Online Gambling Not Banned Yet

For the moment, the rush to legislate the ban on online gambling has been slowed. Senator John Warner, (R) from Virginia, has refused to allow a ban on online gambling to be tacked onto an upcoming defense bill. Opponents of online gambling were hoping to tack their measure on to a "must pass" bill but will apparently be forced to delay. Congress recesses in one week, giving only a few days left if this measure is to be passed before the November 7th elections.

Comments

What is it with tacking things onto bills?

[QuantumG]

Surely that's a big bloody hole in the legislative system.. why don't they patch it?

It's just crazy.

Re:What is it with tacking things onto bills?

[Pichu0102]

Even better, tack something onto another must pass bill that says no riders whatsoever.
Then wait for the people in Congress to take a while scratching their heads about that one.

Re:lame

[QuantumG]

The players are adequately warned. They know the risks and they still want to play. It's not for the government to make their decision for them.

Re:lame

[AuMatar]

And when thats discovered, accounts get banned. In real casinos, people play as teams and communicate with each other through codes or just by avoiding each other and splitting profits later. Its no more risky online.

Re:lame

[Anonymous Coward]

But won't you think of the children?!??!!?

MY GOD, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!??!?!?!

Please, nanny government, please make my decisions for me because I'm a complete and utter retard and can't make them on my own.

What part of freedom don't they understand

[netbuzz]

There are more important issues out there, but few frost my behind as much as this one: I mean the opponents of online gambling are almost invariably the same blowhards who wrap themselves around the flag and lecture the rest of the world about what it means to be free. If we cannot decide for ourselves how to dispose of our disposable income, then in no way, shape or form can we be described as free. All forms of gambling should be legal, regulated and taxed. Use a slice of the tax revenue to help problem gamblers. Leave the rest of us alone.

Bravo John Warner

[Aeron65432]

Honestly, the more and more I watch this man's moves, the more impressed I am.

He refused to cave to the Bush administration on torture.

Now, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, he refuses to let a trivial non-issue be tacked on along with a government spending bill. Bravo, if only more people like him could be elected to the Senate.

Re:Bravo John Warner

[glesga_kiss]

Hold on now, he rebufed the bill not because he doesn't feel the idea is right, just that it has no bussiness in a defense appropriations bill.

Exactly. That's why he's probably one of the best guys in there. Most of the others would be happy to turn a blind eye to riders provided it was for something they want. The whole "relative morality" debate. If what you say above is true, then we need more folk like him, regardless of their personal viewpoints.

Re:lame

[truthsearch]

I doubt the proposed ban of online gambling has anything to do with bots. I'm sure it has more to do with collecting money. It's very hard (or impossible) to tax.

Re:lame

[IAmTheDave]

It's not for the government to make their decision for them.

Not to mention, WTF does it have to do with a defense bill?

Nothing related to Congress and our current govn't offends me more than the unchallenged ability to "tack on" legislation for topic X that has piss-all to do with the main topic of the bill at hand.

Congressman A: Here's a bill allocating $50m for breast cancer research!

Congressman B: Great! I'd like to add a rider that allocates $10m in federal funding for building a bridge somewhere in my state - oh, and my brother-in-law like totally has a construction company!