[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
From the tone of this statement and others he has made in the past, I'm guessing that one of Kyl's family members (or close friends) was a hardcore gambling addict, like on the pathological level - maybe even he himself was. He reminds me of the reformed addict who has way overcompensated the other way. I mean, there are some logical aruments out there for restricitng/making illegal online gambling (not that I agree with them, but that are at least rational), yet everything coming from him is way over the top irrationality.

Kind of like the school counselor who tried to scare you into never doing drugs by implying one puff of marijuana would lead to full blown hardcore drug use/addiction within a short period of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are way off here. He is a politician. This is just sanctimonious [censored] he does not actually believe. It would be less offensive coming from a sincere but misguided attempted well doer. This is the worse kind of hot air; its misinformed in its statements of the prior state of the law, and the author doesn't even believe it. We know this because he didn't propose the "ban all gambling whatsoever act, including government sanctioned lotteries and casinos", which return far, far, far, less money to players than online poker. It would make much more sense for an actually concerned senator to be worried about, for example, slot machines, which NO ONE EVER WINS AT. See, that is not a game of skill; there is no such thing as a professional slot monkey. Or, roulette, which has an unbeatable house advantage and NO ONE EVER WINS AT. A truly concerned Senator would take the time to know the difference. But the real sad truth is that our government is not against gambling, no sir. It's against competition against the highly organized and well funded Brick and Mortar bazillion dollar industry. You can tell because they both present the same alleged evil and only the online poker rooms are being targeted. It is as if a Ford family member were in Congress and attempted to get GM products outlawed. So he can blather on all he wants, but he needs to answer some questions. First, how can he say this stuff when the bill's sponsor (Frist) takes money from Brick and Mortars? Two, is he in any way shape or form concerned about protecting our youth from IEDs in Iraq, or is his alleged concern for the youth limited only to the presumed evils of poker, and not the evils of death and disfigurement for no apparent reason? I don't need to hear anyone in Congress claiming concern for the 20 somethings right now in light of their reprehensible lack of a backbone with respect to this never ending war that we supposedly won years ago. And next, is he aware that the amount that online poker rooms charge for their services --ie the rake-- is a fraction of what his favorite brick and mortar charges? And finally, does he beleive that ignoring the rulings of the WTO is appropriate, or could it be termed "illegal" for a signatory country to do so?

This has apparently devolved into a "rant." So I go now. Suffice it to say that you give him far too much credit on the sincerity meter.