Posted on 10/19/2006 11:53:10 AM PDT by Sabramerican
LAST week President Bush signed a law that will try to impede online gambling by prohibiting American banks from transferring money to gambling sites. Most Americans probably didn’t notice or care, but it may do significant political damage to the Republicans this fall and long-term damage to Americans’ respect for the law.
So, a month before a major election, the Republicans have allied themselves with a scattering of voters who are upset by online gambling and have outraged the millions who love it. Furthermore, judging from many hours of online chat with Internet poker players, I am willing to bet (if you’ll pardon the expression) that the outraged millions are disproportionately electricians, insurance agents, police officers, mid-level managers, truck drivers, small-business owners — that is, disproportionately Republicans and Reagan Democrats.
In the short term, this law all by itself could add a few more Democratic Congressional seats in the fall elections. We are talking about a lot of people (an estimated 23 million Americans gamble online) who are angry enough to vote on the basis of this one issue, and they blame Republicans.
...... If a free society is to work, the vast majority of citizens must reflexively obey the law not because they fear punishment, but because they accept that the rule of law makes society possible. That reflexive law-abidingness is reinforced when the laws are limited to core objectives that enjoy consensus support, .....
The reaction to Prohibition, the 20th century’s stupidest law, is the archetypal case. But the radical expansion of government throughout the last century has created many more.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Maybe management should get into this.
I'm sick and tired by the cheerleaders running from thread to thread attempting to stifle any debate of GOP and Administration missteps.
Is FreeRepublic a Fan Club or a place where what the Government and this [and any other] Administration does open to discussion and comment?
If it is a Fan Club, at least publish the rules.
LOL, cut the drama, it does not work with me.
>>>Sort of sounds like whistling past the graveyard.
If Republicans manage to keep control of Congress, I wonder just what they have to do, or not do, to lose it?>>>
I heard that!
I have to agree with the general idea in the article. The Republicans didn't need to do this and probably alienated more voters then it helped... I'm a conservative Republican who will continue to vote for the Republicans in the elections (and push my agenda voting in the primaries) but I was very unhappy with this law. I called both my Senators after writing letters to both several months ago. I also called my congressman and sent an email to the Whitehouse.
But that being said, the net affect of this law is that I have moved to a different online poker site that will not block US players and I will continue to play. We shall see how it will impact my ability to deposit/withdraw fund from my account.
And to a question on this thread, Senator Frist slipped this bill in late in the evening tacked to the ports security bill. There was no way members would vote against the ports bill. Since Frist is retiring and will probably be running in the 2008 presidential race I have made up my mind that I will send money to every challenger and send a letter to Frist letting him know of this action.
As a Republican, that is where we should do our protests. In the primaries.
p.s.. This internet gambling law is pure pandering...
Do you spam this same list every time the GOP does something stupid?
Someone posted a while ago that this law has less to do with gambling and more to do with a WTO tax dispute. Wish I could find it.
"Most Americans probably didn’t notice or care, but it may do significant political damage to the Republicans this fall and long-term damage to Americans’ respect for the law."
ROFLMAO! I did notice and I do care, but I don't think most Americans give a hoot, and anyone saying otherwise is just being silly--especially since as the author notes in the same breath he's claiming it'll do significant political damage, MOST AMERICANS DIDN'T NOTICE OR CARE. How can it 'do significant political damage' if AMERICANS DON'T NOTICE OR CARE?
Additionally, what difference does it make whether the GOP did it if the option is the Rats? They'd have done the same thing for the reason that they can't tax the international winnings!
Americans won't lose any respect for the law. They'll just keep breaking it like they were before.
Sorry, but the people who gamble for entertainment are the EXACT type of people who use these sites. I know hundreds of people who have accounts with various bookmakers and poker sites, and they are all just doing it for fun... and they are all HIGHLY ticked off at the GOP. I'll go vote, because the alternative is too bad, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see some of these idiots taken down a peg or two. The GOP needs to get back to decreasing the size and scope of Government. I don't need a nanny.
Google "Frist" and "Harrahs Casino".
"Goodlatte" and "horseracing".
It was obvious pandering...and payback.
I think my favorite part of that laundry list is the glorious return of our EP-3 and its crewmen, an event completely overshadowed in President Bush's foreign policy victories. What a proud moment for us! How we must celebrate him for it! We needed to show China we would not take Chinese aggression lying down! We sure did, forcing them to hold our military personnel incommunicado, to inspect our spy plane and its avionics, and then slice up a multimillion dollar aircraft. Boy, was that a foreign policy TRIUMPH for the President!
The kind of post you're responding to is threadjacking, pure and simple.
Evidence?
This industry is based on the compulsive gambler just as drug internet sites that peddle narcotics are based on drug addicts.
Evidence? Are Miller and Budweiser based on alcoholics?
Internet gambling could turn into the same kind of cash cow for our enemies.
By that logic, we should allow it in the US and regulate it. Lots of Americans would rather play at bellagio.com than random sites in Costa Rica or the Isle of Man.
This is not a "scolding nanny" bill. What was happening was already illegal, we have laws about who can run gambling in this country, and those laws include regulations and a taxing authority.
But in order to avoid meeting regulations, and to avoid paying taxes, companies outsourced and set up in foreign countries, using the internet to reach americans but not paying taxes on their earnings, and not following the guidelines and regulations that make sure people are not ripped off.
These foreign operators compete against U.S. companies, and UNFAIRLY because they don't meet the same rules and regulations.
The congress took the next step to stopping their already ILLEGAL behavior, by simply making it illegal for U.S. credit companies to pay these illegal gambing companies for their illegal U.S. operations.
I realise that some people beleive we should have no regulations -- and that's fine, but you should be fighting to REMOVE the regulations from U.S. companies then, not fighting a common-sense bill to ensure that foreigners compete on a fair basis with american companies.
But some people just love to gamble, and don't care that it was illegal, and don't care that the companies are stealing money from America and exporting it to foreign countries, and are taking advantage of our laws and our freedoms.
Charles Murray has been called many things, but "delusional liberal" is probably a first.
And you don't get the connection? Government regulates gambling. Maybe the shouldn't, but they do. If you are going to regulate gambling, you need to make sure you regulate it for everybody. The state lotteries don't want to compete with private enterprise, so governments regulate state-by-state what private gambling companies can do.
But the internet crosses state boundaries, so the U.S. LONG AGO made it illegal. But they haven't been able to control it, so they passed this law to cut off illegal payments to the companies running illegal gambling operations.
So be mad about government regulating gambling if you want, but don't attack the congress for simply making the playing field level given the current regulations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.