Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Life, liberty and the right to play online poker (Family Research Council plays the fool)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
No DUplicitous DUpe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:55 PM
Original message
Life, liberty and the right to play online poker (Family Research Council plays the fool)
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 09:14 PM by No DUplicitous DUpe
Life, liberty and the right to play online poker
(edited to make the title better)
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/11/15/online_intern...
<snip>
"There are 28 million self-identified poker players who want to play and bet online. They are adults who as American citizens have a right to play poker, a game of skill, in the privacy of their own homes on their own computers. There is a limit to how much government can interfere with our fellow citizens' rights to participate in a recreational activity of their choice."


So testified Rep. Shelly Berkley, D-Nev., at a House Judiciary Committee hearing looking into online gambling law enforcement on Thursday. As congressional hearings go, this one gets a five-star rating from How the World Works. There were professional poker players referencing John Locke and John Stuart Mill, Tennessee legislators getting medieval on the Family Research Council, and a discussion of the odds against James Bond drawing an inside straight in "Casino Royale." All this against a backdrop featuring a mighty clash between states' rights and international treaty obligations.

<snip>
Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., engaged the Family Research Council's McClusky on just where the line should be drawn. If one of the reasons to support a ban on Internet gambling was the technical impossibility of preventing children from participating, then why allow online access to lotteries, or to horse-race betting?

Better yet, why allow horse racing at all?


COHEN: Do you think that horse racing and dog racing and lotteries should be legal in the United States?

MCCLUSKY: Are you asking me?

COHEN: Yes, you personally.

MCCLUSKY: The Family Research Council does believe that such things should be illegal.

COHEN: So it is really not the Internet you are against. It is gambling in general. Is that right?

MCCLUSKY: Yes, that would be true, or at least unrestricted gambling such as we have with the Internet or other.

COHEN: But the lottery is restricted. You can't play if you are a child. Same thing with horse racing. But you are against that, are you not?

MCCLUSKY: Yes.

COHEN: So restricted or unrestricted, you are against it?

MCCLUSKY: Yes.

COHEN: Is there any fun that you are for?


McClusky subsequently tried to defuse the question by joking that he was in favor of the hearing itself, and that seemed like "fun," but the damage was done. For years, groups like the Family Research Council have been setting the agenda in Washington. But on Thursday a congressman in the majority party mocked their anti-fun agenda. Steve Cohen, he's our man.

<snip>

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/11/15/online_intern...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
No DUplicitous DUpe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well, anytime the Family Research Council is made to look foolish..
during congressional hearings, I think it is worth sharing, here at DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No DUplicitous DUpe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. I think so too. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. That sounds like a
" at long last,have you no shame" senatorial moment(OK,maybe not as monumental as the first time around). Maybe the tide is turning against the neo puritans?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No DUplicitous DUpe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Maybe the tide is turning against the neo puritans?
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 09:20 PM by No DUplicitous DUpe
I sure as hell hope so!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flashl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
3. Folks keep asking how they are going to shut the net down. One area at a time. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 21st 2014, 06:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC