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 ...
And then what? Whoops, that straw man again...
Don't get me wrong, I was as po'd as anyone about that incident. But, hindsight being 20/20, it's not just understandable, but admirable that 4 months into his administration, the President declined to be suckered by a half-baked affront.
Was it humiliating. Yes, I suppose-- the way dogsh!t on the sole of a shoe is humiliating-- but nothing a little soap and water won't remedy.
True we may have to confront the Chi-coms, say on Taiwan. But in the meantime, as Lincoln remarked "one war at a time."
By the way, if you can demonstrate to me that W has conceded an inch on his promise to stand by Taiwan, you win.
Tom
I have met a person who plays online poker and who explained how it works.
I have no interest in such games but I asked this poker player what would prevent two or more persons who know each other to logon to an internet poker game and sit at the same table while talking on the phone to each other unbeknownst to other players? And in so doing these players could cheat the other players by passing information over a phone line during the game.
He said that would be illegal. And then he appeared chagrined that I had pointed out a weakness in the online gambling model. Because without seeing your opponents, they could very well be talking about what they have in order to use that information to cheat.
The same carries over to BlackJack or any game where a player has information that is possible to shield.
And lastly in a game such as Craps or Roulette, the 'House' can program the online game to be in their favor.
The entire idea of online gambling smacks of an opportunity for major fraud.
The dots are the Indian Casino operators, and the ilk that bribe, oops, I mean "lobby", Congress on their behalf such as Jack Abramoff.
All these games are different in that the gambling site has a financial incentive to cheat. They could skew the cards or dice programs to give them as little as a 1/2 of 1% larger advantage and clean up. However, these sites are tracked so they can't get away with anything real blatant. The point, though, is that these games are different from poker. The site makes exactly the same amount in a poker game no matter who wins. They have no interest in making a particular customer lose, since it only benefits other customers, as opposed to benefiting themselves with those other games. I did a fair amount of research on this sort of thing before I started to play serious online poker - let me know if I can answer any other questions or clarify the above - I know this has been kind of a ramble...
Over the past 25+ years I have lived in all three districts and, I'm hesitant to admit, have voted for all three candidates.
When I lived in SF and was in my pro-environment stage I voted for Udall for something (I forget what). Then I realized the environmentalists, especially the Sierra Club, were more interested in power than saving the environment. With them and the other SF groups it was all about stopping development everywhere and by any means. They have almost completely eliminated natural resource jobs in this state except for oil and gas and they are trying to stop that too. Of course, they have no conception that eliminating these good paying jobs only leaves low paying service jobs and keeps folks depending on the government for assistance in meeting basic needs (food stamps and health care). It gives the elites power and overtaxes those still providing real economic development and wealth.
I voted for Heather before I moved to the oil patch. Yeah, she is "moderate" and can be a RINO sometimes, but on the whole she is o.k. Strong on national defense and understands the use of intelligence in preventing terrorism. She is right for the district she is in ... ABQ with it's high Hispanic population and military retirees. Comments on the NM local board by at least one FReeper show ambivalence in the race. But ambivalence by Pubbies in this election will lead to a Pelosi-led house that will cause us to lose much of what we have gained especially in tax cuts. And gaining a seat back after losing it to the other party is always extremely difficult.
And of course, Steave Pearce is doing a great job here in District Two. A conservative with our values. He should win re-election easily.
#5 bookmark
I really like Steve Pearce. As you know, he replaced Joe Skeen when he retired. CD-2 seems to have had great representation all along.
What straw man? THEN I'd have followed through if the Chinese didn't give us back our soldiers and our plane. How is that a straw man?
"Don't get me wrong, I was as po'd as anyone about that incident. But, hindsight being 20/20, it's not just understandable, but admirable that 4 months into his administration, the President declined to be suckered by a half-baked affront."
Nothing half-baked about it. We lost face on the world scene, and we 'suckered' ourselves into ignoring it because the other options might have seemed dangerous. We should have recognized that ALL the options were dangerous. I don't recall a whole lot of public outcry back then about how this would lead to trouble because the U.S. would seem weak, but it sure reinforced those who already believed us a paper tiger.
"Was it humiliating. Yes, I suppose-- the way dogsh!t on the sole of a shoe is humiliating-- but nothing a little soap and water won't remedy."
Excuse me, wtf? What soap and water will whitewash outright appeasement? "Peace in our time" are still dirty words to most people.
"True we may have to confront the Chi-coms, say on Taiwan. But in the meantime, as Lincoln remarked 'one war at a time.'"
Why are we hellbent on making sure it's on the Chinese timetable?
"By the way, if you can demonstrate to me that W has conceded an inch on his promise to stand by Taiwan, you win."
I wish. The problem is I don't win either way. If you concede, I'm right that W knuckled under to China. If you don't concede, I'm still right that W knuckled under to China, and I have you butting heads against reality, too. Whether W has 'conceded an inch' on his paper promise to defend Taiwan is irrelevant.
The only people who care intensely are the social conservative base that Frist craves. They will be happy about this, and they vote. On the other hand, nobody on the other side votes.
"It's true - I missed it. So you have described why you don't think this will hurt him. I don't agree, but say you're right and there's no backlash against him. I still don't understand why this is a "good bet." What's the upside? Doesn't there have to be a promise of a gain for a bet to be good? Or are we talking about all the American casino money Frist is certainly benefitting from..."
The only people who care intensely are the social conservative base that Frist craves. They will be happy about this, and they vote. On the other hand, nobody on the other side votes. Supposedly, the domestic casinos weren't really happy about this, either, because it's a market they can't capture anyway, and had hope for given the future conglomeration of the online gambling market.
"I will also say that playing poker is much more difficult to get around for gamblers than sports betting which only involves a better and a bookie. Poker involves many many players, and for a site to be successful, they must continue to sign up new players all the time. Underground sites won't be able to do this like sports betting sites..."
Remember, this is only about American banks transferring funds to offshore gambling sites. Nothing stops Americans from opening foreign accounts in legitimate foreign banks (British, for example), transferring funds to gambling sites from the foreign bank, then gambling all they want. It isn't such a big deal.
The reason was very simple and one not mentioned in this article. Most of the online gaming is offshore and I've read the government had some proof it was helping fund terrorist groups. Good reason IMO to ban it.
You read? Where?
If there was a problem with these sites funding terrorism Frist should have stood up before the American people in the Senate and shown his proof. Instead, he slipped it into a bill in the middle of the night and it passed with no review. Sorry, that doesn't sound to me like fighting terrorism, that sounds like getting a pet piece of legislation passed with no discussion and no debate.
Money laundering and "problem gaming" are the two reasons most often cited in support of a prohibition on Internet gambling.19 Money laundering became a prime issue when Rep. Leach introduced a similar prohibition of Internet gambling that was included in early drafts of the USA Patriot Act.20 In order to connect the gambling prohibition to the post-September 11th anti-terrorism legislation, Rep. Leach and his supporters argued that Internet gambling provided a forum for terrorists to launder money.21 This position was criticized when no evidence was produced to show that there was any connection between online gambling and the funding of terrorist cells, and the measure was dropped from the final draft of the USA Patriot Act.22 Still, this history remains embedded in the language of the Leach Bill as an observation: "Internet gambling conducted through offshore jurisdictions has been identified by United States law enforcement officials as a significant money laundering vulnerability."23
¶6 Second, supporters of the bill argue that Internet gambling amplifies what is known in the industry as "problem gaming."24 In brick-and-mortar gambling establishments, safeguards against gambling addiction and underage gambling have been established. Online gamblers remain anonymous and often use credit cards when placing bets. Addicted players can lose a life savings or create thousands of dollars of debt without leaving their home. The Internet Gambling Enforcement Act addresses problem gaming over the Internet by eliminating common paths where money might flow from the gambler to the Internet site.
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2003dltr0016.html
Rep. Leach and his supporters argued that Internet gambling provided a forum for terrorists to launder money.21 This position was criticized when no evidence was produced to show that there was any connection between online gambling and the funding of terrorist cells, and the measure was dropped from the final draft of the USA Patriot Act.22
There you go. Thanks for proving my point. Evidence is usually required when you make a claim and there is none.
Although I haven't read any of your other posts, because you're so negative about the GOP in your post, are you a registered Democrat?
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.