Christopher Shays replies to HR2046

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think this is the sort of dishonesty Shays is referring to. When he says that all gambling is dishonest, he is referring to the fact that gambling takes advantage of people's irrational hopes and beliefs about luck. From a public policy perspective, why should we encourage an industry that can only succeed by preying upon people's psychological weaknesses?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's remember something, though: gambling/wagering is not an evil person like Hitler or Stalin that sort of reaches out and grabs people into the haunted house - it is a measureable, definable activity. People consent to engage in it for a lot of reasons, but one of which is obviously in order to improve financial well-being. Most people lose at it, but it still has value. One could argue, for example, that even though those who paid to see "Gigli" were victimized in the process, there is still value in taking a risk that by forking over their money, some individuals may enjoy seeing the film. And it helps create jobs for those in the industry.

I object to the notion that the industry can only succeed by victimizing people. If you are familiar with the concept of rake, then you know that the house gains at a standardized rate, more or less without regard to what's going on between the players or who wins. It's just a fee.

Casinos, that's a whole other ball of wax.

[ QUOTE ]
I respect Shays' position a lot. I enjoy playing poker, but if I were in a position where I am responsible for looking after the well being of a million citizens and not just myself, I might very well be opposed to internet gambling as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you are saying, but obviously I strongly disagree.

What people need to be reminded of is that the public interest is not served best when public servants restrict economic freedoms. Government should not be in the business of pandering to Christian fundamentalists and lecturing constituents about "family values" and morality.

It's possible he's being consistent with his voting history, but I still find the underlying notion patronizing and, thus, offensive from an official who is supposed to be doing OUR bidding while helping to preserve the free-est America possible.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Yep, it's time that he is "Leached" out office.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a few guys like this will be Leached out next go-around. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
"Thank you for contacting my office expressiong support for HR2046, the internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act. I appreciate you taking the time to contact my office.

I am not a cosponsor of HR 2046 and would be inclined to oppose this bill should it come to the House floor for my consideration. This legislation would create an exemption to the ban on online gambling for properly licensed operators, allowing Americans to lawfully bet online. Specifically, the bill establishes a federal regulatory and enforcement framework to license companies to accept bets and wagers online from individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In my judgement, Internet gambling should be regulated the same way as traditional forms of gambling, as was recommended by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Illegal acts should be prohibited wherever they occurr -- including cyberspace -- and society clearly has the right to prevent cyberspace from being used for illegal purposes."

[/ QUOTE ]

SO VOTE FOR IT.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]

What people need to be reminded of is that the public interest is not served best when public servants restrict economic freedoms.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds every bit as paternalistic as the arguments of the anti-gambling zealots. Who are you to tell me what I need to be reminded of? A large portion of society, including the majority of people who support regulation of online poker would take issue with your characterization of economic regulation.

[ QUOTE ]
Government should not be in the business of pandering to Christian fundamentalists and lecturing constituents about "family values" and morality.


[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't sound to be like Shays is opposed to gambling because it is part of the dogma of a particular religious tradition. He believes that gambling interests tend to target the most vulnerable among society to take advantage of (and I agree!), and that this is not something the state should facilitate.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yep, it's time that he is "Leached" out office.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a few guys like this will be Leached out next go-around. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Time to start a list of anti-gambling Congressmen that are located in districts with large universities? [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What people need to be reminded of is that the public interest is not served best when public servants restrict economic freedoms.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds every bit as paternalistic as the arguments of the anti-gambling zealots. Who are you to tell me what I need to be reminded of? A large portion of society, including the majority of people who support regulation of online poker would take issue with your characterization of economic regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

If people are going to lectured about morality, then they need to be reminded (or pardon me, maybe educated for the first time) that when government restricts ecnomic freedom, it harms the economy. That's the greater harm. See Adam Smith's "On Wealth of Nations". Or was it Thomas Jefferson?

And whose side are you on, anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Government should not be in the business of pandering to Christian fundamentalists and lecturing constituents about "family values" and morality.


[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't sound to be like Shays is opposed to gambling because it is part of the dogma of a particular religious tradition. He believes that gambling interests tend to target the most vulnerable among society to take advantage of (and I agree!), and that this is not something the state should facilitate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you being paid to promote anti-gambling views here? Sure sounds like you totally buy into those arguments. No offense, but few here are interested.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you being paid to promote anti-gambling views here? Sure sounds like you totally buy into those arguments. No offense, but few here are interested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. One sided discussion only please.

[JPFisher55]

But Shays is known as a liberal Republican; not a social conservative one.

[gulon]

It's funny because Shays is known as a RINO (Republican in Name Only). I mostly agree with his politics, not to open a political can of worms here... What I don't agree with is his idea that legislating morality to protect the ignorant is +EV.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe gambling is inherently dishonest and am opposed to it in any form.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a stupid thing to say.

Poker is primarily about exploiting others' mistakes, not dishonesty. And even in games where you bluff, everyone knows that - going in - successful dishonesty is how you win. That's the fun in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is the sort of dishonesty Shays is referring to. When he says that all gambling is dishonest, he is referring to the fact that gambling takes advantage of people's irrational hopes and beliefs about luck. From a public policy perspective, why should we encourage an industry that can only succeed by preying upon people's psychological weaknesses?

I respect Shays' position a lot. I enjoy playing poker, but if I were in a position where I am responsible for looking after the well being of a million citizens and not just myself, I might very well be opposed to internet gambling as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you were to do a Lexis search on "professional gambler", what you would find pre-internet is a definition that looks something like this:

Professional Gambler - Someone who fraudulently and illegally manipulates a game of chance so that they have an unfair advantage

Basically a professiona gambler in the past is a con man.

Many laws have been passed to protect to the public from these con-men. I believe Congressman Shays, and many other older generation legislators still believe in this definition.