|
|
#51
10-01-2006, 09:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I changed my political affiliation in the last 48 hours
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Suppose a single package bill is introduced for a vote, which essentially gives an American congressoman 2 options on how to vote: 1. For confronting terrorism + For limiting the right to wear moustaches and beards. 2. Against it. You might think it would be silly to vote for limiting the right to wear moustaches and beards, but note the key word "package", please. [/ QUOTE ] Against it, easily. The whole concept of packinging issues together is far more important than either of these two issues. Sure, maybe port security is more important than internet gambling, but the issues of "package legislation" that undermines the whole democratic system is far more important than port security. Not much point in securing our country if we toss out democracy in the process. [/ QUOTE ] Package legislation has been around for a long time. Still, I agree that it would have been nice for you and me if the Senate had chosen Friday night as the moment to say, "No more riders! From now on, every piece of legislation gets considered on its own merits." Edit: FWIW, I believe it's also the case that what we were hoping for was in itself kind of procedural, in that we were hoping internet gampling wouldn't be a big enough priority and the issue would never get drafted into a Senate bill -- because, well, if the issue had been raised and voted on on its own, I think the internet-gambling prohibition would have passed that way too. 
|
|
#52
10-01-2006, 01:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I changed my political affiliation in the last 48 hours
[ QUOTE ]
REPUBLICANS ALONE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HAPPENED. [/ QUOTE ] YOU ARE WRONG. By allowing riders to continue to exist and abusing them themselves, Democrats are equally responsible. It's the system that allows people to pass laws that don't have a majority support and the politicians that accept that system that are at fault here.
|
|
#53
10-01-2006, 01:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I changed my political affiliation in the last 48 hours
[ QUOTE ]
Package legislation has been around for a long time. [/ QUOTE ] It sure has. That doesn't change the fact that it's the cause of this whole problem.
|
|
#54
10-01-2006, 01:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I changed my political affiliation in the last 48 hours
i just dont get how every democrat was thinking about our port security and not gambling and then every republican has this evil look and laughing while they all sneak in the gambling crap. Couldnt republicans have voted yes because they wanted port security and found it more important than online gambling issues.
Yes I know it was put on by a republican, but not all republican are equal, just as all democrats arent the same.
|
|
#55
10-01-2006, 01:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I changed my political affiliation in the last 48 hours
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Package legislation has been around for a long time. [/ QUOTE ] It sure has. That doesn't change the fact that it's the cause of this whole problem. [/ QUOTE ] I think one way to look at it is that we didn't really have many friends on the issue. We did have a few enemies. We wanted online gambling to effectively remain a non-issue and not come up for a vote, but unfortunately for us our enemies got their way and used the political system to get the legislation through despite lack of enthusiastic support for it from very many people. There are various ways the bill could've passed, but the way it actually happened in the Senate is that Frist decided to make the legislation a priority and tack to it whatever other piece of "must-pass" legislation he could. So, yeah, I blame him more than I blame the Democrats who didn't vote against the port-security bill. They simply weren't going to do that. I'm upset about the bill too, but c'mon. Is it really the practice of package legislation that all of a sudden is greatly objectionable to you? I'm thinking what you're really upset about is that the future of online poker is now in jeopardy, and, yeah, I don't like the legislation on the rider either.
|
|
#56
10-01-2006, 02:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I changed my political affiliation in the last 48 hours
[ QUOTE ]
Is it really the practice of package legislation that all of a sudden is greatly objectionable to you? I'm thinking what you're really upset about is that the future of online poker is now in jeopardy, and, yeah, I don't like the legislation on the rider either. [/ QUOTE ] No, there's nothing "all of a sudden" about my objection to package legislation. How would you know how I feel about an issue when you've never talked to me about it before? Package legislation has always been disgusting. It allows politicians to pass laws that a majority would never pass, and that's a completely disgusting undermining of democracy.
|
|
#57
10-01-2006, 02:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I changed my political affiliation in the last 48 hours
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] REPUBLICANS ALONE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HAPPENED. [/ QUOTE ] YOU ARE WRONG. By allowing riders to continue to exist and abusing them themselves, Democrats are equally responsible. It's the system that allows people to pass laws that don't have a majority support and the politicians that accept that system that are at fault here. [/ QUOTE ] Clearly there is blame to be shared here, but your stance that both parties are equally to blame is beyond stupid. Republicans placed this rider on a bill that was sure to pass and if the Democrats were in charge this issue would have never come up. Yet, in your warped reality, both parties are equally responsible? Now anyone who chooses to change parties over just this issue makes me laugh. There are so many bigger and better issues to get worked up about. In other comments you indicate that you think some big constitutional rights are being violated here. What rights are you thinking of? I hope you're right, because that means the SC will over turn this legislation. However, I don't see anything here. We have no right to gamble. The government has being sticking it's nose these type of personal choice issues forever, I don't think internet gambling is any different.
|
|
#58
10-01-2006, 02:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I changed my political affiliation in the last 48 hours
What if the next legislature uses package legislation to legalize gay marriage or marijuana by putting it on a similar "Port Authority" bill that is guarenteed passage? The whole thing reeks and it is equally democratic and republican fault but more republican because the puritan ba$tard$ are trying to dictate how I run my life.
You may laugh at the above but don't be so quick to dismiss it. If the gambling thing ws this easy then what next???
|
|
#59
10-01-2006, 02:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I changed my political affiliation in the last 48 hours
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Is it really the practice of package legislation that all of a sudden is greatly objectionable to you? I'm thinking what you're really upset about is that the future of online poker is now in jeopardy, and, yeah, I don't like the legislation on the rider either. [/ QUOTE ] No, there's nothing "all of a sudden" about my objection to package legislation. How would you know how I feel about an issue when you've never talked to me about it before? Package legislation has always been disgusting. It allows politicians to pass laws that a majority would never pass, and that's a completely disgusting undermining of democracy. [/ QUOTE ] Well, okay. I'm not certain the internet-gambling prohibition is a law "the majority would never pass" -- I think most leglislators, like the country as a whole, don't care much about the issue one way or the other but might vote for it if forced to take a side. But, anyway, neither of us is happy that the gambling bill is going to become law. We're on the same side as far as that goes, and I guess we're arguing with each other over side issues partly to take out our frustration.
|
|
#60
10-01-2006, 02:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I changed my political affiliation in the last 48 hours
[ QUOTE ]
Clearly there is blame to be shared here, but your stance that both parties are equally to blame is beyond stupid. [/ QUOTE ] Both parties are equally responsible for creating and enabling a system that allows laws that don't have the support of the majority to be passed, and that system is what is responsible for this ban, pure and simple. When Democrats sneak just as distasteful a rider onto a bill, Republicans are equally responsible as well. The only politicians not responsible are those that take a stand against such riders, and that is none of them. Bills should stand on their own merits or not at all. [ QUOTE ] In other comments you indicate that you think some big constitutional rights are being violated here. What rights are you thinking of? [/ QUOTE ] Congress does not have the Constitutional power to legislate this, therefore by the Tenth Amendment, the power is reserved to the states or the people. This is true of 90%+ of what Congress does though, so I don't really expect the Supreme Court to care. There's only one justice (Clarence Thomas) who comes close to actually supporting the Constitution over his/her own personal political beliefs and desires. This is why he quite often has solo dissenting opinions that are different from the rest of the dissenters' opinions.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
