| reply to Go Tarheels
Re: The ISP's aren't going to do anything So just what constituancy are they trying to impress then? |
|
 major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA | said by S_engineer:So just what constituancy are they trying to impress then? The bible thumping fundies who want to impose their morality on everyone else, of course. There isn't a shortage of opportunistic politicians willing to grandstand for moralistic bullshit outrage among the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do religious nutjobs. |
|
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | said by major marco:said by S_engineer:So just what constituancy are they trying to impress then? The bible thumping fundies who want to impose their morality on everyone else, of course. There isn't a shortage of opportunistic politicians willing to grandstand for moralistic bullshit outrage among the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do religious nutjobs. If that were true, I doubt the state would be so heavily involved in gambling itself by way of the lottery. This was an action by an unelected bureaucrat (not an "opportunistic politician) that was more likely aimed at protecting existing gambling operations from competition. |
|
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer:So just what constituancy are they trying to impress then? I suspect it's aimed primarily at impressing the folks at Canterbury Park (legal horse track with poker room) and the various Indian casinos.
As an example- Canterbury shut down once before due to financial reasons; if they were to go broke, that's less work (thus less headcount and influence) for the Director of Alcohol and Gambling enforcement. If he could boost their business by getting rid of online poker, his department becomes that much more necessary. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to S_engineer
None. The democrat part has started to become a self serving rogue group of idealists who are trying to create a perfect Utopian world in their own image. (As Nancy Pelosi coined on her own by saying "I'm just trying to save the world") The pendulum does swing both ways in this country, however, when ever it swings one way hard to one side, it's BOUND to swing even hard back the other direction such as it is now. It usually seems that anytime one party goes for a power grab and the people vote them out, the other side takes it as a "mandate" that it was really their "ideals" that people voted for. Just as in the case of Bill Clinton being voted in, it was really GH W Bush being voted out.
The dems in MN are almost just as bad as the are in San Francisco. Both parties simply need to release their claws from people's lives and realize that people are stupid. We have a fundamental right (for those of you who are right wingers) to fail and screw up. |
|
|
|
major marcoRes Firma Mitescere NescitPremium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
1 edit | reply to dynodb
said by dynodb:I doubt the state would be so heavily involved in gambling itself by way of the lottery. Hypocrisy knows no socio-economic limitations.The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is also heavily involved in gambling, as in State Lottery, and their legislative body outlaws gambling in any other capacity but for allowing residents to purchase that state lottery card.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
|
|
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | It is hypocrisy; however I see no evidence to support your contention that gambling restrictions exist to placate the religious right.
States with commercial, privately owned, non-Indian casinos include states such as Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Mississippi, South Dakota and (ahem) Pennsylvania. Minnesota has legal horse race gambling and poker in a politically conservative suburb 30 min south of Minneapolis.
If "bible thumping fundies" and "religious nutjobs" were the source of gambling restrictions as you stated, I seriously doubt that such states would have chosen to allow casino gambling on top of state lotteries. |
|
 nipseyrusselNipsey Russell, yo
join:2002-02-22
Philadelphia, PA | reply to major marco
said by major marco:The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is also heavily involved in gambling, as in State Lottery, and their legislative body outlaws gambling in any other capacity but for allowing residents to purchase that state lottery card. you mean except for the existing and pending casinos? |
|
 fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:13
Bright House Netwo..
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
| reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer:So just what constituancy are they trying to impress then? The same constituency that the 2006 Federal Law tried to impress: »www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/a···006.html
quote:
On October 13, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the UIGEA. Senator Bill Frist (R-Tenn) attached the legislation to an unrelated port-security bill just moments before it was voted on. The UIGEA’s unexpected enactment created industry hysteria. Stock prices of publicly-traded e-casinos plummeted, wiping out over approximately seven billion dollars of market value. Some of the most prominent e-casinos pulled out of the U.S. market entirely. Since then, the mass media has churned out wide-ranging commentary on the Act; from complete dismissals of its viability to comparisons with Prohibition.
quote:
Beginning in the mid-90s, several bills were introduced in Congress to crack down on Internet gambling. One such bill would have amended the Wire Act to expressly ban all forms of Internet gambling. Other bills focused on preventing credit card companies and other financial institutions from transferring money in connection with gambling deemed unlawful under existing federal or state law. The bills were defeated largely because of disputes over whether interactive interstate horseracing and interactive state lotteries--huge lobbying interests--would be exempt.
¶ The Department of Justice ("DOJ") also took a hard stance against online gambling, relying primarily on a questionable theory that the Wire Act, as originally enacted in 1961, criminalized all forms of Internet gambling. In 2003, the DOJ issued letters to the National Association of Broadcasters and other media groups advising that providing advertising for e-casinos may be considered aiding or abetting illegal gambling operations.42 Months later, dozens of major media companies were issued subpoenas
|
|
| reply to S_engineer
Indian gaming! That's where the money is and comes from. |
|
