Sorry...internet was out all day until moments ago (single worst day of the basketball season it could happen!, lol). Now I've got to play catch up all afternoon.
Quick things....
Count, I'll need some clarification on the intellectual honesty part. Waiting to hear exactly what you meant by that.
Hartley,
*The current US government may not want to hear it, but the one that wins in 2008 might be more disposed to thinking favorably about our cause. If we start making the case coherently in public now, a new regime might smile on us...paricularly if we're addressing the concerns of the other side regarding addiction, fair games, and children's involvement.
*There are clearly many reasons behind being opposed to internet gambling other than pushing morality. I'm opposed to internet roulette because it's a scam. That's not pushing morality. Internet gambling has helped organized crime be even more organized. I don't like it that criminals are having their lives streamlined by using an unregulated system. The fact that this site keeps saying its about morality makes us look like idiots to the people who are opposed to gambling for non-churchy reasons.
*Hard to know for sure what the guys you listed had to do directly with organized crime. I've heard through the grapevine that the guys in Britain did have some sort of possible connection to British mobsters (heard that from a guy who lived over there for several years). I don't know that this has come out in the press or in legal discussions. Obviously neteller was a tool that organized crime could (and very likely) did use to facilitate what they were doing with offshore sportsbooks. We'll see what the case brings out in the future. It would be a shame if they were in trouble for basically just building a freeway that bad guys drove over. I think the DOJ's case is more about knowingly violating what the DOJ considered to be illegal, as was referenced in the prospectus neteller sent out to investors when they went public.
*It's not "playing a card" if it's the truth. Unregulated offshore financial vehicles can potentially be used by terrorists to shuttle money around in a way that is dangerous to US interests. This possible development came to light as the world changed. Yes, it was an additional reason those opposed to gambling could use to make their case. That's what you do when trying to convince people of something. I hate what the conservatives did to our rights as much as anybody...but THIS IS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH. Even if it hasn't happened yet it very easily could happen in the future. That's why we all want things regulated.
*There is probably an 80-100% chance that terrorist organizations would eventually figure out a way to shuttle money around via unregulated offshore financial vehicles, and a 0-1% chance that little green men are going to come out of a spaceship. Ludicrous comparsion. It's not legislating out of fear to play defense, any more than playing a conservative strategy in chess is done out of fear. You play defense to counteract possible attacks. So, yes you base it on probabilities and the best interests of the country. That phrase proves my point, not yours.
*What do I think we're trying to advocate for? I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T COHERENTLY ADVOCATED ANYTHING. We haven't come out and said quickly and coherently what we want...what our vision is. We've repeatedly said the same things over and over again about how horrible and stupid religious conservatives are. I understand that you're in favor of regulation. I haven't seen you make the points in an article yet about what all the specific benefits are in a way that doesn't go off on a tangent that bashes the government. We need to provide an alternative vision that the new government can pick up on.
*For the life of me, I can't figure out what the Nazi attacks, the IRA, or the 2005 subway bombing have on this discussion. Britain wants regulated online gaming...the US acted to make sure that the Caribbean didn't have unregulated offshore gaming, and that American financial vehicles didn't assist unregulated places in transferring money. Terrorists aren't likely to use regulated onshore gaming in a place that's hostile to their cause, they're very likely to use unregulated offshore gaming in places that are either neutral or hostile to the US politically.
*Ask Wolf Blitzer to call you? No...it's not up to those guys to find us. We need to have a coherent vision...then we need to find them. We need to be pounding the drumbeat for whatever that vision turns out to be in a way that's easily understood and easy to remember. If we find them with a coherent vision, they will make room for the debate; particularly if it could influence the upcoming election. Poker exploded on TV, which provides an in that suggests to news organizations that the public is interested in this issue. If we can show that the government would make a lot of new money via regulation, while showing that concerns will be addressed regarding addiction, fair games, etc...then our point will resonate in the election and with those who are elected. If we devote all of our energy to bashing the current US governement, we'll just be in the same boat as the other 65% of citizens that generate the low approval ratings. Once Bush is gone, hating the US government won't make much sense as a rhetorical strategy. It's a waste of time now if we want real change.
What's reasonable to try to get?
How do we go about getting it?
That's the political process in action...
And, what subway poisoning are you referencing?  |