×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Online Gambling Not Banned Yet

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the bet-while-you-can dept.

237

For the moment, the rush to legislate the ban on online gambling has been slowed. Senator John Warner, (R) from Virginia, has refused to allow a ban on online gambling to be tacked onto an upcoming defense bill. Opponents of online gambling were hoping to tack their measure on to a "must pass" bill but will apparently be forced to delay. Congress recesses in one week, giving only a few days left if this measure is to be passed before the November 7th elections.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

237 comments

lame (1)

ak3ldama (554026) | more than 7 years ago | (#16214665)

i wish they would give up or just legalize it. online gambling really isn't a problem, just like online sales of goods isn't a problem to walmart or best buy.

Re:lame (5, Interesting)

JavaBrain (920722) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223317)

My understanding is that online gambling can never be fair, since multiple PC's can be used to play networked games at the same table (in poker, for example) sharing their cards with each other and improving their odds over the "honest" players.

So yes I think that is a problem.

Re:lame (4, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223337)

The players are adequately warned. They know the risks and they still want to play. It's not for the government to make their decision for them.

Re:lame (4, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223367)

And when thats discovered, accounts get banned. In real casinos, people play as teams and communicate with each other through codes or just by avoiding each other and splitting profits later. Its no more risky online.

Re:lame (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16223409)

But won't you think of the children?!??!!?

MY GOD, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!??!?!?!

Please, nanny government, please make my decisions for me because I'm a complete and utter retard and can't make them on my own.

Re:lame (3, Insightful)

LocalH (28506) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224481)

/. needs a (+1, Sarcasm) mod. It looks foolish to call the parent "insightful".

Re:lame (5, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223663)

I doubt the proposed ban of online gambling has anything to do with bots. I'm sure it has more to do with collecting money. It's very hard (or impossible) to tax.

Re:lame (1)

Jason1729 (561790) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223791)

I'm sure it has more to do with collecting money. It's very hard (or impossible) to tax.

So? When I buy things overseas like electronics parts It's not taxed because it's very hard (or impossible) to tax it.

Re:lame (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223921)

Items transported overseas often have tarrifs. So the government still gets their cut even though you don't see a tax. Besides, the US economy would collapse as it stands now if the government were to ban all international trade.

Re:lame (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224273)

Apparently your senders aren't familiar with "gift". No tariff on $0.

Well, sure, it's illegal, but so is speeding - that hardly stops people.

Re:lame (1, Informative)

senatorpjt (709879) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224121)

Honestly, in all seriousness here, I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that Jesus didn't play poker.

You gotta remember (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223459)

i wish they would give up or just legalize it. online gambling really isn't a problem, just like online sales of goods isn't a problem to walmart or best buy.

Several states have deals where they get a cut of Indian Casinos and the other privately run casinos. Even Las Vegas is feeling the pinch from the competition of the spread of brick and mortar (albeit well lit bricks and glittery mortar) casinos throughout the USA and thus great giveaways aren't what they used to be as Vegas repositions itself as a destination for the family (what a sordid thought that is, but they really are!) along with conventions.

If I could be anywhere in the world and bet on 888.com or any other site, who gets a cut? There's multiple special interests at work and the online community isn't quite as strongly represented, to say nothing of the people's own personal wishes. I dare Washington to make it a Fall referendum.

What is it with tacking things onto bills? (5, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223265)

Surely that's a big bloody hole in the legislative system.. why don't they patch it?

It's just crazy.

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (4, Funny)

Cylix (55374) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223325)

It's a feature, not a bug!

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16223373)

I wish that were a joke.

The truth is, legislators WANT the ability to completely change the nature of bills. On the one hand, they can add pork/junk to "important" bills; on the other hand, if they add something that a rival (other party) finds objectionable to a bill that otherwise follows the other party's line (e.g. an anti-abortion rider on a medicare funding bill), they can say that any (democrat/republican) that voted against such a bill is "soft on crime/lying about priorities/etc" and people buy it.. because most people don't read the bills.

Incidentally, the captcha for this is somehow apt; bumble.

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224309)

I just wish that was obvious. Nobody seems to realize that a line-veto would fix half the problems of the country, but all of the asshole politicians don't want it specifically so they can keep pushing their agendas in the way you noted. Don't get me wrong, not *all* politicians are assholes - come to mention it, you really only hear about the ones that aren't - like this guy - because they did something that was actually for the good of the people, even if it meant voting against something that should otherwise be passed (or, shouldn't have, but was completely irrelavent anyways, and voted it down on that principle alone).

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (5, Informative)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223463)

It's meant to be a balance issue, so that a minority party can theoretically attach things they want to bills the majority "must pass." In reality, its gets used for this kind of moralistic bullshit, and for sneaky atrocity like attaching "Dump Nuclear Waste in Lake Michigan" to bills entitled "People Shouldn't Molest Babies."

Ultimately, I'd argue that its an ineffective band-aid on the cancerous sore that is our winner-take-all legislative system. We desperately need to have proportional represention. Like, you know, every free nation on Earth. But the powers that be are too entrenched in the two party system.

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223683)

Like, you know, every free nation on Earth.

You mean all those nations that don't have a Bill of Rights?

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16223865)

You think he's a FAG!!! check out this FAG!!! [blogspot.com]. He's a SELF hating NIGGER jew.

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16224445)

which is better, a meaningless piece of paper everyone ignores, or no piece of paper?

Try quantifying your freedom in terms of your actual practical freedom, rather than by the number of worthless documents you've produced.

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (1)

O'Laochdha (962474) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223929)

Well, that's what this "moralistic bullshit" is: it's a minority party attaching things to a "must pass" bill. It's just not an organized party. They know that the bill couldn't pass on its own, so they attach it to a bill that's certain to. How is that different from any other minority agendum attached to such a bill?

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (3, Insightful)

jackbird (721605) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223939)

Right, because in proportional systems, fringe parties never hold the mainstream hostage when it's time to form a government or elect a PM.

Poison Pills: just what the doctor ordered. (2, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224157)

I agree with you; I think our political system is in desperate need of reform, and not just a few simple Band-Aids.

However, with the current two-party structure, riders do serve a semi-legitimate, or at least useful, purpose: they provide a way for a minority to torpedo a bill that really shouldn't get passed, preventing a "tyranny of the majority." It doesn't prevent a 'tyranny of the super-majority,' because riders can be defeated through parliamentary procedure, but that's democracy for you.

It's important when we look at legal procedure, that we don't "streamline" the system too much: sometimes, things that look like terribly stupid ideas (and probably are), are the only things holding back a torrent of terrible legislation. Riders are a double-edged sword in this way; they allow a minority to get things passed that otherwise wouldn't have enough votes -- an obviously undemocratic outcome, and prone to abuse -- but it also works as a blocking maneuver. Sometimes, it can be possible to stop a legislative juggernaut by attaching an impossible-to-pass rider.

Removing something like this, particularly in the current atmosphere, where other safeguards like filibusters are also on the block, could potentially be disastrous. It could lead to seesaw legislation, with each successive Congress undoing the one before it and then going further in the opposite direction, without any way to stop it. In physics terms, filibusters and poison-pill riders act as drag or friction on a pendulum, which is constantly having energy put into it. Were it not for these outlets, the whole thing could easily oscillate out of control.

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (1)

alexo (9335) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224491)


We desperately need to have proportional representation. Like, you know, every free nation on Earth.

I knew it, Canada is not "free".

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (4, Informative)

Aeron65432 (805385) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223515)

Actually, they attempted to watch it once with the Line Item Veto Act [wikipedia.org] which gave the President authority to go through a bill and veto individual parts, part of the "Balanced Budget Act of 1997". The idea was to get pork barrel spending and these kind of riders out of important legislation. Ie- Bush could hypothetically have vetoed the online-gambling ban even if it was in a military appropriations bill. It was struck down in Federal court as unconstitutional.


Amusingly enough, the first senator to complain was Mr. Robert Byrd [wikipedia.org] who is notorious for being one of the worst for pork barrel spending [wikipedia.org]

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (4, Interesting)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223689)

what we really need is a single subject law, so any bill may only refer to one subject, any passed with multiple subjects would be considered void and must pass again as single parts

So... (1)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224331)

...who gets to decide what is outside the subject?

Congress right?

Next idea please.

Re:So... (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224477)

a court case, the point is that a law could be challenged under the new law then thrown out by the courts as improperly passed

not perfect, but a hell of a lot better than being allowed to add the "rape babies legalization act" to the "continue paying our soldiers act" then screaming at the opposition for wanting to rip off our soldiers

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (1)

Zebai (979227) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224283)

It is apparently ncessary that we push another amendment then. The only way to bypass our bribed judges is to actually change the constitution itself.

Unfortunetly I don't see this happening unless some bill that effects republican fund raising gets attached to a rider that they need line item veto in order to kill it.

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (1)

Mike89 (1006497) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223571)

I remember on The Simpsons when Lionel Hutz did it for Lisa (AFAIK), and thinking Gee, that's a stupid system. Didn't know it actually happened like that..

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (1)

Talian (746379) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223573)

Yes, that's the best question yet. Any of you legal eagles know of a proposed law to eliminate riders? And if not, who's in a tight election who needs some "motivation".

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (4, Insightful)

Pichu0102 (916292) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223631)

Even better, tack something onto another must pass bill that says no riders whatsoever.
Then wait for the people in Congress to take a while scratching their heads about that one.

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (3, Funny)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223639)

I've always thought that American legislators were bored... I mean, if you're just going to vote on stuff, pass laws... BORING. So they decided to spice it up. Put in a few rules to turn the whole thing into a strategy game.

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16224151)

In West Virginia, as retarded, broken and corrupt as our political system may be, we have one good rule: an amendment must be "germane to the bill," meaning related to the subject it addresses. This is of course subject to the judgment of the Speaker of the House or President of the Senate, so it's not rock-solid, but it cuts down on the ridiculous crap you mention.

walking the line (3, Insightful)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223277)

For the moment, the rush to legislate the ban on online gambling has been slowed. Senator John Warner, (R) from Virginia, has refused to allow the banning of online gambling to be tacked on to an upcoming defense bill.

What I don't "get" is that if they do eventually ban online gambling, what is the legal status of games like Second Life, which allow gambling in-world (in Linden Dollars, which you can then convert to US Dollars)? How will it even be possible to police that sort of thing given the open-ended nature of the game?

Re:walking the line (1)

Unknown_monkey (938642) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223353)

Thank you for pointing this hole out to them. Now they'll ban even the random rolls in online games because people use those random rolls for gambling too.

Re:walking the line (1)

8ball629 (963244) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223647)

You can't honestly believe that politicians read /. can you? They're too stupid and plus, the internet is bad. Mmmmmkay?

Re:walking the line (3, Funny)

bcat24 (914105) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223773)

I doubt many of "them" could even get to Slashdot anyway. The tubes are pretty clogged-up these days, you know.

Re:walking the line (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223395)

they will just use the other legal law to get rid of that while not say it gambling. aka tax laws, Marc Bragg lawsuit and other things that are not under gambling laws.

Re:walking the line (1)

Secrity (742221) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223623)

I am not sure that it would be actively policed as a violation of gambling laws. If it ever showed up on politicians' radar, they could make it illegal to convert virtual currency, such as Linden Dollars, into real money. I'm not saying that such laws would be effective ....

Man, I just won $240 today (2, Interesting)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223297)

I play poker, but I'm not using my own money. I bankrolled money from a freeroll. Now I am freerolling my way up the stakes ladder. If they ban online gambling, I'll have to get a Swiss Bank account or something.

Second Life (-1, Redundant)

Tekoneiric (590239) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223299)

I wonder how a online gambling ban would affect gambling in Second Life since users can exchange SL$s for US$s.

This isn't about competition. . it's about control (1)

Salgak1 (20136) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223311)

. . .because someone, somewhere might just be enjoying themselves, and certain portions of the population don't happen to approve of that kind of fun. . .

Re:This isn't about competition. . it's about cont (1)

Denyer (717613) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223341)

Many do, they just want it to take place somewhere they can take their cut.

Re:This isn't about competition. . it's about cont (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223369)

If that were the case they'd be introducing new tax laws. No, this is a "my mother lost a fortune betting online, it must be banned!" reaction.

Re:This isn't about competition. . it's about cont (1)

Denyer (717613) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223441)

How much would you want to bet (pun intended) that a move to limit online gambling isn't sponsored by brick-and-mortar casinos?

Re:This isn't about competition. . it's about cont (1)

retzkek (1002769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223725)

No question about it. Take the Washington state online gambling ban [slashdot.org] passed a couple months ago. The sponsor of that bill, state Senator Margarita Prentice, had her hands in all kinds of casino pots [seattleweekly.com]:
Last November, a full three years before her expected re-election bid, Prentice received $2,700 from David Barnett and his wife, Christine. Barnett is tribal chair of the Cowlitz tribe, an Indian nation that is slated to construct a new casino in La Center, which would easily cater to the casino-free Portland market. Prentice also got another $1,175 from the Washington Indian Gaming Commission, a lobbying group, and two lobbyists who represent Indian interests. Combined, the two sets of contributions are about 20 percent of the $22,000 she has raised so far for her 2008 race. Within four months of Prentice receiving those contributions, her online gambling ban bill raced through both houses of the Legislature with little opposition and no press attention. In 2004, Prentice got almost $9,000 from gambling interests.

Re:This isn't about competition. . it's about cont (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223731)

Initially I thought the same thing. But it turns out attendance at live poker in casinos as at an all time high. Plus a lot more people are entering live tournaments after they get into gambling online. The big online gamblings sites let you win entry to live tournaments and often have meetups at casinos. I think casinos already see the benefit to their bottom line.

Re:This isn't about competition. . it's about cont (1)

Frogbert (589961) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223699)

Reminds me of a quote I found quite funny.

A Puritan is someone who is deathly afraid that someone, somewhere, is having fun.

Gotta love (2, Insightful)

djuuss (854954) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223339)

.. democracy.

Can't get a law to pass? Attach it to one that will!

To be fair, it is indeed a last resort. This bill can't be passed because of casino owners lobbying against it, so the fact that it doesn't pass also has little to do with democracy.
I feel this is just another example of why the US needs to take a good hard look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy [wikipedia.org] and compare it to the system theyre currently using.

Then again, /. democracy means this post will get slapped with -1 flamebait. Yay to free speach!

Re:Gotta love (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223385)

Casino owners in the US are lobbying *for* the bill- they think fewer online players=more offline players. In a real democracy a law like this wouldn't pass- the vast majority of people don't care about online gambling, and a hell of a lot of people do it.

Re:Gotta love (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223421)

no they want to have there name on the web sites as good us casion web site = more players that are willing spend money on it.

Re:Gotta love (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224135)

Oh, no doubt that a US casino online would make good money. Hell, I'd use it. But its *already* illegal to run a casino online. This bill would make it illegal to *gamble* online. Casinos want this, to force players into normal casinos.

Re:Gotta love (1)

Best ID Ever! (712255) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224371)

1. The bill doesn't make it illegal to gamble online. It makes it illegal for credit card companies and banks to allow offshore gambling transactions.

2. The American Gaming Association is opposed to the legislation. Online gaming, especially online poker, is driving people to the casinos in record numbers.

Re:Gotta love (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223909)

He refused to cave to the Bush administration on torture.

Except in the end, he did.

The "anti-torture" bill that was passed still does away with protections of habius corpus and Geneva at the discretion of the President. Plus it still retroactively gives immunity to the folks who might have tortured and (more importantly) the folks who ordered the torture be done. About the only thing it does is to make sure Congress knows about it, too. Real moral "high ground" there. Too bad it's going to get a lot more of our service members tortured after capture in retribution and give the terrorist networks even more recruiting fodder.

Better idea.... (1, Flamebait)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223359)

Stop attaching TOTALLY unrelated shitty riders to bills. How about that?

Let's attach this here rider that rewards one of my biggest constituents to a bill that .. oh I don't know.... gives more financial assistance to the families of firemen and policement killed in 9/11. There's a special place in hell for congressmen who pull that.

No doubt that the U.S. ** IS ** the greatest democracy ever, but it has some serious shortcomings in this area. (And yes, regardless of our horrible directions we've taken these last six years, American government DOES correct itself.. eventually).

The US is not a Democracy (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223425)

The United States is not and was never intended to be a democracy. It is a Republic, which is quite diffrend from a Democracy. http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvs dem.htm [chrononhotonthologos.com] http://www.ahherald.com/bishop/020228_democracy.ht m [ahherald.com]

Re:The US is not a Democracy (2, Interesting)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223727)

Part of the problem some of us have with the idea of 'A Democracy' is that government should not be far reaching. Basically, government should be limited in scope, and a lot of society and social constructs should be untouched by government. Making a country a 'Democracy' implies that people vote on all sorts of issues about everything. In particular, they vote on issues that some of us feel goverment should not intrude.

There are a class of people who are really into government. Let's call them politicians. Some are 'left' and some are 'right.' They want government meddling in all kinds of areas where it's unnecessary for goverment to be. The notion of 'Democracy' as decried by some of these people implies that we should all do a lot more voting on a lot more topics. Which is the opposite of a 'mind your own business' philosophy.

Did you know that one of the first coins minted by the new US Goverment in the late eighteenth century has the legend 'Mind Your Business' printed right on it?

Re:The US is not a Democracy (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223855)

The US is a liberal democracy. It's also a federal republic. Read up on it and get over it.

Re:The US is not a Democracy (1)

O'Laochdha (962474) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223897)

Actually, it's a democratic republic. A republic is just a government that acknowledges the humanity of its subjects - The Republic was philosophocratic. There were no elections there. In the US, and most other modern "republics," the leaders are elected by no one in particular, so it is a democratic republic.

Re:The US is not a Democracy (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224081)

In a democratic republic, the people vote directly for a 'leader', one person one vote. In the United States they do not. They vote for an unknown faceless group of people, The Electorial College, who then vote for the leader. The Electorial College, was implimented by the founding fathers because they felt the public was not educated enough, not of the right class really, to be trusted to vote for the best leader. Recent Electoral College choices it seems have proven them wrong.

Re:The US is not a Democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16224191)

The Electoral College is there to prevent regionalization of votes. Without the Electoral College, candidates could only campaign in large cities and populous states to gain a majority of the votes. People in less dense populations would, in a sense, have no representation. California, Texas and New York would be able to elect the President and the rest of the states would not be able to do anything about it.

Re:Better idea.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16223717)

And yes, regardless of our horrible directions we've taken these last six years, American government DOES correct itself.. eventually

Oh? That's odd, I remember when the Clinton adminitstration was busy with a democrat-based congress adding guns and ammunition bans as riders to funding to the disabled vets... were you bitching on that day? Or does the second amendment not count as a "real" right in your mind?

Re:Better idea.... (1)

Xiroth (917768) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224031)

That's wierd. I've always thought of the US system as a terrible example for emerging democracies - with a president whose powers were modelled on a monarch, a electoral system which has been proven to be mathematically almost the worst possible, and a political system whose flaws are continually patched over rather than properly fixed, the American system is certainly beginning to show its age. This is a side-effect of it being one of the oldest democracies on the globe, and it's only because they had the American mistakes to learn from that other countries produced a better system, but I would certainly not say that the US has the greatest democractic system in the modern world.

WHY was this modded Flamebait? (1)

Were-Rabbit (959205) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224169)

Wait a minute. Why was the parent post modded as "flamebait"? It's exactly the opposite.

Attaching unrelated riders to "must pass" bills is appalling. It's absolutely staggering that my fellow Americans have allowed our do-nothing-but-try-to-get-reelected officials to continue doing it. I absolutely support Senator Warner with this for two main reasons: (A) the idea of forcing Americans to spend/gamble their money only within American borders for the sole purpose of taxation is repugnant and is exactly what my fellow Republicans are supposed to prevent, and (B) adding totally unrelated riders to a bill is in my opinion completely unethical regardless of whether it's allowed or not. What's next? Preventing Americans from making any purchases on foreign web sites or from foreign companies for the same reason - taxes? Hey, look! Is that a lead balloon coming down on Washington?

Bravo, Senator! There are so many more important things that we should be worried about! Americans spending their money on non-American web sites should be one of the least concerning issues out there!

USA is the greatest democracy??? (1, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224219)

I doubt it. Go look at http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm [worldaudit.org]

Why does a true democracy need to brainwash its kids from an early age with the declaration of independence?

Why does any challenge of USA being such a great democracy end up with it being compared to how much better it is than China etc.. Surely if it is so great it should be compared to some of the top democracies and not the bottom ones?

Re:USA is the greatest democracy??? (1)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224277)

Hey, a U.S. senator actually did something good while sticking to his principles! Don't knock us if we get a bit over-excited! This is a rare occurrence in the history of U.S. politics! :)

Before someone else posts it... (5, Funny)

Footix (972079) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223363)

...I'll lay you 2-to-1 odds it doesn't pass.

Re:Before someone else posts it... (1)

Xiroth (917768) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224053)

Well, I'll offer 100-to-1 odds that it passes.

Of course, I run a legal establishment here - if the law changes, I will of course obey it and will no longer be able to honor any wagers laid.

What part of freedom don't they understand (4, Insightful)

netbuzz (955038) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223431)

There are more important issues out there, but few frost my behind as much as this one: I mean the opponents of online gambling are almost invariably the same blowhards who wrap themselves around the flag and lecture the rest of the world about what it means to be free. If we cannot decide for ourselves how to dispose of our disposable income, then in no way, shape or form can we be described as free. All forms of gambling should be legal, regulated and taxed. Use a slice of the tax revenue to help problem gamblers. Leave the rest of us alone.

Re:What part of freedom don't they understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16223501)

If we cannot decide for ourselves how to dispose of our disposable income, then in no way, shape or form can we be described as free.

And as long as limp wrists keep fattening up the poor on my dime then in no way shape or from can my income be described as mine.

I don't have any problem with others wanting to gamble put if they put themselves onto the street with their habit I don't want my money going to keeping them alive. They can work or die for all I care.

Re:What part of freedom don't they understand (1)

jackbird (721605) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223963)

They can work or die for all I care.

Or nail you to the wall when the revolution comes.

Re:What part of freedom don't they understand (3, Insightful)

smaddox (928261) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224207)

Actually, I believe the proponnents of this bill are "offline" casinos and horse racing tracks. I seriously doubt the true supporters of this bill support it for moral reasons. It is most definately a financial reason.

If it was for moral reasons, why would they target online gambling as apposed to - say - all gambling? (It could be a secondary goal I suppose, but still unlikely IMHO).

Re:What part of freedom don't they understand (2, Insightful)

zerocool^ (112121) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224227)


Furthermore, it shows a complete ineptitude as to how the internets work.

"Hey there, Du-Rail. I got's me an IDEAR. Let's ban them online Casinos."

"Sounds good, Tex! Them's dens of heathens anyway."

Gentlemen, your internet tubes also connect to places like... Belarus and Sao Paulo. These places give less than a shit about horse porn - what makes you think they'd care about online gambling?

*sigh*

How do we stop this? (2, Insightful)

rts008 (812749) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223437)

How do we stop this insane practise of piling one bill on top of another as it passes through the gauntlet?
This practise has probably more to do with the sad state we are in than any other- this even bypasses/surpasses pork barrel crap shuffled through.

Let the original bill stand (or fall) on it's own- quit this backscratchin',feel good,get re-elected bullshit end. If not, we fial and stay where we are.

Re:How do we stop this? (1)

Peyna (14792) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224175)

Easy. Pass a law/constitutional amendment which states that all amendments to a bill must be germane to that bill.

Here's whats going on... (5, Informative)

Marnhinn (310256) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224185)

To answer some of your questions... (I work somewhere on the Hill).

Senators or at least the few that I know or have come in contact with, usually have some sort of philosophy that they follow. This philosophy or set of beliefs serves as a guide on how they will vote. Occasionally you will get someone that is easily influenced by newspapers or political lobbies, but that is in all actuallity, not as common as most people think (which is why when it happens it's big news). There are very strict rules about what kind of gifts politicians and their staff (Senate Staff is limited to 50$ for gifts at receptions) can accept and what they can't.

For the most part, legislation is not written by Senators (Rep's may write their own). Usually there is a Legislative Assistant(s) or Legislative Director in the office that will write the actual bill or ammendment. The Senator will then review it, and if he / she approves it - it will be submitted to where ever it needs to go (usually a committee of sorts). Often they are attached to other bills, since the legislative process is very slow (and attaching it to something may speed it up).

Now, as it is election time, many people that are up for re-election are submitting all sorts of things. However, they aren't trying that hard to have them get passed (thankfully - or I'd have no free time), just submitting them so they can claim to have done some work on a certain issue that they may feel their constituents care about (or more likely matches their ideas). Lame Duck session in December, is when the outgoing folks actually sit down and try to get this crap passed.

So you can assume, that this bill was introduced by someone that believes gambling is wrong. It has nothing to do with the mail that they get, the phone calls people make or the faxes that come in. They don't even see most of those - interns and other staff handle them (although a few Senators actually read a sampling of handwritten mail each week). The politician usually gets a report each week of what mail came in, what issues were popular and what was the stance of the mail (for or against). Usually batch letters (meaning large bunches of faxes / letters / postcards that are all the same ) are not included in that count (cause people often send them in without actually reading them or knowing much about the issue, and mail from someone other then a constituent (meaning outside the politicians district - exceptions being the VA and Natural Resources Committees) or someone that did not put a real mailing address (like the people that always sign with their email address) is ignored. In the event that the politican does not have an opinion on something yet, this mail report will serve to influence their opinion in addition to the research and hearings that they or their staff will conduct. However, their opinion is usually in line with their established philosophy. Long story short, this ammendment was simply so someone could satisfy a mark on their philosophy checklist (most likely), and that is why it was rejected by the Senator (who dislikes this sort of stuff) and not because of some lobbying group.

The best way to stop these things, is to either write large amounts of handwritten mail to your senator / rep (not other peoples), or simply vote them out during elections time. Problem is -- most people aren't informed enough to actually know what's going on (or at least that is what I see from DC). It's easiest to contact your Senator / Rep at a state office also (if they have some), since most of them spend weekends and when session is out at home.

Bravo John Warner (5, Insightful)

Aeron65432 (805385) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223455)

Honestly, the more and more I watch this man's moves, the more impressed I am.


He refused to cave to the Bush administration on torture.


Now, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, he refuses to let a trivial non-issue be tacked on along with a government spending bill. Bravo, if only more people like him could be elected to the Senate.

Re:Bravo John Warner (2, Interesting)

sideswipe76 (689578) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224051)

WOAH! Hold on now, he rebufed the bill not because he doesn't feel the idea is right, just that it has no bussiness in a defense appropriations bill. And, it's gonna take more than a last minute show of independence to convince me he is worthy of his seat. Let's not kid ourselves -- he and the other 2 "independents" buckled after only a week; Hardly a show of iron will.

Re:Bravo John Warner (4, Insightful)

glesga_kiss (596639) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224139)

Hold on now, he rebufed the bill not because he doesn't feel the idea is right, just that it has no bussiness in a defense appropriations bill.

Exactly. That's why he's probably one of the best guys in there. Most of the others would be happy to turn a blind eye to riders provided it was for something they want. The whole "relative morality" debate. If what you say above is true, then we need more folk like him, regardless of their personal viewpoints.

Re:Bravo John Warner (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16224261)

Warner (and McCain and Graham) did cave to Bush on torture. Their so-called compromise was in fact capitulation after apparently merely putting up a show. The bill specifically does not ban, for example, waterboarding.

I am a Virginia Voter (1)

RGautier (749908) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223467)

and I approve this message......... Go Warner! Let's stop playing politics and start linking votes on bills to what's actually in the bills!

SECESSION (1)

genrader (563784) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223493)

We should secede and have the best form of government ever: wait, there is no good form of government, oops. LIBERTARIANISM FOR LIFE

Its a sin (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16223555)

Well, according to the Holy Bible, gambling is a sin, and, as a believer in our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, I support this ban.

In Soviet Russia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16223823)

In Soviet Russia, YOU save Jesus!

World Trade Organization (1)

mulhollandj (807571) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223557)

We cannot ban it according to the World Trade Organization. It seems that the US congress have given away some of their sovereignty.

Re:World Trade Organization (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223943)

That is the definition of cooperation. you give a little, I give a little. Of course the US is quite with in its rights to build a wall around itself and remove itself from the world comunity. Just don't come crying to us when your economy fails because no one will trade with you.

Re:World Trade Organization (1)

rkcallaghan (858110) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224245)

mulhollandj wrote:
We cannot ban it according to the World Trade Organization.
Does anyone have a source for this? Of course, even if it is true, our current government hasn't shown much concern about international relations, so it might be a non-issue.

~Rebecca

match made in heaven (1)

lorg (578246) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223629)

Looks to me like the two where made for eachother, after all alot of these new defence systems like the missile shield appear to give the same crappy odds of success as some games of chanse. Not to mention that there really is only one winner in each scenario (casionos and the military industrial complex) and a whole bunch of loosers paying thru the noose for it.

Think of the tubes! (1)

ickeicke (927264) | more than 7 years ago | (#16223815)

Of course all forms of online gambling should be banned! Things like poker chips block the tubes that make up the internets. Only lotteries and horse races gambling should be allowed, to ensure that the tubes are flushed clean regularly. Otherwise, how long do you think the gerbils on wheels that power the internet are going to run? Not long!

Re:Think of the tubes! (1)

Jetson (176002) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224203)

Of course all forms of online gambling should be banned! Things like poker chips block the tubes that make up the internets. Only lotteries and horse races gambling should be allowed, to ensure that the tubes are flushed clean regularly. Otherwise, how long do you think the gerbils on wheels that power the internet are going to run? Not long!

I think you're mixing your metaphors. The gerbils on wheels are what powers the trucks, and thanks to Stephens we now know that the internets are not a bunch of trucks!

Judging by the replies here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16223903)

Maybe I should set up my own Online Casino, there sure isn't a lack of suckers that would waste their cash on a greatly rigged Online Casino...... Plus it would be nice not to have any laws that required me to be fair or actually pay the winners...

How do you just block something? (1)

Wannabe Code Monkey (638617) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224071)

Can someone help me out here... How exactly does one go about blocking these riders? And why doesn't it happen more often? Also, who gets to add rider's to bills? Can anyone just submit anything they want to be included with a bill?

I know they tried to pass the line item veto in 1996 to help deal with this, but isn't there anything better we can do to stop so many tacked on clauses? I don't know if I agree with a line item veto because it could be easily abused to get rid of things central to the bill. How about anything added to a bill after a certain period is automatically a candidate for the line item veto.

Maybe let the supreme court knock down a law as unconstitutional if said law was passed as a rider along with a completely unrelated bill. You could make the argument that congress never really voted on the law because what they were really voting on was the content of the central bill.

Information Markets vs Gambling (1)

GrEp (89884) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224155)

So how do we tell the difference between an information market and gambling? Some would say sports betting is just a derivitive play on NFL/NBA team stocks.

  From what I can tell in Iowa, "Bookmaking" is illegal:
  "Bookmaking as used herein means the taking or receiving of any bet or wager upon the result of any trial or contest of skill, speed, power or endurance of human, beast, fowl or motor vehicle..."

So apparently corprorations in Iowa are not human, best, fowl, or motor vehicle.

Good luck. (1)

JKConsult (598845) | more than 7 years ago | (#16224255)

Currently, due to prior efforts by Congress and corporations to enforce some sort of "ban" online gambling, all I have to do is go to Central Coin (which purports to be facilitator for online privacy in purchases, or some such whatnot; I've never seen a merchant other than gaming sites that uses their services), deposit some money into the account (and pay some fairly small fee, roughly double ATM transaction fees) and then go to Poker Stars to withdraw that money from CC and deposit to Poker Stars. Whole thing takes roughly 45 seconds.

With my online sportsbook/casino at SportsInteraction, it's even easier. I fire up the client interface (casino) or browser (sportsbook), and I can deposit money into my Firepay account and transfer it into my SI account all on one screen. So, short of getting IPs from the gaming merchants themselves (not likely), blocking traffic to specific IPs at the ISP level (more likely, still isn't going to happen), banning the use of online third party money handlers (least likely), or taking my computer, I really fail to see how they propose to stop me.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...