Yet another sad and embarassing day for the U.S.

The BBQ Pit
1

Fuck you Frist, you dumb motherfucker. Wait, also fuck you american public for being such dumb motherfuckers. These stupid christian fundamentalists are the biggest goddamn busybodies I’ve ever seen. Leave me the fuck alone already. I don’t tell you what to do or what is moral, how about trying the same? Stay the fuck away from me and I hope these slimeball right-wingers continue to use your dumbass for political gain. This whole country is crumbling anyway, so fuck it. Land of the free? LMAO.

Adding an online gambling restriction to a port bill? WTF?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060930/ap_on_go_co/ports_security;_ylt=AuJCLJPxG5jXE..vgVHQy0Ws0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OTB1amhuBHNlYwNtdHM-

2

You poor, deluded soul.

Do you seriously believe that Christian Fundamentalists or morality has anything to do with an online gambling provision being slipped into a sure-to-pass bill on another subject? Do you think that Congress really cares that much about the ethics of gambling that they would quietly and without publicity pass a measure restricting it for the pure reason that they believe it would improves the lives of the American public?

No, you dumb schmuck, this was snuck in at the behest of the big contributors of the bricks and mortar “gaming” industry. If they were doing this to piously pander to the Christian right, they would be shouting it from the rooftops and making speeches decrying the evils of gambling. This is an effort to make you go your local “riverboat” or Native American reservation to be taxed for being bad at math, rather than sitting on your ass and losing your money while in your underwear bathed by the pale light of your monitor.

3

Yes you are correct that the B&M casinos also had a hand in this. But they are not the only ones. Have you paid any attention to this or are you just talking out your ass? They ARE screaming from the rooftops about the evils of online gambling. One senator commented on the floor that with a click of a button you can lose your house. Yeah, no shit. And you can do that a million other ways too.

And as far as a tax on being bad at math? LMAO. I make my living because I am good at math and others are not. You my friend are a complete fucking moron. By the way I play poker and do not bet on any other shit. Congress should be ashamed for yet another despicable act.

4

Can someone explain how this bizarre piece of lawmaking works?

Adding irrelevant provisions to a bill about something completely different seems extremely odd. Why is it allowed to happen? Does it get debated? If the ports bill gets thrown out because of the gambling provision, does the ports bill get to be re-presented without the irrelevance?

5

It’s American politics as usual. It has to with the president not having the power of line-item veto, or being able to veto specific provisions of a bill. Under the U.S. Constitution, the president can only pass an entire bill or veto it. This lets many pet projects get sneaked into law by attaching them to another bill. Representatives look out for one another. One will introduce a bill and add another rep’s pet project to it, for which the second rep can deny responsibilty of it passing and another representative will return the favor. The President can, of course veto the bill, but AFAIK Bush has only used the veto once in his 5+ years in office. And of course, Congress has the power to over-ride vetoes. In June, the House of Representatives passed a bill, 247-172, to give the president a six year line-item veto power, but this has not yet been discussed in the Senate.

6

Eh, I should have explained that this kind of attachment to a bill is known as a rider. 'swhat I get for posting early in the morning. Wikipedia has an explanation of what a rider is.

7

Yes, but why does it exist? It strikes me as a strange anomoly for such a seemingly scrupulous democratic process.

8

No seriously, tell me another one :slight_smile:

9

Ummm…guys?

Get a grip for a minute.

One–I hate the Repubs like poison.

Two–this time, they’re right.

Yeah, I know, but even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.

In Bricks & Mortar gambling, the average player can watch for fraud in obvious ways. As can government gambling commissions at the State level. And ownership of a casino can be traced.

But online, nothing can be done about fraud. Creating a fixed gambling program of a simple kind is obviously easy. And a more subtle one can shift the odds on regular winners in a way that would rarely generate suspicions, & would be impossible to prove in court.

And anybody could own such a virtual casino; from Organized Crime to terrorists.

Plus, there’s no good way to tax it.

RL gambling is your business, nobody else’s. Online gambling really is a problem.

10

It is understood that Congress has the power to legislate, upon the jurisdiction assigned to it by the Constitution, in any manner convenient and necessary to accomplish the desired policy just as long as that does not contravene the explicit mandates or restrictions of the Constitution itself (including of course the binding interpretations thereof made by the Courts).

The Federal Constitution does** NOT ** contain the provision, present in those of many of the States and associated Territories, that “all bills except those pertaining to the budget shall attend but one subject, to be abstracted in a summary title, and may not be amended or appended in matters not germane to that subject”. Therefore Congress may pass multipurpose packaged bills if that’s what it takes to legislate.

BTW, regarding 2lazy2pee’s comment on the line-item veto – the line-item veto, in most States and Territories that have that legal procedure, applies to the striking of specific items containing appropriations. It does NOT grant governors the power to veto specific parts of policy texts.

[quote]
AN ACT TO EXPAND THE NUMBER OF LOCATIONS AND SCOPE OF SERVICES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PORK AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR SUCH PURPOSES:

Section 1. Starting the upcoming fiscal year, there shall be a service office of the Department of Pork in every municipal seat larger than 50,000 population, or at least one in every legislative district.

Section 2. Branch offices of the Department of Pork may be opened in any other location where the Secretary determines a need exists.

Section 3. The Department of Pork shall expand its services to include not only locations of pet projects in the several districts, but relocation of key personnel from district offices to the capitol offices of the legislators.

Section 4. There shall be an additional $1million budgeted to the Department of Pork to cover for hiring new personnel and renting space to accomplish this.

Section 5. There shall also be the following appropriations for various Department of Pork statewide programs for expenses related to this expansion:
a) $500K for planning and programming
b) $250K for public relations
c) $200K for snacks
d) $2.5M for legal fees

[quote]
My governor can (a) veto/pass the whole megillah; or, (b) completely strike all of Section 4 or Section 5 or any item(s) within Section 5; or (c) cut all or any of the money amounts in Sections 4 and 5 to a lower amount. He could not strike Section 1, 2 or 3 individually: the most he could do is starve the budget so they can’t be put in place. The reason for this is that the Exec is responsible for not going over budget, but he does not have the constitutional authority to rewrite statute at will.

11

So that this can happen

Senator Malcontent presents a bill allowing raw sewage from nuclear power plants to now be dumped underneath playgrounds as long as the toxic material is covered in saran wrap. Pretty much everyone opposes this plan, as they should.

Now Senator Miserly comes along and inserts an amendment or rider to this bill. It’s a proposal to give harsher punishments to those caught raping kittens. Won’t somebody think of the kittens?

Well now what’s Senator Protagonist to do? He can’t possibly oppose the kitten raping statute amendment. But now if he votes against the sewage bill he’s voting against the forced sodomization of felines as well. Senator Protagonist has an election coming up and he can’t afford attack ads to be run against him loudly stating “Senator Protagonist is soft on crime. In a recent bill he actively supported your pets being molested. Say NO to Senator Protagonist and send a message to Washington that pet raping is simply unacceptable.” Who’s going to look up the truth?

That’s just how politics works.

12

jjimm, it’s not quite the same as what we’re talking about here, but if you want to read a fascinating account of how “earmarks” are added to omnibus appropriations bills in the US Congress, and what this signifies about our legislative process, i highly recommend an article from the July 2005 Harper’s Magazine by Ken Silverstein, called “The Great American Pork Barrel: Washington Streamlines the Means of Corruption.” You can get a copy here (warning: 3.9Mb pdf).

It can be a difficult article to read, because you’re never quite sure whether to be open-mouthed in astonishment or clench-fisted with rage.

13

But given our diversified media channels, they’d probably restrict that shouting to “Christian” radio, TV, websites, etc. And those of us who never drop in on such channels wouldn’t hear a thing.

14

Don’t worry. Bush will attach a signing statement that says he can still gamble online. Maybe he will lose his house in one click.

15

I bet he’s mad! The predatory lenders paid well for first dibs on the house.

16

This is wrong.

First of all, online gambling should be legalized and regulated by the states. Second of all, it IS fairly easy to prove that the odds are falling the way they should. There are tens of thousands of people like me who play everyday and track every hand we play in a database. I could show you millions of hands that play out over the long term exactly like they should. If any site was adjusting the odds to allow the fish to win or lose at a higher rate than normal, we would know about it.

And regarding fraud in B&M casinos? You have no idea the kind of cheating and fraud goes on there. In fact it might be even easier to cheat in a real casino than a virtual one. Not to mention look what goes on in the stock market. Nothing could be more corrupt than that, well except of course the U.S. Congress.

17

Brilliant explanation. Gets the idea across more clearly than I was able to. I understand things a lot better than I explain them. I Pit myself for lacking good communications skills. :slight_smile:

18

Do you have a cite that online gambling is in fact fraught with fraud, to an extent greater than bricks-and-mortar casinos?

Most online gambling is through the most popular sites. What conceivable reason would they have to cheat? An expose would destroy the site.

And why is it hard to tax virtual casinos? It is also hard to tax other online businesses? Should they ban Amazon because you’re less likely to be ripped off by a bricks-and-mortar bookstore?

19

Financial profit.

Many original customers (not all) will be unconvinced of cheating, & keep playing at the site.

And if the site is “destroyed”, so what? A B&M casio with a destroyed rep from cheating still has to pay its overhead: the hotel, bar, insurance, etc. A Virtual Casino can be switched to another web addy, with a new name, & start all over, with the new customers all unaware.

Or combine the two–host two Virtual Casinos on your site–the old one for the customers who remain, & a new one with a different look. The old VC will do less business, & thus need less memory. The new Casino will build up customers until it is no longer cost effective to run the old casino. And you can use the customer list from the old casino to spam for customer for the new one.

Vitual casinos can be located overseas, making taxation/enforcement problematical. And Amazon has a very real B&M existance, in the form of a HQ building, packing facilities, & stock. An on-line gambling outfit need a computer, an internet connection, a rented office on the 4th floor (no elevator), a desk, two wooden chairs, and a guy named Frank.

Nope–but the conclusion is fairly obvious.

And nobody has even dared to touch on the organized crime issue.

20

Well, yeah; because it’s retarded alarmism with no basis in rationality whatsoever. Why are online companies so much more prone to this? What, in your opinion, is the defining characteristic of online gambling as a business that makes it more susceptible to organised crime (or even -gasp- terrorists) than any other? It’s clearly not the gambling aspect, since you have no problem with bricks’n’mortar gambling; and it’s clearly not the online aspect, as you have no problem interacting with us here without yelling about terrorists. So what is it?

It isn’t; at least to us mere mortals. Perhaps you could bless us with something resembling a fact? Funnily enough, large swathes of the rest of the world have been happily gambling online for some time now without the sky falling. It’s increased competition, cut margins, and allowed for more variety of products. No-one’s been blown up. So, against this rather large body of actual, factual ordinariness, we are expected to weigh your, erm, “intuition”? No thanks.