Please analyze my response to a supporter of the bill.

[Karak567]

The College Republicans president here sent me an e-mail today telling me he was "pissed off" that I was so mad at the Republican party over this bill. He included this blurb from a conservative newspaper, saying that it should "please" me:

"Congress passed a law last month attached to the port-security bill making it illegal for banks and credit-card companies to process payments to online-gambling sites. This follows a trend of widespread calls from legislators and private citizens for either tighter regulation of the industry or the outright banning of online gaming. It’s no surprise that gambling on the Internet would draw Washington’s attention. In 2005, Americans spent $6 billion gambling on line, accounting for half the industry’s global revenue. However, do we really have the resources necessary to focus on this issue? We’ve been told that our investigative resources in the financial arena are already spread thin tracking terrorist money around the globe to prevent the financing of further terrorist attacks. Gambling can be a destructive force in people’s lives, affecting their financial stability and their family. But that’s nothing compared to a terrorist group gaining the funds it needs to purchase and deliver a nuclear weapon to America’s shores. "

I responded with a large, long response. I typed this up quickly, as it is an informal e-mail, and have not proofread it. Please excuse any syntax or diction errors. I'm an English major (as well as an Economics major) so I am almost ashamed to post a piece I typed so haphazardly, but I wanted your opinions:

Alcohol, pornography and pre-marital sex are also destructive
to people's lives. Do they need to be banned? Maybe Mr.
Goodlatte should return the 16,000 dollars he received from
the horse racing industry if he is so upset over the morality
of the issue. Oh? Maybe that's why he carved out exceptions
for horseracing in the bill? (sources:
http://www.fund4horses.org/info.php?id=770 and
http://www.opensecrets.org/races/con...amp;special=N)

The morality issue is gone out the window as soon as you realize:
a) there were special exceptions for state lotteries and
horseracing
b) there is no push to outlaw gambling anywhere else
c) nearly all of the senators pushing this bill routinely
accept large donations from gambling institutions


Also the terrorists "use internet gambling" to bring money
into the country is by far one of the weakest points for the
bill. This has NEVER been proven in ANY ONE CASE. Terrorists also use banks
and cash to shuttle money through. They also use international
wires, international bank transactions and stock sales. Should
all those things be banned as well? Maybe if the government
legalized and regulated internet gambling, we wouldn't have to
worry about the terrorists doing that. Our congressmen,
however, are far too busy taking money from the horseracing
industry and brick and mortar gambling industry to do such a
horrible moral thing.

Just the other week Manhattan bank admitted to being involved
in such a case. Embezzlement takes place nearly all of the
time when one foreign investor claims he is exchanging cash
for "goods and services." These exchanges go largely
unchecked. This happens ALL THE TIME in our banking system. Do
banks need to be outlawed?

Also, even high up Republican aids are admitting this bill is
unenforceable. It is completely unenforceable. The banking
industry has been against this bill from the start (all of
this will be sourced at the bottom).

One theory is that this will make it EASIER for terrorists to
launder money. The big players, like PartyPoker, PokerStars,
etc would routinely ban player if they dumped chips to each
other on a table. One time I received a player to player
transfer for 125 dollars (only ONE HUNDRED and TWENTY FIVE
dollars, that is IT!) and cashed it out. MY account was frozen
and I had to provide my DL in a fax, my SS # and a good reason
why I did that before my funds were released.

With this new bill, the big hitters have pulled out of the
market. The seedier sites, who could care less about money
laundering, are now gobbling up the market share. Thanks to
Republicans, it is now EASIER for terrorist to launder money.
Thankfully for all of us, there are no documented reports of
that ever happening in the first place.

Also, some Republicans say we need to do this to save the
children. What is to stop a child from opening his parent's
medicine cabinet or alcohol cabinet? Good parenting. But
obviously that is not good enough. Why are dangerous medicines
and alcohol not banned? Just the other week, Foley, (one of
our esteemed Republicans), used instant messenger in order to
send provocative messages to a young boy. Predators use e-mail
and instant messenger every week to lure children into
confrontations, where they are raped, molested and/or killed.
These kids can access instant messaging from their PARENT'S
COMPUTERS WITH JUST ONE CLICK! They can even be conned into
giving up credit card information and bank information.
Obviously instant messaging and e-mail need to be banned.
Think of the children.

Before I hit you with my long list of articles, let me make
something very clear. This internet gambling deal is the straw
that broke the camel's back. Is it a heavy straw? Sure, but it
alone would not be enough to force me away from the Republican
Party.

I have long been fed up with horrible Republican spending.
Many right wing pundits and true conservatives have. They
promise smaller government in their campaigns, but as soon as
they get in office, all government does is grow, grow, grow.
Their fiscal policies are some of the worst this country has
EVER seen.

The new Republican push of masking legislation with morality
issues is a joke. This Frist gambling thing has so many
ulterior motives behind it (as listed above) it is not even
funny. Ronal Reagan is rolling over in his grave right now,
watching the way this Republican Party is acting. Why do you
think they are suffering SO MUCH in the public opinion?

Here is how I view the parties right now:

Republicans: Very big government.
Democrats: Even bigger government.

Are the Democrats worse than Republicans? Absolutely.

Could a major Republican loss in this election help my cause?
Hell yes. Many grassroots conservatives, like me, are fed up
with the way this party is going. A huge loss in this election
could help them realize it and move the party back to where it
belongs.

The last thing this has done is decrease my student activism.
It's much the contrary. I have not felt this charged up about
a political issue in my entire life. I plan on writing
articles for whoever will take them and I have other goals I'd
wish to reach too. I will gladly write for the Madison Review,
but much of my writing will be heavy criticism of the
Republican Party, specifically on an economic front. (Their
spending pisses me off far more than their legislative
morality does)

I hope my tone does not come across as harsh, but this is
something I feel very passionate about. It is a misunderstood
topic in today's society and I feel the need to "defeat the
spin." All you need to do is look up gambling industry
contributions to Republican senators and this bill is dead in
morality's eyes, not to mention the carve-out for lotteries
and horseracing. Look up any information on why banks can't
enforce it and it's dead in practicality.

I encouarge you to respond on specific points and do some
research of your own. I would be interested to see if you
could find any proven cases of terrorists using online
gambling, as my research, along with the research of my peers,
has failed to find this. Even if that was true, the inability
to enforce this bill does not help that case.

To my sources:

Here are a collection of articles detailing how:
a) this bill is unenforceable
b) how this bill will hurt Americans
c) the abuse of power of Republicans

New anti-gambling law won't stop online bettors:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/...p;lid=tab6pos3

AP/DowJones on Gambling legislation: Banks say regs aren't
that strict:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/...a/15666187.htm

Online Gambling Still in the Cards? Loopholes in the Unlawful
Internet Gambling Enforcement Act may render it ineffective in
preventing online betting:
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...002_295924.htm

So much for morality? Expert: Internet ban a boon to gambling
industry:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/st...100410086.html

Republican Abuse of Power:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/5/94018/8719

[cking]

hear hear!

Pretty much summed up everything i as a life long republican feels right now.

[peritonlogon]

I like it. As a small government liberal I would change this.

<quote>
Here is how I view the parties right now:

Republicans: Very big government.
Democrats: Even bigger government.

Are the Democrats worse than Republicans? Absolutely.</quote>

to this

Democrats: Big Government
Republicans: Very Big Government.

At least on the federal level... I see tax and spend Democrats and Spend and spend and spend and tax-break Republicans...

Even if you disagree with this, it may add emphasis to the Conservative reader of the loss of fiscal conservatism and responsibility in the GOP.

But, aside frome that, nicely done.

[rubbrband]

Looks really good, but is kind of long. Another good point(even though this would make it even longer) is the WTO rulings against the US and how these laws are going even further to disreguard their rulings.

[Jeremy517]

"aides" not "aids"

[Sponger.]

[ QUOTE ]
The College Republicans president here sent me an e-mail today telling me he was "pissed off" that I was so mad at the Republican party over this bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there some sort of background that I missed? Why would he send you this email?

[Leader]

I agree with what you're saying in the letter, but what are you trying to accomplish? If you’re trying to convince him, your tone is way too confrontational. You're basically trying to take his head off. There's no way he knows as much about this stuff as you. You could probably convince him the party was wrong on this issue if you calmly explain the facts. A letter like this is likely to harden his position however because he'll fell like he's under attack and find some reason in his own mind to dismiss your arguments.

[GimmeDaWatch]

Ya, looks good, Im hardly in the mood right now to take [censored] from anybody either. You also might want to mention the numerous distinctions between poker and other forms of
"gambling", including but not limited to the fact that it is a hugely popular legitimate game that people actually have a chance to, gasp, win at.

[ThePenguin]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with what you're saying in the letter, but what are you trying to accomplish? If you’re trying to convince him, your tone is way too confrontational. You're basically trying to take his head off. There's no way he knows as much about this stuff as you. You could probably convince him the party was wrong on this issue if you calmly explain the facts. A letter like this is likely to harden his position however because he'll fell like he's under attack and find some reason in his own mind to dismiss your arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this assessment. As the president of your university's club, he probably has the ears of many. But the substance of this email is great and I don't think you should hesitate to send this information to any outlets that will hear it.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
Also the terrorists "use internet gambling" to bring money into the country is by far one of the weakest points for the bill. This has NEVER been proven in ANY ONE CASE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has there even been evidence presented to this end? To steal from Penn Jillette: "We haven't seen any real proof! F*ck, we haven't seen any FAKE proof!"

[ QUOTE ]
Our congressmen,
however, are far too busy taking money from the horseracing
industry and brick and mortar gambling industry to do such a
horrible moral thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should that be "immoral"?

I saw some other typos but nothing that couldn't be caught by a spell-checker. Give 'em hell.