10/01/2006 12:48:40 PM EST

Hippo-crits at it again,

posted by MedfordTim

What happens when you spend years trying to drum up support for tighter restrictions on Internet gambling and can't find it? Why, just slip it into to a bill aimed at enhancing port security which no one can vote against.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
Yes, Bill Frist and John Kyl slipped it in the back door (is that an unfortunate choice of words considering the Foley affair? You decide....). A bill to prohibit the use of credit cards, checks, or wire transfers at Internet gambling sites. I guess they did it for the kids...

Or...

Could they be protecting some off-line gambling interests who don't like to see their profits slip away? Kyl, from Arizona, has a lot of places in his own state to gamble at, but Frist's Tennessee is very strict about gambling. They'll have none of it, no siree!

Their law states:

"Gambling is contrary to the public policy of this state and means risking anything of value for a profit whose return is to any degree contingent on chance..."

Conveniently, they have decided that "game of chance" does not apply to their State Lottery (Drawings twice a day!) or, apparently, to the Casinos in Tennessee. 

But thank goodness these two Republican "leaders" are protecting the citizens from Adak to Annapolis from the evil of gambling in their own homes.

I can pretty much imagine the conversation going this way:

Kyl: But, Bill, we don't have the votes to get it passed on it's own - there's no way we can get this through!

Frist: Wanna bet?

Now, some people might think I'm steamed 'cause it prevents me from gambling if I choose to. To a point, absolutely, but then I know I have a problem with excessive optimism when it comes to gambling (just ask my ex-wife...), so I have studiously avoided them for quite a few years. But I DON'T want a f**king Senator from Arizona or Tennessee or anywhere making that decision for me.

But the real pisser is the ongoing practice by BOTH parties of these "riders" attached to bills. Frist & Kyl already took heat for trying to attach this to a Defense spending bill. When they found that back door closed, they kept looking until they found an open one.

If, as I hope and suspect will be the case, you agree with me that the practice of attaching items to bills which have nothing whatsoever to do with the bill is despicable no matter WHO does it, I'm open to suggestion on how we can get Congress to stop the practice.

Any ideas?
< October Suprise | Don't look now >
 Display:
Hippo-crits at it again, | 13 comments (13 topical, 0 hidden)
When I think of you... (none / 0)
...I bump myself...

by MedfordTim on 10/01/2006 12:49:24 PM EST

Give 'em a break (none / 0)
The important point here is that these senators are getting the job done.  Their job is to protect the public, and if this is the only way to pass this provision, then they are doing the right thing.

Protecting American citizens from threats like risking something of value contingent on chance is a valid function of government.  Peoples money shouldn't be subject to uncertainties where all of it could be lost.

Many people have addictive personalities, and they would be too tempted to roll the dice, thinking that it's easy to turn money into more money this way.

If people are going to risk their money like that, it needs to be in a safe wholesome place, like at a 7-11 buying a stack of lottery tickets, or in a casino, where the atmosphere doesn't encourage or fuel addictive tendenecies.

Give these guys a break.  Maybe they don't always do things the right way, but at least they're looking out for us.

by RealityBias on 10/01/2006 09:11:42 PM EST

Um.... (none / 0)
My b.s. meter seems to be malfunctioning.

That was sarcasm, right?

Please...please...tell me it was sarcasm...

by MedfordTim on 10/01/2006 10:12:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I say what I mean and I mean what I say (none / 0)
Pseudo-palindromic titles aside, you don't really think gambling is unrelated to port security do you?  Having ports at all is a gamble.  We needed them in the early years of the nation, to bring in the huddled masses and such, but we're all full now.  Shipping in goods from abroad is a total gamble.  Mad cow disease, avian flu, and nucular bombs coming in on gigantic cargo ships are quite a risk, wouldn't you agree?  Why should we bet the existence of a whole city by letting in these ships, when you never know what they are carrying?

Also, if gambling isn't outlawed, the port security workers might spend their time playing online poker instead of securing our ports.  Not to mention police officers, and other personnel necessary for our safety.

Gambling is one of those things that people can't be allowed to decide for themselves.  People do get addicted you know.  I guess they think it's fun, or it gives them some kind of thrill.  If people enjoy it, and especially if it can be risky, then it needs to be controlled.

It's a vice for heaven's sake.

It's like how Kellog viewed matrubation.  For whatever reason outlawing that wasn't an option, so they used other methods in hopes to reduce the vice.  Granted it didn't really work, but again, at least they tried.

by RealityBias on 10/01/2006 11:11:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
trade (none / 0)
I agree, NAFTA and CAFTA are for the detriment of our country. We're losing our national industries and moving to a global economy, and in the process becoming weaker as a nation.

by acroso on 10/01/2006 11:27:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
riders to unrelated bills (none / 0)
acroso, this is about whether it's right to attach a gambling bill to a port security bill.  NAFTA and CAFTA have nothing to do with it.  Why do you hate America?

by RealityBias on 10/01/2006 11:35:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
America (none / 0)
I favor making a stronger nation through nationalism, patriotism, protectionism, a strong military rather than tearing it down and Balkanizing it as the left prefers. The left works by divide and conquer.

by acroso on 10/01/2006 11:43:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What about sliding unrelated provisions into bills (none / 0)
I favor making a stronger nation through nationalism, patriotism, protectionism, a strong military rather than tearing it down and Balkanizing it as the left prefers. The left works by divide and conquer.

Okay but what about ramming through unpopular legislation by tacking it onto an unrelated bill?  How would you feel if it was a provision which you vigorously disagreed with?

Nationalism: Yay team!
Patriotism: We ROCK!
Protectionism: Nobody messes with our team.
Strong Military: This Nation Is Defended.

But who are 'the left' and how could they'Balkanize' the military, can you explain?

by RealityBias on 10/02/2006 12:16:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
balkanizing (none / 0)
Well start with Kennedy's efforts to recruit 110 million new guest voters for starters to disenfranchise white voters. If white America won't vote for your radical agenda, well....then your party just needs new voters.

Also look towards the democrats promotion of ethnic nationalism throughout the country vs. supporting American nationalism


by acroso on 10/02/2006 02:15:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
what? (none / 0)

"Also look towards the democrats promotion of ethnic nationalism throughout the country vs. supporting American nationalism"

 

When did this happen? 

by jarett on 10/02/2006 04:07:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
when did this happen (none / 0)
Jarrett,

They support Hawaii's secession from the union and also the two Hawaii’s senators attempts to turn it into an Indian reservation.

They also support the idea of the reconquista of the southwest.

by acroso on 10/02/2006 04:24:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ha ha ha (none / 0)
Republicans do their best work behind closed doors and in the dark. Ask Foley

Backdoor bills

signing statements

Leadership by deception.

Orwell was a prophet

by LORD FOUL on 10/02/2006 10:14:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
ha! (none / 0)
ha!

backdoor deal?

The dems took out the provision of that bill that outlawed felons from working on these ports to protect unions full of felons even though they said they'd fight to keep it.

by acroso on 10/02/2006 04:25:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hippo-crits at it again, | 13 comments (13 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: