Submitted by OldBookGuy, Oct 25, 2007 08:57

Two things really strike me in the article.

1. "Republicans had long pushed for a curb on Internet gambling before they finally succeeded in enacting the legislation shortly before they lost control of Congress. Proponents cited moral concerns, saying the industry preyed on children and compulsive gamblers…"

OK, so why then exempt horse racing, are there no concerns here for children and addicted gamblers? Come on, get real congress.

1. "The alliance also is supporting a narrower proposal by Rep. Robert Wexler, a Democrat of Florida, that would classify poker, chess, bridge, and mah jong as "skill games" and exempt them from the gambling ban."

So, is this really necessary since 'skill' games are not covered by this new law? AOL, MSN, YAHOO! and others offer these games and they are legal.

AH, yes, the DoJ believes courts and congress are wrong and all wagering is illegal, so yes it is needed.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.