Reid unlikely to hold the trump card in push for Internet gambling

[BingoT]

Two articles I found today.


U.S. News
Online gambling not a good bet
From UPI
WASHINGTON, Jan. 4 (UPI) -- Expanding legal Internet gambling in the United States is a long shot now that Congress is more heavily Republican, gaming industry experts say.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid fell short last month in his effort to allow U.S. casino companies set up Internet poker sites and access a portion of the multibillion dollar offshore industry. The chances of success are diminished now that Republicans control the House and have more members in the Senate.

Reid says he's ready to try again this year but his efforts may be thwarted by Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., named chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and other GOP lawmakers who indicated they want to keep online betting illegal in the United States, The Washington Times reported Tuesday.

"This is a huge priority for Spencer," a House Republican aide said.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/...4153777/?pvn=1
______________
Reid unlikely to hold the trump card in push for Internet gambling
Faces full House of GOP power

Even with the backing of such political high rollers as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the push to expand legal Internet gambling in the United States looks to face much longer odds in the more heavily Republican Congress.

Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat, came up short last month during the congressional lame-duck session in his bid to allow U.S. casino companies to establish Internet poker sites and give them a cut of the multibillion-dollar offshore industry.

Mr. Reid is poised to try again this year, but his path may be blocked by Rep. Spencer Bachus, the Alabama Republican who has been named chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and other GOP lawmakers who appear steadfast about keeping online betting illegal in the U.S.

"This is a huge priority for Spencer," said a top House GOP staffer.

In fact, if Mr. Bachus addresses Internet gambling in the 112th Congress, such action would focus on examining the effectiveness of existing laws and making them tougher, the staffer said.
By Joseph Weber-The Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...rnet-gambling/

[3mptyseat]

That Gentleman from Alabama with a moral crusade against, "A casino in every dorm room", and the fact that Reid is hated by both sides of the house are probably good signs that online gaming legislation wont happen soon.

But money talks, and the debt is growing faster than solutions to stop its growth are being proposed. The conservative right, while fringed by some real antiquated thinking, as exemplified by Sen. Bachus, is also populated with younger and more pragmatic members, and of course the fed-up, penny wise custodians of personal liberty, the Tea Party newbies. These groups along with a fairly moderate 'Son of Ohio' in Boehner as the new speaker, may be enough to convince the 'christian coalition' types to accept facts as they are and get something pushed through.

The problem is, with all the other bullshit those morons are worried about; health care, economic stimulus, social security reform and in general, legislating when I can move my bowels, will it ever get to a bi-partisan committee, and eventually, to a vote? That may very well be for another session I fear.

[vinylweatherman]

Isn't this a rather SOCIALIST stance from a REPUBLICAN. I thought the Democrats wanted to have control, and "big government", whilst the Republicans wanted individual freedom, and responsibilty for one's own actions.

They have rounded on Obama for the health reforms that diminish personal responsibilty in favour of state nannying, yet the Republicans want to nanny the hell out of citizens who prefer the online experience, rather than the B & M one. It's not about the money either, since legalisation would provide a mechanism to TAX the activity.

It's ONE politician wanting to force his OWN will onto EVERYONE, and deny them the right to make their own choices. Unfortunately he has managed to get many others to join with him.

I saw a documentary recently, and it seems that "Tea Party" candidates want the federal government to "butt out" altogther save for limited functions, and have other things decided at the state level. They also seem to value individual freedom, which seems to extend to the freedom and responsibilty of gun ownership, yet it seems there is NO real appetite to allow gun owning citizens the freedom to decide whether internet gambling is for them.
One can do far more harm to others with a gun than with a mishandled casino account.

Here, it's the opposite, guns are strictly ILLEGAL, yet the choice of whether to gamble online is left up to us.

[3mptyseat]

Isn't this a rather SOCIALIST stance from a REPUBLICAN. I thought the Democrats wanted to have control, and "big government", whilst the Republicans wanted individual freedom, and responsibilty for one's own actions...

This is a land where subtle paradox abounds, and downright hypocrisy is not far behind. The 'moral majority' as they would call themselves, which is the far fringe right, and no where near a majority, claims that they center their values in the heritage and tradition of the founding fathers, life, liberty, and the pursuit...

Now of course, they fail to realize the personal nature of a pursuit of happiness. A principle core value that was expressed by the writers of the American Constitution was that every man had the right to pursue freedom in anyway they saw fit, "So far as their pursuit did not interfere with another man's equal but oft quite different pursuit."

Another value was summed up by, dammit, I forget who said this and I am on my way to a home game, so I won't research it, but basically, "I might not agree with what you are doing, but I will defend to the death your right to do it." Of course, the uber-conservative and generally zealously born-again far right would agree with this in some terms like in business, or in the brand of car you buy. But they see a strict moral code that stretches beyond personal choice and violates the very core of what the Bill of Rights was meant to protect. As far as anything they claim their bible has spoken against, or anything that breaches THEIR moral line, they are perfectly willing to legislate, regulate, and imprison any one who violates their 'what is right' beliefs. Or at least tax the hell out of them in the process...

It appears their gods like ignorance though; Instead of providing a solution, legislation like the current standard is costing an overburdened budget. Regulation would relieve some of this burden, and bring a job market to America that is currently being filled by exclusively off shore sites that have no tax base or responsibility to the nation they sell their product to and, presumably, fill their coffers from.

[jetset]

This is a land where subtle paradox abounds, and downright hypocrisy is not far behind. The 'moral majority' as they would call themselves, which is the far fringe right, and no where near a majority, claims that they center their values in the heritage and tradition of the founding fathers, life, liberty, and the pursuit...

Now of course, they fail to realize the personal nature of a pursuit of happiness. A principle core value that was expressed by the writers of the American Constitution was that every man had the right to pursue freedom in anyway they saw fit, "So far as their pursuit did not interfere with another man's equal but oft quite different pursuit."

Another value was summed up by, dammit, I forget who said this and I am on my way to a home game, so I won't research it, but basically, "I might not agree with what you are doing, but I will defend to the death your right to do it." Of course, the uber-conservative and generally zealously born-again far right would agree with this in some terms like in business, or in the brand of car you buy. But they see a strict moral code that stretches beyond personal choice and violates the very core of what the Bill of Rights was meant to protect. As far as anything they claim their bible has spoken against, or anything that breaches THEIR moral line, they are perfectly willing to legislate, regulate, and imprison any one who violates their 'what is right' beliefs. Or at least tax the hell out of them in the process...

It appears their gods like ignorance though; Instead of providing a solution, legislation like the current standard is costing an overburdened budget. Regulation would relieve some of this burden, and bring a job market to America that is currently being filled by exclusively off shore sites that have no tax base or responsibility to the nation they sell their product to and, presumably, fill their coffers from.

Voltaire, I think

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

[3mptyseat]

Yup! Thats the guy and the quote, tyvm!

Just got back from the card club. I don't know how many hours on $20/$40 limit, and I walked out up $160. Which I am not bitching about; just, I was so unlucky, ran soooo bad. And played so well. Shoulda been up close to $1,000.

I Flopped sets twice only to get it heads up and my opponent all-in, while I was holding the best hand. Then boom; out turned by a better set in the first example and out rivered by an all-in fish with ace high who completed the 4-spade board with a 2 of spades for a flush. Grrrr.
I don't know who said this one, but, "Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you."

[P.V.]

Everyone wished Harry could seal the deal but the fact is state's control gambling, let's watch it unfold in 2011!

[Westland Bowl]

Maybe Rep. Spencer Bachus will now feel better about toking on some Alabammy (pot) due to Pat Robertson's recent remarks on it. Under pot, Bachus then wouldn't care less about internet gambling..."Whatever, man!"

[footdr]

Nobody can actually think that Democrats would push to legalize online gambling. They are socialists and socialists do not support "free choice".

The only possible reason Congress, be it Repub. or Dem. would think about making it legal is to collect taxes on winnings and for the Democrats, to further grow the government by controlling and regulating another industry. If the Federal Government gets involved in the online casino industry, it will not be a good thing.

[felicie]

Isn't this a rather SOCIALIST stance from a REPUBLICAN. I thought the Democrats wanted to have control, and "big government", whilst the Republicans wanted individual freedom, and responsibilty for one's own actions.

They have rounded on Obama for the health reforms that diminish personal responsibilty in favour of state nannying, yet the Republicans want to nanny the hell out of citizens who prefer the online experience, rather than the B & M one. It's not about the money either, since legalisation would provide a mechanism to TAX the activity.

It's ONE politician wanting to force his OWN will onto EVERYONE, and deny them the right to make their own choices. Unfortunately he has managed to get many others to join with him.

I saw a documentary recently, and it seems that "Tea Party" candidates want the federal government to "butt out" altogther save for limited functions, and have other things decided at the state level. They also seem to value individual freedom, which seems to extend to the freedom and responsibilty of gun ownership, yet it seems there is NO real appetite to allow gun owning citizens the freedom to decide whether internet gambling is for them.
One can do far more harm to others with a gun than with a mishandled casino account.

Here, it's the opposite, guns are strictly ILLEGAL, yet the choice of whether to gamble online is left up to us.

Individual freedom and very little govt. is the kind of republican way I was raised and that is why come of late, I don't always vote their ticket. Too much extra crap ruining a pretty simple set of rules that could work if left alone. And as for the 'religious right', they should be reminded that one reason our founding fathers left was for religious freedom. And yes it is about money. Nowadays it's always about money. Because we can't live without it. And while we're at it, our right to bear arms was not included so we could do drive-bys. It was included in case our government ever tried to become King.

Back to Reid. Why didn't he put some energy into the gambling bill 12 months ago or l4 months ago? Why did he wait till the end to run it thru when he knew it probably wouldn't go.
Your Parliament and Queen are looking better and better all the time.