If you were gambling in a state that doesn’t allow it, YOU WERE NOT INNOCENT. You were committing a crime and criminals were making a huge profit.

Allowing internet gambling is foolish. Much of the money WAS GOING STRAIGHT OUT OF THE COUNTRY. I’m all for allowing some gambling in the USA… Let’s be smart, keep it regulated, and AT LEAST KEEP THE EASY MONEY IN THE COUNTRY and know where it’s going. You’d think anybody could understand the need for that…

The fact is… None of this AT ALL proves internet gambling was ended for the wrong reasons. THE FACT IS… Many of these internet gambling sites were CROOKED and MANY were overseas… just stole money from Americans… off it went overseas… poof!!! You really don’t think this was a HUGE problem for the economy??? There was no “politically correct” way to shut down only overseas sites. THIS NEEDED TO BE DONE!!!

EVERY decision made by government is going to benefit someone, hurt someone else, have some financial effects somewhere…. GROW UP and realize it’s just a fact of life. I’m sure not saying US politicians haven’t become corrupt as heck. Big money has completely taken over “our” government. But, I think this law was NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE USA.

Been Libertarian since I was able to vote (2003)and had affiliation changed to Indie because the LP wasn’t recognized in Oklahoma at one point. The LP philosophy is easy to sell – I’ve got my co-workers and the girlfriend interested in it. I, of course, state that Libertarians have different views on how fast or slow government should be reduced. I mainly use economic argument (abolish min. wage, income taxes) but I have found people who sympathize with us on the drug war but want to take incremental steps toward complete legalization.

I’ve been in the local newspaper several times covering Social Security, War on Drugs, etc. People tell me they read the editorial section more just to hear what I have to say.

Yeah, my presentation is the video wasn’t spectacular. I goofed up a bit, even squinted haha. But I feel that I did OK for try #1

LAME!

I’m more inclined to think there is no way to limit money’s influence on gooberment without first limiting grabamint’s influence on money.

No way in hell. Two totally separate events with totally different implications altogether.

It’s good to have proof like this, though.

“Libertarians” would be against such a self-imposed rule.

Not necessarily. I’m all for evening the playing field for challengers a bit. Incumbents often shake down campaign contributions from people and groups who are afraid what legislature they might pass otherwise. PACs are a big part of this insidious problem.

Intelligent, yes.

Integrity, no.

http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm

I agree, except for corporations – their government endowment of personhood, and their government shield of limiting liability, is a huge problem. They shouldn’t participate in politics at all. Individual shareholders and board members already have the power to contribute money on their own, and I agree that the amount rightly falls under freedom of expression, and thus can not be artificially limited.

Unions of tax consumers (government employees) and unions which use government coercion to force their way should likewise be prohibited from participating in politics. Taxpayer money ought not be spent to agitate for more taxpayer money.

The big problem with money influencing politics is that there is so much government to influence. If government did not have so much control over our lives, why would anyone bother?

Actually they were not ‘bought’. Two private equity firms; Apollo Management Group and the Texas Pacific Group put in a bid to buy Harrah’s for $15.05 billion. This amounts to $81 a share and at the time Harrah’s was trading for $66.43. People suddenly realized that Harrah’s is more than likely an undervalued stock and took advantage of buying while it was still low. Form your own opinions- but one might think that a buyout bid might have been why Harrah’s stock ‘soared’ on October 2nd, as opposed to a bill banning online gambling.

This is what we get.

Newt Gingrich was on BookTV today. He is in favor of banning all PAC contributions to incumbents. It isn’t the 1st amendment rights of the PACs that are in question – it would be a House and Senate rule for their members to not accept them.

“Libertarians” would be against such a self-imposed rule.

And again, THIS is the government that we get.

The Libertarian solution is for Congress to start following the Constitution and behave like the legislative body of a limited government would.

Right.

We have a government bought and paid for by the wealthy and corporate interests, and the “Libertarians” would have it no other way.

This is what I call BIG GOVERNMENT LIBERTARIANISM, since so long as the campaign cash flows in, we will always have big spending, big government, big corruption.

Oh yeah, and “freedom”