#$*&, it's going to be harder to play online poker or any other internet gaming now...

[BlueWeasel]

Originally posted by: waggy
though they did refuse to pass one. the guy in Alaska had some BS rider and they refused to pass the bill. can't remember the detals now but it was all over the news.

Was that the "bridge to nowhere"?

 

[lokiju]

P&N

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: mugs
Of course that wouldn't help if the president WANTS to sign that line item into law.

And yeah this is very common, and of course it's legal. How could it be illegal? How do you objectively evaluate a law to determine if everything in it is closely related?

It's called a rider.

Common sense? Let's see... Internet Gambling vs Port Security. Nope, not related. Seems simple to me.

OK genius, now write a law that says how you should make that conclusion. How would you write such a law? What criteria would you give for determining if two topics are related? It can't be a subjective opintion, because the side that wants to get the rider into the law will inevitably disagree with that subjective opinion.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: BlueWeasel

Originally posted by: waggy
though they did refuse to pass one. the guy in Alaska had some BS rider and they refused to pass the bill. can't remember the detals now but it was all over the news.

Was that the "bridge to nowhere"?

The internet is not a dumptruck, it's a series of tubes!

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: mugs
OK genius, now write a law that says how you should make that conclusion. How would you write such a law? What criteria would you give for determining if two topics are related? It can't be a subjective opintion, because the side that wants to get the rider into the law will inevitably disagree with that subjective opinion.

I just don't think it would be that hard to implement. Sure, you would have debate at times, but so what? It's better than crap like this. There would be no debate in this situation.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: BlueWeasel

Originally posted by: waggy
though they did refuse to pass one. the guy in Alaska had some BS rider and they refused to pass the bill. can't remember the detals now but it was all over the news.

Was that the "bridge to nowhere"?

no this was after it (i think).

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: mugs
OK genius, now write a law that says how you should make that conclusion. How would you write such a law? What criteria would you give for determining if two topics are related? It can't be a subjective opintion, because the side that wants to get the rider into the law will inevitably disagree with that subjective opinion.

I just don't think it would be that hard to implement. Sure, would would have debate at times, but so what? It's better than crap like this. There would be no debate in this situation.

Sure there would be. Whoever added it to the bill would just say that Internet gambling funds terrorism.

I think it would be great if we could avoid having unpopular laws passed by adding them as riders... I just don't think it's practical. There's too much subjectivity.

The line item veto would have helped, but that was ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: mugs
Sure there would be. Whoever added it to the bill would just say that Internet gambling funds terrorism.

That still has nothing directly to do with Port Security.

 

[Tom]

personally, I'm glad this passed. Credit cards and gambling is a bad combination.

And this is germaine to a homeland security bill, even though it wouldn't have to be, unless an objection is raised and not overridden.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: mugs

OK genius, now write a law that says how you should make that conclusion. How would you write such a law? What criteria would you give for determining if two topics are related? It can't be a subjective opintion, because the side that wants to get the rider into the law will inevitably disagree with that subjective opinion.

most of the states have already done so. it can't be that hard. not only does the bill have to address one subject, but the title of the bill needs to actually indicate what the bill is about. so, instead of 'digital millenium copyright act' we'd have 'lockdown of information and riaa election donation support act'.






anyway, i'm still trying to figure out how this is bush's fault. he can only send what congress gives him, and it looks like it was members of congress that did this, not bush.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: mugs
Sure there would be. Whoever added it to the bill would just say that Internet gambling funds terrorism.

That still has nothing directly to do with Port Security.

the bill isn't just about port security, that isn't how germainness is determined, by a narrow topic like that. port security and this gambling/cc are both under the heading of homeland security.

even if this was non-germaine, it would have plenty of support, imo, and would have the 3/5 majority needed to clear that obstacle.

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: mugs

OK genius, now write a law that says how you should make that conclusion. How would you write such a law? What criteria would you give for determining if two topics are related? It can't be a subjective opintion, because the side that wants to get the rider into the law will inevitably disagree with that subjective opinion.

most of the states have already done so. it can't be that hard. not only does the bill have to address one subject, but the title of the bill needs to actually indicate what the bill is about. so, instead of 'digital millenium copyright act' we'd have 'lockdown of information and riaa election donation support act'.






anyway, i'm still trying to figure out how this is bush's fault. he can only send what congress gives him, and it looks like it was members of congress that did this, not bush.

Everything's Bush's fault.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Tom
personally, I'm glad this passed. Credit cards and gambling is a bad combination.

And this is germaine to a homeland security bill, even though it wouldn't have to be, unless an objection is raised and not overridden.

I don't mind the outcome, but I hate the way it was brought into effect.

Gambling on borrowed money = bad.

Do casino's allow you to charge your bets?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: Tom
personally, I'm glad this passed. Credit cards and gambling is a bad combination.

And this is germaine to a homeland security bill, even though it wouldn't have to be, unless an objection is raised and not overridden.

I don't mind the outcome, but I hate the way it was brought into effect.

Gambling on borrowed money = bad.

Do casino's allow you to charge your bets?

even worse is the affect it has on credt card theft,fraud,and defaulting on payback, which costs everybody money one way or the other.

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: Tom
personally, I'm glad this passed. Credit cards and gambling is a bad combination.

And this is germaine to a homeland security bill, even though it wouldn't have to be, unless an objection is raised and not overridden.

I don't mind the outcome, but I hate the way it was brought into effect.

Gambling on borrowed money = bad.

Do casino's allow you to charge your bets?

even worse is the affect it has on credt card theft,fraud,and defaulting on payback, which costs everybody money one way or the other.

qft. I highly dislike the hatred toward internet gambling. Above someone posted how one of the senators said internet gambling was 'morally' bad or some sh1t like that. Whatever. How bout he lives by his morals and lets us live by our morals?

With that said. Most gamblers use neteller/paypal etc, not their visa card. Like someone else mentioned, gambling with borrowed money is not a good thing. If you can afford to gamble withdraw from you bank account, not borrow the money to do it.

 

[Mo0o]

If anyone wants to read about deal making and earmarking , NY times has an article on its front page today about it. Read it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/washi...rtha.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=login

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Phokus

Republicans tucked the measure into a bill aimed at enhancing port security, which passed early Saturday.

Politicians all over have been using this devious, low-life tactic for a long time now.

It smears sh!t on the face of democracy

I'm reminded of the Simpsons episode where the comet was going to crash into Springfield and there was a bill introduced to fund an evacuation of the town. Some guy in congress then:

"Uh, I'd like to add a rider onto that bill. Um, $10 million for the perverted arts."

"Alright, all in favour of the proposed Springfield/pervert bill?"

"All opposed?"

"BOOO!"

"Bill defeated."

Kent Brockman: "I've said it before, and I'll say it again, democracy simply doesn't work.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: Yossarian
21st century Prohibition. Fvck Bush and the POS politicians who tagged this onto a bill that was guaranteed to pass. I don't think I've ever been this angry over a piece of legislation.

Just remember this when some congressman launches a negative ad campaign saying, "So and so voted against protecting mothers from being stabbed in their homes." Usually, those kind of votes come around like this when they attach a bill banning having sex with your wife in the privacy of your own home onto the mother stabbing protection bill, and they go with the lesser of two evils and vote against it.

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by: ViviTheMage
hmm, never played online poker...

me too but id really like to someday...

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: Tom
personally, I'm glad this passed. Credit cards and gambling is a bad combination.

And this is germaine to a homeland security bill, even though it wouldn't have to be, unless an objection is raised and not overridden.

so you're in favor of making a gambler take more steps to gamble online?

Western Union, Money Orders, Cash, oh Pay Pal even.

if you ban gambling online, and make it harder to use credit cards to gamble period. The gamblers will figure out a way. Short of making gambling itself illegal, which still wouldn't stop some people. There is no way to accomplish this task.


and to whoever asked if you can even use credit cards at casinos.

yes and no, legally you can't gamble using a CC. BUT, most CC's allow you to withdraw money, at a redicliously high rate of like 20%. Which means the gambling addict will not only loose the $300 they took out with their Visa, but also an additional $60 bucks because the bank is greedy.

Plenty of stores in California will sell you lottery/lotto on credit card even though they're not supposed to. The laws are very gray in some areas. And like I said, a lot of people just don't care about laws. I'm sure you'll find workers at casinos who will change your CC for "clothes" and give you the ammount in cash.

I don't think it's a good idea to let people gamble with "credit" but I also don't think it's a good idea for me to impose my views as what should be and shouldn't be laws.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: QueBert
yes and no, legally you can't gamble using a CC. BUT, most CC's allow you to withdraw money, at a redicliously high rate of like 20%. Which means the gambling addict will not only loose the $300 they took out with their Visa, but also an additional $60 bucks because the bank is greedy.

That made me laugh.