I'm a little perturbed by...

[JmE]

The fact that congress was able to amend a port securities bill to include a ban on internet gambling at the last minute, which oh by the way, excludes horse racing. I mean really, what does internet gambling have to do with port securities? I'm frustrated because there's absolutely no chance that a defense bill won't pass, and congress uses this to conveniently pass a bill that more than likely, would not pass on it's own. What's the justification, and why is this even allowed? Maybe someone can enlighten me. The fact of the matter is.. I partially make a living off playing online poker, and I know a lot of people who fully make a living off it. I'm not sure if there's been a thread on the issue, so I won't really get into it. As an American, I'm moreso upset by the fact that Congress can pull a stunt like this.

(Oh and hi, I haven't posted here in awhile.)

[Hababi]

(Oh and hi, I haven't posted here in awhile.)


Yeah I'll say.

Banning internet gambling has nothing to do with port security and everything about protecting the established brick and mortar gambling institutions that contribute tidy sums of money to key congressmen.

[John Paul Harrison]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_%28legislation%29

Rider legislation? It's kind of sleazy, but I guess it's legitimate tactic, just like the filibuster.

[Otherside]

Things like this should be illegal.

[griftadan]

Yeah I'll say.

Banning internet gambling has nothing to do with port security and everything about protecting the established brick and mortar gambling institutions that contribute tidy sums of money to key congressmen.

win.

[lfantwister]

Isn't it in violation of some gambling law that prohibits betting sums through a "wire communication facility"? Which they're including internet in.. Or at least that's the one they're pulling for BetOnSports (located in Costa Rica and the UK)