Interesting you should say that blogguy. One of my upcoming articles is going to be about why regulated online gambling should be a platform of the 2008 Democratic candidate. But it doesn't change the fact that the current government is using a scorched earth policy to pass various laws before Bush has to leave office. The UIGEA is one of them. If it was such an important piece of legislation why couldn't it pass on its own merit in the usual way. What has upset most in the online gambling community is that it was attached to an unrelated legislation and not debated. If it was passed like any other bill with the required # of votes in the usual way people wouldn't be nearly as upset and disillusioned as they are.
And also I wasn't comparing 9-11 to the IRA or Nazis. What I said is that Britain which is used to terrorism has all the same fears as the United States does but realizes that online gambling is not a realistic threat in that area. If money laundering by terrorists was a real concern do you not believe Britain would have outlawed online gambling? Britain tried to explain to the US at a meeting related to online gaming why they believed it wasn't an issue and the US said that they weren't interested in listening to the reasoning. How do you debate someone who makes a point and then plugs their ears when the other side responds?
Last edited by Minnow : 03-08-2007 at 05:04 PM.
Reason: Hartley was attempting to post from a PDA
|