PDA

View Full Version : OK Call me ignorant




PatriotG
10-30-2007, 11:18 AM
But I have a question that been bothering me for quite sometime
The issue is trivial, and Im not looking to make an issue of it, Im just curious to the comments I will get on this

On March 14 2006
The Safe Port Act was introduced.

H.R. 4954 [109th]: SAFE Port Act
To improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced layered defenses, and for other purposes.

In this passed bill there is the follwoing:
TITLE VIII--UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 801. Short title.Sec. 802. Prohibition on acceptance of any payment instrument for unlawful Internet gambling.Sec. 803. Internet gambling in or through foreign jurisdictions.

Now My question:
I used to enjoy playing poker online, and now obviously I do not play anymore because it almost impossible to deposit money anywhere for Internet Gambling.

Fine. I can live without it, its a luxury anyway.

How the hell did this wind up in the "Safe Port Act"?
I assume it is H.R. 4411 which was sponsored by Rep. James Leach.

There is a name for sneaking bills like this through with out discussion or debate
Whats it called?

The first word that comes to mind is B.S.

Let me take a stab in the dark why this was passed:

U.S. Casinos were feeling threatened?
The Fed. was not getting their VIG? (Tax Share)

Whats your opinion?

PatriotG

Restore The Republic.Org (http://www.restoretherepublic.org)

allyinoh
10-30-2007, 11:25 AM
You're not ignorant. I think the term you're looking for is a "rider."

PatriotG
10-30-2007, 12:00 PM
I couldnt think of the word.

I guess the question I really should ask is why does congress attach a bill like this to something totally unrelated.

I going to give extra credit and assume that the amendment to the bill is actually discussed and debated.

Also, just my opinion, Riders should be illegal.
All bills should be discussed and passed and or not passed, individually.

Im going to go and read through the Patriot Act now, to see what was "Ridered" in on that wonderful piece of legislation.

PatriotG

Restore The Republic.Org (http://www.restoretherepublic.org)

freelance
10-30-2007, 12:09 PM
Hey PatriotG,

You answered your own question. LOL They slide through the riders. Hell, no one even reads the actual bills. In addition to what you say, I think it should be illegal to vote on a bill that you have not read from cover to cover, and you should have to sign an affidavit attesting to the fact that YOU, not just your LAs have read it. That would do two things aside from the fact that people couldn't use the excuse that they didn't read the bill. It would shorten these tomes to a few pages, and it would ensure that they are written in English.

It would require a change in the rules/procedures, but I don't think those changes would be unconstitutional.

Wendi
10-30-2007, 03:51 PM
One "Patriot" Act rider I know of involves signing your name and showing identification to purchase cold medication.

Apparently, the "war on drugs" is closely tied to the "war on terror."

And kudos to Target, they're the ones that post signs informing customers that it's authorized by the "patriot" act.

freelance
10-30-2007, 04:21 PM
War on drugs is Corrections Corp of America (Prison Privatization At It's Best) I kid you not, that is their slogan.

http://finance.yahoo.com/charts#chart2:symbol=cxw;range=5y;indicator=volume ;charttype=line;crosshair=on;logscale=on;source=un defined

War on terra is Halliburton.

http://finance.yahoo.com/charts#chart3:symbol=hal;range=5y;indicator=volume ;charttype=line;crosshair=on;logscale=on;source=un defined

kylejack
10-30-2007, 04:26 PM
Bill Frist was instrumental in attaching the rider, and is hated by the poker community. This was pushed largely by casinos, who wanted to kill internet poker.

Zarxrax
10-30-2007, 04:57 PM
I don't understand how all of this "riders" nonsense works, but someone answer this for me. What is to stop Ron Paul or anyone else from attaching pro-liberty riders to all the bills in congress?

kylejack
10-30-2007, 05:17 PM
I don't understand how all of this "riders" nonsense works, but someone answer this for me. What is to stop Ron Paul or anyone else from attaching pro-liberty riders to all the bills in congress?
There's a vote to attach the rider, and they'd vote his rider down.

Zarxrax
10-30-2007, 05:27 PM
There's a vote to attach the rider, and they'd vote his rider down.

So whats the difference in making something a rider on a bill, and just trying to get it passed as a separate bill on its own? I thought the problem with riders was that they sneak in without people knowing what they are voting on?

kylejack
10-30-2007, 05:29 PM
So whats the difference in making something a rider on a bill, and just trying to get it passed as a separate bill on its own? I thought the problem with riders was that they sneak in without people knowing what they are voting on?
Once they manage to attach the rider, a legislator has to ask himself...is it worth killing this bill because of that one pesky rider? Sometimes they get riders attached intentionally to ensure that a bill can't pass a vote.

Zarxrax
10-30-2007, 05:33 PM
Once they manage to attach the rider, a legislator has to ask himself...is it worth killing this bill because of that one pesky rider? Sometimes they get riders attached intentionally to ensure that a bill can't pass a vote.

Sorry, but I'm not quite following this. Are the riders only voted on (to be attached to a bill) by a small subset of congress, or everyone?

kylejack
10-30-2007, 05:36 PM
I think it can be inserted into the bill by the person presenting it, tacked on in sub-committee, or voted on by amendment in general assembly.

beerista
10-30-2007, 05:38 PM
So whats the difference in making something a rider on a bill, and just trying to get it passed as a separate bill on its own? I thought the problem with riders was that they sneak in without people knowing what they are voting on?
Sort of. They sneak in without the public knowing that it's been voted on. For instance, using the example of the above-mentioned act, it is easy for a Congressman to defend a vote in favor of Safe Ports to an uninformed public. After all, how could anyone be against safe ports? But it is difficult for a conscientious Congressman to explain a vote against Safe Ports to an uninformed public even if his negative vote is because of absurd riders as it would require more than two seconds, time he will not be given to explain himself.
Hence, the naming of bills is very important for getting them passed with riders attached. Many voted for the PATRIOT Act simply because they couldn't have their constituencies find out that they had voted against a bill with such an appealing name so soon after 9-11. Clever naming is all with these things.