Opinion column on the bill from Sports Illustrated

[Jay Cohen]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_blog...lksphonies.html

And the real reason is simple, and it has nothing to do with protecing credit card companies. The government is unhappy that the money people are losing on gambling Web sites is going overseas. The government is pro gambling because they make money off lotteries, horse racing and casinos. They just don't want the money going to operators of these overseas Web sites.

[Jeremy517]

The obvious solution would be to legalize and regulate it so that there are US-based sites.

[-zero-]

You guys just blew my mind.

[blueodum]

The obvious solution would be to legalize and regulate it so that there are US-based sites.

Of course. But it's so obvious that of course these dummies do the opposite.

[IceColdAces]

Not that it means anything, but every response that I saw to his article in the blog was against the ban. I would suspect that these are normal people too, not just 2+2ers. If we can really get the general public against this, things could start to happen in our favor.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
Not that it means anything, but every response that I saw to his article in the blog was against the ban. I would suspect that these are normal people too, not just 2+2ers. If we can really get the general public against this, things could start to happen in our favor.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's really a matter of intensity of preference here. Even if 95% of people oppose the ban, the legislation would stay because the vast majority of that 95% wouldn't care enough to rally/lobby/vote against their senator based on the issue. As a result, there's no political incentive to not cater to that 5% (or whatever) that TRULY cares about it and supports the ban.

[Wools]

[ QUOTE ]
If we can really get the general public against this, things could start to happen in our favor.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's already been pointed out: The ban was 6th page news; reversing it will be front page news.

We're not going to know exactly what's up in the short term for a week or two after Bush signs this in, and we're not going to know what's up in the mid to long term for months after that.

All these articles against it are nice, but they're not going to change anything, especially not overnight.

[IceColdAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's already been pointed out: The ban was 6th page news; reversing it will be front page news."

[/ QUOTE ]



My newspaper yesterday (Sacramento Bee) had the gambling ban as their cover story on the front page. I think it is getting much more media attention that you think, and I think that will continue to grow. With that being said, I agree with you that nothing will happen overnight, but to get public opinion on our side obviously can't hurt.

[whangarei]

Nice article. Anybody have that Leach quote where he specifically says the motivation for the bill is revenue lost to overseas? I'd like to post it as a comment to the article.

[Wools]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's already been pointed out: The ban was 6th page news; reversing it will be front page news."

[/ QUOTE ]



My newspaper yesterday (Sacramento Bee) had the gambling ban as their cover story on the front page. I think it is getting much more media attention that you think, and I think that will continue to grow. With that being said, I agree with you that nothing will happen overnight, but to get public opinion on our side obviously can't hurt.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying it isnt getting any coverage, just that most people really dont care, especially not enough to do something about it.

I fully agree that public opinion on our side is good, never said anything to the contrary.