallenged ability to "tack on" legislation for topic X that has piss-all to do with the main topic of the bill at hand.
Congressman A: Here's a bill allocating $50m for breast cancer research!
Congressman B: Great! I'd like to add a rider that allocates $10m in federal funding for building a bridge somewhere in my state - oh, and my brother-in-law like totally has a construction company!
Re:lame (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:lame (Score:5, Insightful)
MY GOD, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!??!?!?!
Please, nanny government, please make my decisions for me because I'm a complete and utter retard and can't make them on my own.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the people voted the government in. I guess that just confirms your point.
Re:lame (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So? When I buy things overseas like electronics parts It's not taxed because it's very hard (or impossible) to tax it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, sure, it's illegal, but so is speeding - that hardly stops people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:lame (Score:4, Informative)
While on the one hand it is easier to pass information between colluding players in online poker than it is in brick & mortar rooms, it is much more difficult to avoid eventual detection online.
If you suspect you are being cheated in a cardroom or casino you have no recourse. Whereas on our site we will investigate using a fully peer-reviewed system, and then penalise the guilty and compensate the victims.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the problem was about the addiction factor and accessibility. But one could of course argue if the alternative legal forms are much better. However, where I live, there have reportedly been more cases of addiction since online gambling entered the scene. And that's a cost for society to manage if such addictions start implying criminal activity.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the idea, they SERIOUSLY need to fire their PR firm.
What is it with tacking things onto bills? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just crazy.
Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The truth is, legislators WANT the ability to completely change the nature of bills. On the one hand, they can add pork/junk to "important" bills; on the other hand, if they add something that a rival (other party) finds objectionable to a bill that otherwise follows the other party's line (e.g. an anti-abortion rider on a medicare funding bill), they can say that any (democrat/republican) that voted against such a bill is "soft on crime/lying about priorities/etc" and people buy it
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (Score:5, Informative)
Much as I may like the concept of a line-item veto, as the Constitution currently stands, the SCOTUS ruling was correct IMHO (disclaimer - IANAL).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (Score:5, Informative)
Ultimately, I'd argue that its an ineffective band-aid on the cancerous sore that is our winner-take-all legislative system. We desperately need to have proportional represention. Like, you know, every free nation on Earth. But the powers that be are too entrenched in the two party system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (Score:4, Insightful)
Poison Pills: just what the doctor ordered. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, with the current two-party structure, riders do serve a semi-legitimate, or at least useful, purpose: they provide a way for a minority to torpedo a bill that really shouldn't get passed, preventing a "tyranny of the majority." It doesn't prevent a 'tyranny of the super-majority,' because riders can be defeated through parliamentary procedure, but that's democracy for you.
It's importan
Re: (Score:2)
Supermajority rule versus 51% rule. (Score:2)
Certainly one could create a system that would be a limited democracy, where there was no way, even if all but one person in the country wanted something done, that it could happen -- a Constitutional Republic where the Constitution was fixed a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:America has a bill of Rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
1) No intentionally killing civilians.
2) Always mark yourself as a combatant (wear a uniform) so that civilians are not confused as combatants.
3) You must accept the surrender of uniformed combatants and you can't just execute them.
4) When the war is over you need to free the uniformed combatants.
The implication of these rules is that enemy spies do NOT receive Geneva Convention protection. During the Cold War when either side caught an enemy spy, they did NOT receive Geneva Convention protections. If an American spy was caught in Soviet Russia, we didn't make a stink about it if the Soviets tortured the spy, held the spy forever, or simply killed the spy. All sides agreed that spies do not get Geneva Convention status and so were not privy to receiving its benefits.
Now, we are in a new type of war. The US doesn't fight uniformed combatants. The US fights people that fight among civilians wearing civilian clothing. Clearly, these people, like spies, are blatantly violating the Geneva Convention. They can't be identified as combatants and intentionally try and pass themselves off as civilians. Hence, they get a new title called an "enemy combatant", which means that they roughly get treated like spies.
They don't get bill of rights protection because it is absolutely insane to even imply that in a war zone you need to read people their Miranda rights or get search warrants. Soldiers are not crime scene investigators, and crime scene investigators who can take proper evidence for a fair trial are not going to be doing their work in a war zone.
Enemy combatants (i.e. people fighting out of uniform) occupy a gray area that there are no rules for. There is no Geneva Convention rules that describe how to treat these people. There are no rules in general with how to deal with people who fight wearing civilian clothing in general. If the UN wanted to do something useful (god forbid), they would write up a code to deal with people who fight among civilians disguised as civilians.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is never any real reason to abandon the law, except the old one, some asshat wants to do things for personal motivation and finds that the law inconveniences them.
Basically they fucked up a
Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (Score:5, Informative)
Amusingly enough, the first senator to complain was Mr. Robert Byrd [wikipedia.org] who is notorious for being one of the worst for pork barrel spending [wikipedia.org]
Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (Score:5, Interesting)
So... (Score:2)
Congress right?
Next idea please.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not perfect, but a hell of a lot better than being allowed to add the "rape babies legalization act" to the "continue paying our soldiers act" then screaming at the opposition for wanting to rip off our soldiers
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They do have a complex array of amendment procedures which could, in theory, be used for similar purposes. But the Congressional Rules of Order make floor votes to amend difficult. The work is supposed to be done in committees, and the
Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then wait for the people in Congress to take a while scratching their heads about that one.
Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
walking the line (Score:4, Insightful)
What I don't "get" is that if they do eventually ban online gambling, what is the legal status of games like Second Life, which allow gambling in-world (in Linden Dollars, which you can then convert to US Dollars)? How will it even be possible to police that sort of thing given the open-ended nature of the game?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:walking the line (Score:4, Funny)
Man, I just won $240 today (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.geocities.com/James_Sager_PA/love8.htm
(your website, for those who didn't check)
To store up all of the money you intend to give to the poor?
This isn't about competition. . it's about control (Score:2)
Re:This isn't about competition. . it's about cont (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This isn't about competition. . it's about cont (Score:2)
A Puritan is someone who is deathly afraid that someone, somewhere, is having fun.
Before someone else posts it... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, I run a legal establishment here - if the law changes, I will of course obey it and will no longer be able to honor any wagers laid.
What part of freedom don't they understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it was for moral reasons, why would they target online gambling as apposed to - say - all gambling? (It could be a secondary goal I suppose, but still unlikely IMHO).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, it shows a complete ineptitude as to how the internets work.
"Hey there, Du-Rail. I got's me an IDEAR. Let's ban them online Casinos."
"Sounds good, Tex! Them's dens of heathens anyway."
Gentlemen, your internet tubes also connect to places like... Belarus and Sao Paulo. These places give less than a shit about horse porn - what makes you think they'd care about online gambling?
*sigh*
Re: (Score:2)
Or nail you to the wall when the revolution comes.
How do we stop this? (Score:3, Insightful)
This practise has probably more to do with the sad state we are in than any other- this even bypasses/surpasses pork barrel crap shuffled through.
Let the original bill stand (or fall) on it's own- quit this backscratchin',feel good,get re-elected bullshit end. If not, we fial and stay where we are.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's whats going on... (Score:5, Informative)
Senators or at least the few that I know or have come in contact with, usually have some sort of philosophy that they follow. This philosophy or set of beliefs serves as a guide on how they will vote. Occasionally you will get someone that is easily influenced by newspapers or political lobbies, but that is in all actuallity, not as common as most people think (which is why when it happens it's big news). There are very strict rules about what kind of gifts politicians and their staff (Senate Staff is limited to 50$ for gifts at receptions) can accept and what they can't.
For the most part, legislation is not written by Senators (Rep's may write their own). Usually there is a Legislative Assistant(s) or Legislative Director in the office that will write the actual bill or ammendment. The Senator will then review it, and if he / she approves it - it will be submitted to where ever it needs to go (usually a committee of sorts). Often they are attached to other bills, since the legislative process is very slow (and attaching it to something may speed it up).
Now, as it is election time, many people that are up for re-election are submitting all sorts of things. However, they aren't trying that hard to have them get passed (thankfully - or I'd have no free time), just submitting them so they can claim to have done some work on a certain issue that they may feel their constituents care about (or more likely matches their ideas). Lame Duck session in December, is when the outgoing folks actually sit down and try to get this crap passed.
So you can assume, that this bill was introduced by someone that believes gambling is wrong. It has nothing to do with the mail that they get, the phone calls people make or the faxes that come in. They don't even see most of those - interns and other staff handle them (although a few Senators actually read a sampling of handwritten mail each week). The politician usually gets a report each week of what mail came in, what issues were popular and what was the stance of the mail (for or against). Usually batch letters (meaning large bunches of faxes / letters / postcards that are all the same ) are not included in that count (cause people often send them in without actually reading them or knowing much about the issue, and mail from someone other then a constituent (meaning outside the politicians district - exceptions being the VA and Natural Resources Committees) or someone that did not put a real mailing address (like the people that always sign with their email address) is ignored. In the event that the politican does not have an opinion on something yet, this mail report will serve to influence their opinion in addition to the research and hearings that they or their staff will conduct. However, their opinion is usually in line with their established philosophy. Long story short, this ammendment was simply so someone could satisfy a mark on their philosophy checklist (most likely), and that is why it was rejected by the Senator (who dislikes this sort of stuff) and not because of some lobbying group.
The best way to stop these things, is to either write large amounts of handwritten mail to your senator / rep (not other peoples), or simply vote them out during elections time. Problem is -- most people aren't informed enough to actually know what's going on (or at least that is what I see from DC). It's easiest to contact your Senator / Rep at a state office also (if they have some), since most of them spend weekends and when session is out at home.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I have some writing to do, as this stuff really bothers me.
Thanks again for taking the time for a reasonable explaination.
Bravo John Warner (Score:5, Insightful)
He refused to cave to the Bush administration on torture.
Now, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, he refuses to let a trivial non-issue be tacked on along with a government spending bill. Bravo, if only more people like him could be elected to the Senate.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bravo John Warner (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. That's why he's probably one of the best guys in there. Most of the others would be happy to turn a blind eye to riders provided it was for something they want. The whole "relative morality" debate. If what you say above is true, then we need more folk like him, regardless of their personal viewpoints.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you just block something? (Score:2)
Can someone help me out here... How exactly does one go about blocking these riders? And why doesn't it happen more often? Also, who gets to add rider's to bills? Can anyone just submit anything they want to be included with a bill?
I know they tried to pass the line item veto in 1996 to help deal with this, but isn't there anything better we can do to stop so many tacked on clauses? I don't know if I agree with a line item veto because it could be easily abused to get rid of things central to the bill. Ho
Information Markets vs Gambling (Score:2)
From what I can tell in Iowa, "Bookmaking" is illegal:
"Bookmaking as used herein means the taking or receiving of any bet or wager upon the result of any trial or contest of skill, speed, power or endurance of human, beast, fowl or motor vehicle..."
So apparently corprorations in Iowa are not human, best, fowl, or motor vehicle.
Good luck. (Score:2)
Why to parliamentarians tolerate riders? (Score:3)
Mindboggling to an European (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right, it's ridiculous. But it's like the bracketed tax system: it doesn't matter whether another method is demonstrably and obviously more fair, just, or ch
Re: (Score:2)
I, personally, am not quite sure that you really are aware.
The question is... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except in the end, he did.
The "anti-torture" bill that was passed still does away with protections of habius corpus and Geneva at the discretion of the President. Plus it still retroactively gives immunity to the folks who might have tortured and (more importantly) the folks who ordered the torture be done. About the only thing it does is to make sure Congress knows about it, too. Real moral "high ground" there. Too bad it's going to get a lot mo
The age of war is dead. (Apologies to Burke) (Score:2)
The second part of your comment might have merit, in that the new stance might provide propaganda for terrorist recruitment (but really, it's not like there's a shortage), however, if you don't think that anyone in uniform is at risk of being tortured to death if captured anyway, you're sorely mistaken.
The only reason more people aren't tortured and e
A hypothetical. (Score:2)
However I have a hypothetical question that came to mind. What if it became clear that the ideals of Western society were counterproductive to its survival? As in, what happens when you start to see your way of live being subsumed by a more aggressive culture, because of strongly-held beliefs that prevent the response that would prevent the takeover?
I'm not saying that such a situation exists at present, but what if it really was an "existential struggle" in the literal sense of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
2. The American Gaming Association is opposed to the legislation. Online gaming, especially online poker, is driving people to the casinos in record numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
WHY was this modded Flamebait? (Score:2)
Attaching unrelated riders to "must pass" bills is appalling. It's absolutely staggering that my fellow Americans have allowed our do-nothing-but-try-to-get-reelected officials to continue doing it. I absolutely support Senator Warner with this for two main reasons: (A) the idea of forcing Americans to spend/gamble their money only within American borders for the sole purpose of taxation is repugnant and is exactl
USA is the greatest democracy??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why does a true democracy need to brainwash its kids from an early age with the declaration of independence?
Why does any challenge of USA being such a great democracy end up with it being compared to how much better it is than China etc.. Surely if it is so great it should be compared to some of the top democracies and not the bottom ones?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What on earth is this supposed to mean? Teaching kids about a very important foundational document is brainwashing? What, are you a latent Royalist?
Larry
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: I only really know about the way we do it and I'm comfy with that. The news talks about ones that went bad so I'm guessing they're all bad and we're therefor the best.
Reality: Many countries have better versions of democracy and involve the people in far more decision making.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There are a class of people who are really into government. Let's call them politici
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same problem, different states. The solution obviously isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
The Presiden
Re:The US is not a Democracy (Score:5, Informative)
These states agreed to vest particular portions of sovereignty in the federal government through a written agreement: the United States Constitution. One interesting facet of the federal constitution that many don't reflect upon is the amendment process: STATES have the final word on the shape of the federal constitution. Not Congress.
While the people at large have basically forgotten these facts, and the Congress and President run rampant over them, the courts do from time to time surprise people and enforce the consequences of our nature of government, much to the dismay of those who would have us forget that the federal government is not THE Government.
Larry
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're mixing your metaphors. The gerbils on wheels are what powers the trucks, and thanks to Stephens we now know that the internets are not a bunch of tr
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone have a source for this? Of course, even if it is true, our current government hasn't shown much concern about international relations, so it might be a non-issue.
~Rebecca
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the