House passes online gambling restrictions

[bishop]

article

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House passed legislation Tuesday that would prevent gamblers from using credit cards to bet online and could block access to gambling Web sites. The legislation would clarify and update current law to spell out that most gambling is illegal online. But there would be exceptions -- for state-run lotteries and horse racing -- and passage isn't a safe bet in the Senate, where Republican leaders have not considered the measure a high priority. The House voted 317-93 for the bill, which would allow authorities to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling Web sites.

i almost put this in breaking news, but it hardly deserves to be called news.. it's more of a joke.. another example of just how pathetic our government, and its "leaders" has/have become.

in only about a month, they've taken on the oh-so important and vital issues of gay marriage, flag burning, giving themselves a pay raise and online gambling...

proud to be an american indeed....

and since they're the ones in power, thank GOD for the GOP.

[RickSp]

The politics of distraction and distortion. Ignore that war behind the curtain.

[Scribbler1]

It's such a comfort to know our leaders are there to protect us from our own stupidity, especially since we seem to be getting MORE stupid by the day.

The fact that we keep electing these leaders to begin with is ample proof of that.

[PatrickHenry]

The elite doesn't cotton to online gambling because they can't be there to extract the protection money.

[bishop]

of course, you have to love the little amendment they made so that state-run gambling can still be done online.. corrupt sacks of shit that they are.

[SaucyJim]

Actually, it is my understanding that this was actually piggy-backed on the port security bill. When I pointed that out to my son, he replied: What does gambling online have to do with the safety our ports?

Ah... the refreshing view of the innocent (or naive' - as the case may be).

Sauce

[bishop]

it's definitely faaaar from the first time that these irrelevant ammendments were attached to larger, usually spending, bills.

after all, whenever the bill involves money, all the pigs flock to the trough.

[Compugasm]

If they want to protect us, they would make a law that stops credit card companies from sending you statements with your account numbers on it, and an envelope stuffed with pre-printed checks, just itching for forged signatures. Because credit card signatures don't have to be your actual name. I've signed for purchases, using emoticons.

[SaucyJim]

Quote by: Compugasm If they want to protect us, they would make a law that stops credit card companies from sending you statements with your account numbers on it, and an envelope stuffed with pre-printed checks, just itching for forged signatures. Because credit card signatures don't have to be your actual name. I've signed for purchases, using emoticons.

That's pretty funny what you said about signing with emoticons, as I seldom sign the electronic signature terminals in so many grocery and hardware stores these days with my actual signature. Sometimes I write things like, "Not My Signature" or "Can You Read This?"

Last night though, a checker at my local Safeway was quite rude in his actions and (lack of) words. He clearly did not want to be there on a Saturday night and wanted to make sure every customer knew it. I wrote something on the signature pada dn showed my wife, while turning so the arrow faced just the right direction. It said:

<---- asshole

LMAO! I really amused myself with that one!

Sauce