Blogguy I would love to have an actual debate with you. I think it would be a hell of a lot more interesting than any debates that will take place in the 2008 presidential race.
Anyways I feel I need to respond to your last points.
*People who are concerned about the dangers of gambling are religous zealots
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said only religious zealots are concerned about the dangers of gambling. What I pointed out is that the majority of promoters of the gambling bills (Kyl, Frist, Goodlatte etc.) have a history of voting on every issue based on their religious beliefs and it just so happens they are all Evangelical Christians. And George Bush has stated his presidency is a mission from God. There are indeed some who don't support gambling that aren't very religious at all but when you have a history of voting the "evangelical line" on every single issue then IMO you are a religious zealot. Don't forget we labelled the taliban, al qaida etc. religious fundamentalists because all their decisions are based on what will please Allah even when those decisions clearly go against common decency and what is best for muslims around the world.
*People who are concerned about gambling addictions are busy-body do-gooders*
Can you please give one instance where we anyone on this site said that? Gambling addiction is a serious problem. What we have stated is that any land based casino and racetrack has more addicts than online bettors but unlike at land based places it is easier to cut people off because computers can easily identify trends that indicate problem gambling. I'd have to look for previous posts but I recall stating that gambling addicts aren't good for anybody in the industry and it's imperative that this be addressed with any regulation.
People who are concerned about children betting don't understand anything
No. Arguments like little Johnny is going to take mom's credit card, click the mouse and bet the house is an idiotic comment that shows hysteria and a total misunderstanding of what must be done to deposit at a casino or sportsbook not to mention the fact that if little Johnny steals mom's credit card he's probably going to EBay to get the latest video game. How come we don't hear politicians express concern that Ebay allows little Johnny to steal mom's credit card, place a ridiculous offer at an Ebay auction for something he doesn't need and lose the house?
*People who are concerned about the games being unfair are jamming morality down our throats
I don't even understand that comment. The morality comments are based on the fact that you are being told what to do with your money and how to do it. I would have the same concern if I was told I couldn't purchase booze, porn, cigarettes or anything that the country has deemed legal. And that is the main concern - gambling is not immoral according to the government, in fact they put commercial after commercial on telling you how you could be independantly wealthy and retire at 40 by playing the lottery. Yet in the same breath they say that online gambling is immoral. How do you argue with that type of logic?
*People who are concerned about organized crime involvement are idiots
I have yet to see the government give any proof that organized crime is involved in online gambling. They make comments like that and just expect people to believe it. So far they have arrested David Carruthers, Peter Dicks, Jay Cohen, John Lefevre and Stephen Lawrence. Which of those is in organized crime? If organized crime is rampant in online casinos how come we haven't heard of the arrests or warrants for mafia bosses or hell's angels leaders or...
*People who are concerned that terrorists could shuttle money via unregulated offshore vehicles are kool-aid drinkers
Nope. What we said is that you don't base policies and a country's vision on the remote chance of something happening. There are far easier ways for terrorists to shuttle money than online yet the government isn't interested in addressing those. Until they show a real interest in stopping money laundering in more realistic areas they can't be taken seriously in this one.
I can't speak for Major but what I recall about Jonestown is that Rev Jones, the cult leader, told everyone to go to Jonestown with him and convinced all these brainwashed followers that drinking cyanide laced Kool-Aid was best for them as they would be in a better place once they die. And like lambs to the slaughter they just did it because Jones was able to convince them that he was looking out for their best interests.
In a way it's a good analogy. The current government in charge has convinced many Americans that they are looking out for their best interests and few of those Americans have been willing to question the government because are honestly convinced that Bush et al. would never do anything that wasn't in the country's best interest be it the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act or the online gambling law. I know The Actuary has been furious with me for daring to take a stand against the current Republican government but I wasn't hired on as a writer to be an apologist for any government. When they are right I will state so but thus far I think they have given very few legitimate reasons for their online gambling position. You have attacked me on my positions but I have given reasons why I believe that the current government's arguments are not legitimate. If they want to convince me they'd better back it up with solid evidence to the contrary.
I recall when Bush wanted all nations to go to war in Iraq with him quite a few said "why?" and he just became angry and said - "you're with us or you're with the terrorists." As it turns out the reason he didn't give a concrete reason is that his purpose for going to Iraq were personal and he knew that if he said "I want you to go to Iraq to settle the score for my father" that they would have told him where to go.
I've always hated Jean Chretien but I'm going to quote him. If you want me to believe that online gambling is truly a concern to the country and particularly a terrorist threat then show me a proof. "What kind of a proof, it's a proof. A proof is a proof and when you have a good proof it's because it's proven" :)
Seriously I'll go one better. I'll post 6 articles that I'll devote the rest of March to. Each article will attempt to refute each of the "concerns" stated by Kyl and the Republican government - namely 1) that online gambling presents a better chance that games are rigged and online operators are shady, 2) That there is a bigger chance of underage betting on the internet, 3) That online gambling fosters more of a concern for addiction than do land based casinos 4) That Organized crime can flourish easier online and
5) that online gambling presents the biggest threat to America for money laundering and consequently for terrorists to move money to accounts to use in terrorist attacks against America and other free nations. I'll conclude the series with reasons why the 2008 Democratic candidate should put online gambling on the ticket as one of their policies if elected.
In return you write an article refuting my points or admit that this goverment is enacting their online gambling laws for personal reasons and not because it's in the best interest of the country.
How does that sound?
