There's a link at the bottom of the article. Let them know what you think.
http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2007/09/internet_gambli.html
http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2007/09/internet_gambli.html
This con point made me laugh:
This is not a "conservative moral issue." Disdain for Internet gambling crosses all party lines and interests. Opposition comes from everywhere from the NFL to the Mormon Church.
Oh really, the NFL doesn't support gambling - who would have fucking thought?
This is not a "conservative moral issue." Disdain for Internet gambling crosses all party lines and interests. Opposition comes from everywhere from the NFL to the Mormon Church.
Oh really, the NFL doesn't support gambling - who would have fucking thought?
Predictably, the Con argument is shot with screwy logic. The comments on the article are worth scanning over. Interesting Jon Kyl (R sen AZ) is mentioned. He is the major spokesperson for the prohibition/casino interests even though he isn't listed as being the top recipient of PAC money from casino lobby on the Opensecrets.org site (means nothing because the good 'ole boys trade positions like hand signals under a bathroom stall door). Hard to imagine that the loads of the Abramoff-Indian casinos scandal's millions is not still buying Congress votes. IMO the congressional votes on the net gambling prohibition is a fastball right down the middle for a good investigative reporter or prosecutor. This naked vote buying is a case study on how the public's 'common good' gets steamrolled by lobby money (always the most astonishing aspect is how cheap the votes are). It may be how Congress works but it still sucks to be the pancake on the other side. Thanks for posting the article.
