The morality police go after gambling

The BBQ Pit
1

60 Minutes featured a story last night about the on-line gambling phenomenon. About 5 years after it started. Oh well, better late than never.

My esteemed Senator, John Kyl, is trying to introduce legislation to essentially ban on-line gambling by preventing any U.S. bank or credit card company from doing business with such sites. I’m not sure how this really accomplishes anything–most on-line gambling sites don’t take credit cards anyway. I deposit from my bank account to Neteller, and then from Neteller to the site. But anyway.

Kyl is your typical hypocritical “conservative” douchebag, who wants smaller and less intrusive government, except in areas of personal morality, where bigger is better. He doesn’t like gambling, so no one else can gamble either. Well John, I don’t like you being the world’s biggest asswipe, but I’m not pressing for any laws banning senatorial asswipery.

Fortunately, Kyl has had no luck with this bill in the past, and will probably have none in the future. But on-line gambling is still technically sort of in a grey area–millions of Americans do it, sites advertise on TV, and yet they have to be careful to be based completely off shore lest they break some federal law that arguably applies to them.

I actually thought that the 60 Minutes story was very good, by which I mean heavily biased in favor of allowing on-line gambling, and essentially a 15 minute commercial for Party Poker, Paradise Poker, and Sporting Bet. I’m sure they appreciated that. So I wake up Monday morning thinking that the outlook for on-line gambling is good, and that the morality police may be getting less brazen in their bullshit attempts to selectively enforce nonsensical 100 year old laws.

Then I see this.

Sigh. New York police apparently have nothing better to do than shut down dozens of poker clubs that have been operating fairly openly for years. Another excellent use of taxpayer money to prosecute victimless crime and shove Puritanical morals down everyone else’s throat.

Go fuck yourselves morality police, unless there’s some 200 year old law against masturbation that you want to enforce as well.

2

In North Carolina, it’s the Democrats opposing gambling. Cite. Are these guys also douchebags and asswipes?

In Texas, proposals to legalize video slot machines at racetracks and create other casino-style gambling opportunities in Texas are being blocked by… Democrats. Cite. Please let me know how much you despise them.

Gambling in Maryland, favored by Republican Governor Robert Erlich, has been scuttled by opposition from Maryland Democrats. Cite. I know you will join me in condemning the Democrats for their asswipery and douchebagginess, and cheering the efforts of Republicans in this arena.

Right?

3

Man that hypocrisy schtick is growing tiresome.

4

The OP refers to “conservatives”, with the context making it clear that “*social * conservatives” are implied, not Republicans. They’re not synonymous.

Why are your first replies to a thread based on reflexive partisanship lately?

5

Well, Bricker, it would depend on whether the folks you point out have espoussed smaller government and less instrusion before we can determine if their petty meddling is comparable to Kyl’s. Regardless, we all appreciate your automatic tu quoque every time someone criticizes a Republican, Christian or other conservative of your liking. The distracting bit is getting tiresome, though.

6

I saw that story, and the best, the absolute best thing about it, was that about 3 minutes into the story, the local channel went to a split screen-so they could show the local lottery numbers being drawn.

KOMEDY GOLD!

7

In Bob Erlich’s case he very much does, I don’t know about the others though. Interesting that I haven’t yet heard any condemnation of the people Bricker mentioned, who are doing the exact same thing that the OP is railing against, yet I’m already seeing claims that his post is all just some partisan hatchet job. Hmmm. :dubious:

8

I worked for an online gambling outfit in Costa Rica for a little while. I did IT stuff.

The reason the place was in Costa Rica was that the US imposed some laws (sorry, don’t remember what they were) that caused the owner to move it down south. When I was down there, about three years ago, the US was putting alot of pressure on Costa Rica to enact similar laws banning credit card companies from doing business with gambling sites. The owner, who happened to be a really nice man and a well respected bookmaker, just said that he would just move to another country if that happened.

A large percentage of his customers paid using Western Union. The owner also had plans in case he had to dump credit cards because of laws like these and that was three years ago.

This isn’t going to stop online gambling. It’ll make it somewhat harder for the companies and their customers but in the long run it ain’t gonna do jack to stop it.

It will also have the effect of running the honest bookmakers/gambling sites out of business.

Slee

9

Ironically, your feeble attempt at exposing the OPs ‘partisan’ ship has done nothing except expose your own. I simple control+f search for either of the parties you mentioned quickly shows that you are the only one who brought partisanship into this, not him.

My guess is this foolishness is the knee-jerk reaction to this statement:

However, his assesment of the situation is 100% correct. Anyone who espouses bigger, more intrusive government is by no means a “conservative.” Party lines are meaningless.

10

Okay, fine, I condemn all those other people Bricker mentioned. But I’ll also pit Bricker for misrepresenting the situation. Look at his cite for Maryland, and look how he omitted the following:

The [Pennsylvania] legislation, which is backed by Democratic Gov. Edward G. Rendell, is expected to be voted on in June.

…

Mostly, progressive Democrats and African-Americans have led Maryland’s anti-gambling efforts. They are battling a pro-slots Republican governor who has the support of most legislators from his party.

In Pennsylvania, anti-gambling efforts have been led by Rep. Paul Clymer, a Republican from suburban Philadelphia who is drawing most of his support from conservative, white Republicans.

How about that NC story?

But in a chamber where Democrats hold the advantage with just a handful of votes, and Republicans appear uniformly opposed, at least five Senate Democrats say they still oppose a lottery, effectively blocking passage for now and setting the stage for some serious horse-trading.

Or Texas:

The Texas Republican Party is on record as strongly against gambling. State GOP Chairwoman Tina Benkiser is scheduled to speak at an anti-gambling rally at the Capitol today.

So yes, I join in pitting Democrats who oppose legalized gambling on moral grounds. But Bricker–shame on you essentially lying about the content of 3 different news stories just to get in a partisan jab.

11

We’ve got a morality problem with gambling? We someone to supervise the morality cops! How about … William Bennett?

12

The websites that advertise on TV are .net PokerStars.net, PartyPoker.net, etc. The .net sites are free. They almost always have a .com counterpart, PokerStars.com, PartyPoker.com, etc. These are the for money gaming sites.

Just a little distinction for people wondering how the evil gaming sites can advertise on TV.

13

Thing is, the US probably shouldn’t even be able to ban online gambling due to the WTO. Yes, I know, the US is massively hypocritical when it comes to the WTO and a decision against the US would probably have no effect, but there you are.

14

  1. Bite me.

  2. The OP inveighs against a legislator who “…doesn’t like gambling, so no one else can gamble either.” It is absolutely relevant to point out that other legislators are guilty of the same sin complained of by the OP, and wonder if the OP will be equally vituperative in chastising them. If someone steps up and says, “Yes, by all means, the Democrats you mention are also douchbags,” then all is good - or at least consistent. But if someone is willing to lambast a Republican for seeking to ban gambling, but NOT criticize a Democrat, then it seems fair to suggest that it’s not solely the merits of the issue that are driving the critique.

Right?

This, then, is NOT a “tu quoque.” You shouldn’t try to use fancy Latin phrases you don’t understand.

  1. As I have made plain many times on these boards, I myself am a gambler. I certainly oppose any attempt to criminalize gambling. But I am willing to criticize members of both major political parties equally for their asshattery in this regard.
15

And again you skirt the issue. Let me explain more clearly: You are the only one who has introduced partisanship to this issue. Your accusations hold no water.

He used the phrase perfectly.

16

First, thanks for joining me in the harsh criticism of politicians of any stripe who wish to ban gambling. I am pleased to hear that criticism.

But I completely disagree that I misrepresented anything. The whole point of my cites was to identify groups of Democrats that opposed gambling. There was no need to identify Republicans; the OP made it clear that they existed. I suppose I could have identified the Democrats that were in favor of gambling, for completeness’ sake, but they weren’t really relevant to my point. I trust no reader felt that I was claiming every Democrat opposed gambling.

17

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Conservativism has traditionally been a type of libertarianism, which believed in minimal government intrusion. This reaks of hypocrisy, but that has become typical of modern conservatism. Smaller government in all areas except morality.

18

The OP also pitted NYC. Did NYC become some hotbed of conservative Republican activity when I wasn’t looking? It’s not as if the OP didn’t take a jab at a traditionally liberal locale either.

As to the issue, I don’t really care one way or another if gambling is legalized or not. I do think that anyone who supports any form of gambling (such as state lotteries or horse-tracks) and is against online gambling is a hypocrite.

19

No, I’m not. The OP could have simply railed against the actions of Senator Kyl. But he did not. He included a description of Kyl as a conservative, and suggested that it was Kyl’s conservative political outlook that drove his opposition to gambling. In case you’re unable to read the OP for some bizarre reason, let me remind you of the pertinent phrase:

Now, that clearly introduces partisanship to the discussion. My post responded to that charge by pointing out that Democrats, who we presume are NOT “…hypocritical ‘conservative’ douchebag[s]” also oppose gambling.

No. He did not.

The fallacy of tu quoque is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, and it occurs when the listener is told that the rhetor does not practice what he preaches. Cite.

My post did not suggest the OP doesn’t practice what he preaches. It questioned whether the OP was willing to extend the ire he preached against conservatives who seek to ban gambling and level it against liberals who seek to ban gambling. In other words, it sought to determine if the criticism arose solely from the politician’s attack on gambling, or whether there was an undeveloped secondary leg of the attack that depended on the target being conservative.

For example, the OP could have responded, “My gripe is not with banning gambling at all. I object to the hypocrisy of a conservative banning gambling. I expect a liberal, who wants to see government control, to be in favor of banning gambling.”

If you believe my post represented a tu quoque argument, then identify precisely what behavior I accuse the OP of preaching but not practicing.

20

The world would be a better place if high school debate were a required course.