Appreciate the clarification Count.
Don't think I did that. Don't think I implied that anybody who disagrees with me is in bed with organized crime. I disagree with Hartley about some things, but I sure don't think he's in bed with organized crime. I don't think the people that are whining because the government made it much more difficult to bet have connections to organized crime. The whole point is to come up with a statement that outlines how the system can work in a way that benefits the community and takes organized crime out of the picture.
Don't see how addressing the concerns of opponents is craven, egregious, insulting, or dishonest. It is a way to move toward regulation. Refusing to accept the legitimacy of the federal government is extremely unlikely to get us what we want. Should a site that's an advocate for players advocate refusing to accept the legitimacy of government as a way to make sports betting readily available to its base? |