[baystaterebel]

An absolute joke. What I find amazing is that the casino industry is not fighting this harder. The explosion of poker of late is directly related to internet poker.

A staunch Republican I am but it seems the party is taking a cue from the democrats here. Other then appeasing a few fanatic Bible Thumpers I have no idea what they hope to accomplish.

[frogjerk]

Poker Ping!

Freepmail me if you want on the Poker Ping list.

[OldFriend]

They want you to look over here and ignore the fact that they pulled the part tht would have mandated security checks for ALL port workers.

The union thugs would have none of it! Workers with serious criminal records, mob connections, etc. Nope, can't check them out! Just make sure a company like Dubai Ports World who WOULD have demanded port worker background checks doesn't get anywhere near our mob infested longshoreman union workers.

[Wolfie]

What I find amazing is that the casino industry is not fighting this harder.

The casino industry probably lobbied for it.

[frogjerk]

The Republicans squashed a move to require every cargo container to be inspected as well as removed funding for rail and transit security for American citizens.

Democrat talking points right there....

[Stallone]

Spend and Tax Congress vs. Gambling on the Internet

Which one do you think destroys more families?

[frogjerk]

The online gaming legislation added to the port security bill is very difficult to enforce. While it doesn't outright state that online gaming is illegal, it does outlaw the payment of gaming implements through banks and credit card companies in the United States. It does not address, however, the multitude of online payment systems (such as NeTeller) that exist or what can occur through them.

Isn't this basically the Status Quo?

[BallyBill]

poker lobbying organizations..

A card game needs lobbyists? There is a connection to Port Security? I'm going back to bed, this makes no sense.

[DaGman]

This is so blantantly special interest legislation it's disgusting. There is no shame when it comes to pandering.

[NonValueAdded]

Look to the World Trade Organization for the reason behind this. The US was allowing domestic Internet gambling but locking out foreign-based games. Many countries cried foul and won their case before the WTO. What was up in the air was sanctions against the US and the leading penalty under consideration was suspending Intellectual Property rights. The choice was open up gambling completely or shut it down completely. Congress chose the latter course of action.

[jocon307]

"What I find amazing is that the casino industry is not fighting this harder."

Are you kidding? It is the casinos who, short-sightedly I'll admit, want this. They think you won't come to the casino if you can play poker at home in your underwear.

There has been no outcry from the actual on-line gamblers, not that I've seen. And hey, I've been one! I'm wondering if this will change now. Of course, I hate calling my reps, since they are all stinking dems. But I must say, it's not the dems driving this legislation, not so far as I am aware.

[TomGuy]

Subtle ways of reigning in the Internet.

Look for more stern measures to quell some of the rancor before the 08 election cycle. Hillary Clinton needs it. John McCain needs it. John Kerry needs it. Some others need it. They saw what happened to Kerry in 04.

Watch for amendments being sneaked into various bills in 07.

The Foley IM/Email fiasco presents a perfect opportunity for the Legislators to add more legislation to 'restrict' Internet actions.

McCain already tried [and failed] to slip some restrictions in during this Congressional session.

[xzins]

Other then appeasing a few fanatic Bible Thumpers

I am what you might call a "bible thumper," and my objection to gambling, in general, is the damage that it truly does cause in families and neighborhoods. If it were possible to restrict the damage to individuals, I'd readily fall back on my normal argument "live and let live."

Nonetheless, I do NOT support restrictions on gambling. Because the damage to families and neighborhoods is real and is measurable, I see no reason to assume that governments cannot be involved in this issue and regulate it with legislation.

I allow for gambling for the same reason I allow for alcohol consumption:

1. There is a fallacy in catering to the addict rather than to the majority capable of moderation.

2. There is a fallacy in government attempting to regulate that which is amazingly simple to engage in whether government objects or not. Government couldn't really control Uncle Jake making whiskey in his garage and selling it to his neighbors. Nor can government control those who run numbers and play poker. It's insane to regulate that which you can't control.

1 & 2 above do not mean government has no interest in TRYING to do so, if they so desire.

[Theo]

I still don't understand FReepers' support of online gambling. If you want to throw your money away, go to a "legal" establishment that's regulated.

I've suspected that online gambling rackets are run by spam gangs and other kinds of gangs, including those who support crime including terrorism. I do not doubt the onlinegambling/terrorism connection one bit. See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1711933/posts?page=34#33 for a discussion of that "connection."

[Lexington Green]

Pubbies just lost the poker vote -- that's millions of voters

[THEUPMAN]

I think the real fear is that on-line gambling might be cutting into the state lottery funds.

Can't have private companies competing with the state monopolies now can we ....
?

[tacticalogic]

""The majority opinion correctly applies our decision in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and I join it in full. I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

-Clarence Thomas

[MMcC]

I posted this on a few other threads when this came out, but this is going to blow up in the GOP's face big-time. They have just ticked off millions of people who really were not excited about voting one way or the other. The outrage on this is just starting... wait a few weeks and see what happens when more people figure out what's going on. Forget Foley, this may be the issue that costs them both the house and senate.

[unspun]

Other then appeasing a few fanatic Bible Thumpers I have no idea what they hope to accomplish.

Bible thumping bump. Go Congress! Make it so all the little Poker Machiavelli's have to find productive work!

[Belasarius]

I'm a republican voter and don't see myself voting against the republican slate. However, it doesn't mean we can't pick the most egregious offender and financially support an opponent. I'd be willing to send $25 bucks to knock one of these page-touching jerks out of office and get a new page-touching jerk in there. Who has been making the most hay out of this?

I'd like to see the expression on their face when their campaign-winning idea turns into a million dollar war chest for their opponent.

Party Poker may be the biggest but I don't know that they would all quit. I probably wouldn't be willing to trust a site in Ukraine or Russia with my money though.

[AzNASCARfan]

The thing is for alot of us... Banning me from playing on the internet, wont get the casino an extra dime from me... they dont offer what I want to play... Just a cheap tourney under $5... whether multi table or single table. The indian casinos here only do rebuy tourneys and are at least $20-30 buy in, with unlimited rebuys. I went to Vegas a few months ago and wanted to play a poker game. They had single table tourneys for $60 with $15 of that going to the house. The one I play online is $1 with .10 going to the house. If I get lucky there, then maybe next time I will try a $5 + .50 game. Not that it really needs more growth, but WSOP entries will drop next year because of this!