Oleg, my theory for that phenomenon is that state elections are coveredby state and local press to a bigger extent than by national liberalpress. People get heavier assault by the biased national press duringpresidential elections.
and I also have a different take on this kind of phenomena..it all depends on the state population too...like it was explained to me by someone from SD, where a large portion of population is of German dissent, and Germans have a strong sense of socialism...so they vote democrat for Senate/House (because they love farm subsidies, and republican for President (because they favor strong national security)..

Svetlana, the money laundering problem is BECAUSE it's illegal :)
If it was legal and regulated the problem would go away, as all the transaction would become reportable and auditable.
The same way abortion was a much bigger problem when it was illegal - a lot more death, complications, crime around it, etc.

here..that was the claim...how could launder money if it's illegal? don't you have to do it through a legal venue?
********en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_gambling
In March 2003, Deputy Assistant Attorney General John G. Malcolmtestified before the Senate Banking Committee regarding the specialproblems presented by online gambling.[11] A major concern of the United States Department of Justice is online money laundering.The anonymous nature of the Internet and the use of encryption make itespecially difficult to trace online money laundering transactions.

Again, it's anonymous BECAUSE it's illegal.
If legal US entities were able to do that they would make them collect SSNs for example.. like they do with on-line banking.
Once something is legal it cane be regulated and taxes.
When it's illegal you have no idea what's going on.. and people still use on-line poker sites.. but you just created 2 million criminals.

Oleg, i am still not sure what the argument is..
would anyone want to deny any legal immigrant old person basic social benefits? Any any modern ( even uber-conservatives ) against any social welfare?

Yeah, Oleg, why don't drop everything you're doing and explain in great detail to increasingly cranky Mike what the argument WAS and reiterate what he or she saidin the last 94 posts AND how what you meant to say was misinterpreted and misunderstood and now you have to explain yourself ALL OVER AGAIN to interlocutors whose greatest arguments begin with "I still don't understand how you..."

1. no, I don't know of any conservative, prominent or otherwise, whowould want to deny safety nets for elderly LEGAL immigrants...I thinkBrighton supports republicans because of the national security concerns :-)
2. I am not saying banning is the way to go and didn't create ownproblems...I was just showing that back in 2003, when on-line poker wasstill legal, because it was difficult for them to monitor internetactivities and people who participated, and it involved a lot of cash flow, they argued it was hardto monitor and banned it..

Ol'ga, lol..
i believe the point some people were trying to make was:
"how can ex USSR people be conservative when their grandparents are getting social benefits"
I believe instead of arguing how much their children contribute the appropriate response is:
"conservatives support social benefits to older retired citizens and legal aliens"

I'm sure there are some... but what about those that complain about the evils of labor unions (and I don't entirely disagree), and accuse liberals of primarily holding public sector jobs and not knowing anything about competing in the real market, while they themselves reap the benefits of government guaranteed, taxpayer subsidized teacher pensions.

:-D
I had a similiar reaction...no, more like |-( ...but I was patiently waiting for someone to respond..:-)