Replies

You keep missing the point. Do I need a sledge hammer?
LOL!
You keep proving my point. You must continue to dodge and duck because you can't justify your support for the trashing of the Constitution by your candidate.

There was no public demand for this legislation.
This legislation was opposed by the banking industry.
This legislation was attached to the Port Security Bill without debate because it would have never become law legitimately.
This law is entirely the work of Focus on the Family and those politicians who grovel for evangelical money.

I will not vote for anyone who supports the taking of my right to spend my money any way I please...It's as simple as that.
.

Both the Senate and House of Representatives passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which would create new enforcement tools to prevent or interdict gambling on the Internet. The House approved the bill almost unanimously as an attachment to the Security and Accountability for Every Port (SAFE) Act (H.R. 4954) on September 30, and the Senate quickly followed with a voice vote on the measure. While Internet gambling is already an illegal activity in the United States, Americans send an estimated $5.9 billion annually to offshore gambling websites. The new legislation, however, chokes business revenues by prohibiting financial institutions from approving transactions between U.S.-based customer accounts and offshore gambling merchants, thereby making it difficult for people to send money to online gaming coffers. Further, a person who knowingly accepts funds for unlawful Internet gambling could be punished by up to five years in prison. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) are the chief sponsors of the legislation. President Bush signed the bill into law October 13.

I assume this is what you are squawking about.

They just shredded the constitution with this one. Just like those nasty child porn laws.

I respect your opinion and I would like to know why Hunter supported this. If it was because the port security bill was to important to let slide (because this was thrown in) then I see where it could have been better to vote for it then vote against it.

If it was to some misguided attempt to stop gambling then I am forced to agree with your opinion, at least to some extent.