View Full Version : Senate WILL NOT pass anti-gambling bill before August -- Reuters
The_Scout
07-20-2006, 04:17 PM
If true, this is huge.
http://www.onlinecasino.org/news/no-onli...-firms-1290.php (http://www.onlinecasino.org/news/no-online-gambling-bill-soon-good-news-for-online-poker-firms-1290.php)
NO Online Gambling Bill Soon - Good News For Online Poker Firms
Onlinecasino.org News | 20.07.2006 | 14:41:51 | Views: 144 | Casino News
Good news for online gambling firms According to Reuters:
"There will be No US Senate action soon on the H.R. 4411 Online gambling bill.
WASHINGTON (Reuters)
- A bill to ban Internet gambling is facing some opposition in the U.S. Senate and will not come up for a vote before the chamber takes its August recess, an aide to the U.S. Senate majority leader said on Thursday.
driverseati
07-20-2006, 04:19 PM
Wheeee!!
Let's gamb000000l!!
The_Scout
07-20-2006, 04:39 PM
I guess it's not exactly a done deal.
http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticl...LING-SENATE.xml (http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-07-20T192306Z_01_N202313_RTRUKOC_0_US-LEISURE-GAMBLING-SENATE.xml)
They are still trying to get action on the bill before the session ends.
KOTLP
07-20-2006, 04:40 PM
All that says is nothing is going to happen before the August recess. The full article is here (http://today.reuters.com/business/newsArticle.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=2006-07-20T160746Z_01_N202313_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-LEISURE-GAMBLING-SENATE-DC.XML).
And to make things clear as mud, this (http://today.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompanyNewsArticle.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-07-20T184906Z_01_N20242069_RTRIDST_0_LEISURE-GAMBLING-SENATE-UPDATE-1.XML&rpc=66) is from a few hours later, also from Reuters.
MicroBob
07-20-2006, 04:40 PM
deleted due to the updated article
MicroBob
07-20-2006, 04:45 PM
Very interesting updated article.
" "We are trying to get something done before the August recess," set to begin on Aug. 4, said Eric Ueland, Frist's chief of staff.
Earlier on Thursday, another Frist aide said lawmakers were still working on the bill, but would not be able to vote on it before the Senate heads off for its month-long vacation.
Ueland rejected that characterization, saying Frist had not given up on getting a vote before the August recess."
It sounds like they are kind of grasping at straws here and that they aren't willing to 'officially' give up on it. But that the aide that spoke about it is probably mostly correct that they really know already that time is not on their side.
I'm hoping that's the case anyway.
Info on how long the August recess lasts?
curious how much time they would have to work on it after the recess and before the end of session.
That's the more realistic time for them to get to this, isn't it?
Even with the November elections they would still have time to try to get to it I believe.
EvanJC
07-20-2006, 04:45 PM
and here i didn't think i could dislike frist more than i already did. MEATBRICK!
dlk9s
07-20-2006, 05:13 PM
[ QUOTE ]
and here i didn't think i could dislike frist more than i already did. MEATBRICK!
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the same DOCTOR Frist that would not confirm in an interview that HIV could not be transmitted via toilet seats. This was, of course, smack-dab in the middle of the gay marriage BS.
Kevmath
07-20-2006, 05:20 PM
The Senate is scheduled to not be in session August 7 - September 5. Senate calendar. (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/two_column_table/2006_Schedule.htm)
Canard
07-20-2006, 05:25 PM
He's the one who can make a diagnosis of a coma patient just by watching a video, right?
ShakeZula06
07-20-2006, 05:25 PM
I'd imagine that this is going to be the same type of thing republicans used the gay marriage ammendment for, just try to rally the base during the election and then never say a word after the election. Thoughts?
EvanJC
07-20-2006, 05:26 PM
he's potentially the next president of the united states =(
dlk9s
07-20-2006, 05:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I'd imagine that this is going to be the same type of thing republicans used the gay marriage ammendment for, just try to rally the base during the election and then never say a word after the election. Thoughts?
[/ QUOTE ]
That's what I think, as well. HOPEFULLY they never say a word after the election.
The sad part is, even if the legislation never goes through, online gambling still won't actually be 100% LEGAL. Until it's actually legal, I won't be comfortable.
Gregatron
07-20-2006, 05:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and here i didn't think i could dislike frist more than i already did. MEATBRICK!
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the same DOCTOR Frist that would not confirm in an interview that HIV could not be transmitted via toilet seats. This was, of course, smack-dab in the middle of the gay marriage BS.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah he also refuses to rule out the HIV can be transmitted through tears, and determined that Terry Shivo was not a vegetable by viewing a video tape. I'm glad that idiot isn't my doctor!
mrhat187
07-20-2006, 05:29 PM
Doesn't the side that frist is usually on lose?
Lawman007
07-20-2006, 05:39 PM
Howie Mandel will be president before Bill Frist is.
dalerobk
07-20-2006, 05:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and here i didn't think i could dislike frist more than i already did. MEATBRICK!
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the same DOCTOR Frist that would not confirm in an interview that HIV could not be transmitted via toilet seats. This was, of course, smack-dab in the middle of the gay marriage BS.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah he also refuses to rule out the HIV can be transmitted through tears, and determined that Terry Shivo was not a vegetable by viewing a video tape. I'm glad that idiot isn't my doctor!
[/ QUOTE ]
What's really sad is that before he went into politics he was supposedly one of the most highly-regarded cardiac surgeons. It's amazing how much political ambition can corrupt.
AA Suited
07-20-2006, 06:01 PM
so it wont be voted on in august. whats to stop them from voting on it in sept? or in 2007 for that matter? the house has passed it.
is there a time limit?
After this Congess adjourns, the House will have to pass it all over again. Hopefully the will won't be there if we get to that point.
Leavenfish
07-20-2006, 06:07 PM
Clearly all who oppose this legislation should have been throwing everythng they have into winning friends and influencing people in the Senate instead of wasting their time on House.
Does anyone have any idea of what opponents of this legislation have been doing with their time and money?
Frist is using the proven tactic of 'pushing thru' legislation to a vote before opponents have time to mobilize forces and let reason take over. I predict if it comes to a vote before the recess, it passes.
---Leavenfish
haakee
07-20-2006, 06:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I predict if it comes to a vote before the recess, it passes.
[/ QUOTE ]
If it comes to a vote in the Senate this year with a bill that is not materially different from the one that passed in the House it will almost definitely pass.
Lawman007
07-20-2006, 06:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Clearly all who oppose this legislation should have been throwing everythng they have into winning friends and influencing people in the Senate instead of wasting their time on House.
Does anyone have any idea of what opponents of this legislation have been doing with their time and money?
Frist is using the proven tactic of 'pushing thru' legislation to a vote before opponents have time to mobilize forces and let reason take over. I predict if it comes to a vote before the recess, it passes.
---Leavenfish
[/ QUOTE ]
The only representative of an online site who I heard was vocally opposing this bill was that Carruthers guy who got arrested Tuesday, so you can see where that got him.
It seems as though the people behind PokerStars, Full Tilt, Party, etc. are fiddling while Rome burns.
spatne
07-20-2006, 06:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
What's really sad is that before he went into politics he was supposedly one of the most highly-regarded cardiac surgeons. It's amazing how much political ambition can corrupt.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, well, he had a ton of practice in med school. Just ask all those stray cats. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Frist_medical_school_experiments_controversy)
Leavenfish
07-20-2006, 06:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I predict if it comes to a vote before the recess, it passes.
[/ QUOTE ]
If it comes to a vote in the Senate this year with a bill that is not materially different from the one that passed in the House it will almost definitely pass.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed...find someone who will offer ammendments like including the lottery and horse racing...maybe even exempting poker.
Of course, there is still the whole thing about ISP's not allowign people to connect to 'gambling' sites as well as the money transfer problem.
----Leavenfish
MicroBob
07-20-2006, 06:33 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clearly all who oppose this legislation should have been throwing everythng they have into winning friends and influencing people in the Senate instead of wasting their time on House.
Does anyone have any idea of what opponents of this legislation have been doing with their time and money?
Frist is using the proven tactic of 'pushing thru' legislation to a vote before opponents have time to mobilize forces and let reason take over. I predict if it comes to a vote before the recess, it passes.
---Leavenfish
[/ QUOTE ]
The only representative of an online site who I heard was vocally opposing this bill was that Carruthers guy who got arrested Tuesday, so you can see where that got him.
It seems as though the people behind PokerStars, Full Tilt, Party, etc. are fiddling while Rome burns.
[/ QUOTE ]
Party and cardplayer have been pushing the PPA pretty hard.
Also some major players appeared before congress a few weeks ago (raymer and Lederer and ferguson I think) and I think they are pretty much addressing the concerns of the sites they represent (Stars and FT).
Lawman007
07-20-2006, 06:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clearly all who oppose this legislation should have been throwing everythng they have into winning friends and influencing people in the Senate instead of wasting their time on House.
Does anyone have any idea of what opponents of this legislation have been doing with their time and money?
Frist is using the proven tactic of 'pushing thru' legislation to a vote before opponents have time to mobilize forces and let reason take over. I predict if it comes to a vote before the recess, it passes.
---Leavenfish
[/ QUOTE ]
The only representative of an online site who I heard was vocally opposing this bill was that Carruthers guy who got arrested Tuesday, so you can see where that got him.
It seems as though the people behind PokerStars, Full Tilt, Party, etc. are fiddling while Rome burns.
[/ QUOTE ]
Party and cardplayer have been pushing the PPA pretty hard.
Also some major players appeared before congress a few weeks ago (raymer and Lederer and ferguson I think) and I think they are pretty much addressing the concerns of the sites they represent (Stars and FT).
[/ QUOTE ]
The PPA is a pretty much a joke compared to real lobbying firms, and Raymer, Lederer, and Ferguson were there as representatives of the PPA, not PokerStars and Full Tilt. The online poker sites need to be pouring some of those billions they make into hiring real lobbyists to lobby Congress hard to not pass this bill. This is what the oil, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries have been doing for years, and that's why they always get what they want from Congress.
MicroBob
07-20-2006, 06:43 PM
They may be doing some lobbying behind the scenes.
Perhaps some of them acknowledge that some senators will use common-sense on this, but still don't want to be directly and publicly attached to online-poker sites.
I agree they should be doing everything they can to prevent the passage of the bill. And it's possible they are doing as little as you fear and just twiddling their thumbs at hoping.
Just looking at the half-full side, I'm hoping they're doing much more behind the scenes than we're aware of.
Leavenfish
07-20-2006, 06:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
They may be doing some lobbying behind the scenes.
Perhaps some of them acknowledge that some senators will use common-sense on this, but still don't want to be directly and publicly attached to online-poker sites.
I agree they should be doing everything they can to prevent the passage of the bill. And it's possible they are doing as little as you fear and just twiddling their thumbs at hoping.
Just looking at the half-full side, I'm hoping they're doing much more behind the scenes than we're aware of.
[/ QUOTE ]
Forget 'behind the scenes', that helps make poker look 'dirty' and something that belongs in the back rooms. There should be much more visiable displays of frustration at trying to ban a game of skill. Lets see the Full Tilt gang walking outside the halls of Congress. Lets make it public! It's the Public that plays poker online...lets rally the troops!
This whole effort seems to be being mishandled.
---Leavenfish
Lawman007
07-20-2006, 07:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
They may be doing some lobbying behind the scenes.
Perhaps some of them acknowledge that some senators will use common-sense on this, but still don't want to be directly and publicly attached to online-poker sites.
I agree they should be doing everything they can to prevent the passage of the bill. And it's possible they are doing as little as you fear and just twiddling their thumbs at hoping.
Just looking at the half-full side, I'm hoping they're doing much more behind the scenes than we're aware of.
[/ QUOTE ]
Given the overwhleming vote in favor of the bill in the House, I am confident that the online sites have been doing absolutely NOTHING to oppose this bill.
redbeard
07-20-2006, 07:25 PM
hey kevmath-
thanks for the senate calendar. what do you or anyone else know about a post election session and can this bill go to a vote then too?
lonn19
07-20-2006, 07:32 PM
"The US Senate "luckily" has better things to do than try to block grown-up people from going online to make a wager on the Super Bowl or play online poker after hard days work"
You can't say it any better than that.
fasteddy1970
07-20-2006, 07:38 PM
the scout: Thanks for the first piece of good news in a long time regarding this issue.
fasteddy1970
07-20-2006, 07:40 PM
Zele: Hopefully what won't be there after November is most of the Republican party.
[ QUOTE ]
They may be doing some lobbying behind the scenes.
[/ QUOTE ]
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39188000/jpg/_39188404_lzw-bbcorbis203.jpg
CORed
07-21-2006, 02:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]
so it wont be voted on in august. whats to stop them from voting on it in sept? or in 2007 for that matter? the house has passed it.
is there a time limit?
[/ QUOTE ]
Budget will take up most of their time in Semptember. They have to get it passed by Oct. 1 or enact continuing resolutions and pass final budget in lame duck session after the election. This isn't going to leave much time for internet gambling bill.
CORed
07-21-2006, 02:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Zele: Hopefully what won't be there after November is most of the Republican party.
[/ QUOTE ]
Only 1/3 of senate is up for reelection, and new Congress isn't in office until Jan.6 2007. Republicans will have plenty of time to pass lame duck laws after the election if they want to.
Little_Luck
07-21-2006, 02:41 AM
I'm not 100 percent sure how congress works. Someone above said that if they don't pass it by recess then they have to vote for it all over again in the house, is that true?
Someone tell that Korean guy to shoot more missles into the pacific to divert congress' attention. We need scapegoats.
MicroBob
07-21-2006, 03:05 AM
you think that if it isn't passed before the Aug 4 recess it would have to go back to the house?
zkortnew1
07-21-2006, 03:42 AM
is there any chance that the law will be totally denied by congress or others?
where is the registration place of partypoker and neteller?
thank you
The_Scout
07-21-2006, 03:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Someone above said that if they don't pass it by recess then they have to vote for it all over again in the house, is that true?
[/ QUOTE ]
If they don't pass it by the end of this session, then it would have to be passed again in the House next session. The Aug. 4 recess is not the end of the session, though. They could still pass it when they come back from recess.
You are not the first person to get that terminology confused. I am, and I refuse to give up the distinction.
APerfect10
07-21-2006, 07:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Someone above said that if they don't pass it by recess then they have to vote for it all over again in the house, is that true?
[/ QUOTE ]
If they don't pass it by the end of this session, then it would have to be passed again in the House next session. The Aug. 4 recess is not the end of the session, though. They could still pass it when they come back from recess.
You are not the first person to get that terminology confused. I am, and I refuse to give up the distinction.
[/ QUOTE ]
Session ends October 6th; which effectively gives them another month after the August recess...
DING-DONG YO
07-21-2006, 09:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]
"The US Senate "luckily" has better things to do than try to block grown-up people from going online to make a wager on the Super Bowl or play online poker after hard days work"
You can't say it any better than that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Was that quote in one of the articles? I can't find it.
meleader2
07-21-2006, 09:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"The US Senate "luckily" has better things to do than try to block grown-up people from going online to make a wager on the Super Bowl or play online poker after hard days work"
You can't say it any better than that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Was that quote in one of the articles? I can't find it.
[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.onlinecasino.org/news/no-onli...-firms-1290.php (http://www.onlinecasino.org/news/no-online-gambling-bill-soon-good-news-for-online-poker-firms-1290.php)
last paragraph
DING-DONG YO
07-21-2006, 09:48 AM
Thanks. That quote was just in the article. I thought someone important had said it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Someone above said that if they don't pass it by recess then they have to vote for it all over again in the house, is that true?
[/ QUOTE ]
If they don't pass it by the end of this session, then it would have to be passed again in the House next session. The Aug. 4 recess is not the end of the session, though. They could still pass it when they come back from recess.
You are not the first person to get that terminology confused. I am, and I refuse to give up the distinction.
[/ QUOTE ]
Session ends October 6th; which effectively gives them another month after the August recess...
[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong -- there will be a "lame duck" post-election session to wrap up unfinished business.
xadrez
07-21-2006, 10:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
and here i didn't think i could dislike frist more than i already did. MEATBRICK!
[/ QUOTE ]
this guy is truly the scum of the earth
ChrisAJ
07-21-2006, 10:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Someone above said that if they don't pass it by recess then they have to vote for it all over again in the house, is that true?
[/ QUOTE ]
If they don't pass it by the end of this session, then it would have to be passed again in the House next session. The Aug. 4 recess is not the end of the session, though. They could still pass it when they come back from recess.
You are not the first person to get that terminology confused. I am, and I refuse to give up the distinction.
[/ QUOTE ]
Session ends October 6th; which effectively gives them another month after the August recess...
[/ QUOTE ]
Session does NOT end October 6th. They will leave at the end of September to go campaign for a while, but they'll be back after the election. Probably won't have time for gambling bills, but they'll be back.
ChrisAJ
07-21-2006, 10:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Zele: Hopefully what won't be there after November is most of the Republican party.
[/ QUOTE ]
Clearly you didn't look at the actual vote tally for the House-passed bill.
ChrisAJ
07-21-2006, 10:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
hey kevmath-
thanks for the senate calendar. what do you or anyone else know about a post election session and can this bill go to a vote then too?
[/ QUOTE ]
A post-election ("lame duck") session is likely. It could feasibly be up for a vote, assuming it isn't considered in the next two weeks, in such a session. More than likely it would be legislative filler as they try to wrap up the annual budget.
ChrisAJ
07-21-2006, 10:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
All that says is nothing is going to happen before the August recess. The full article is here (http://today.reuters.com/business/newsArticle.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=2006-07-20T160746Z_01_N202313_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-LEISURE-GAMBLING-SENATE-DC.XML).
And to make things clear as mud, this (http://today.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompanyNewsArticle.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-07-20T184906Z_01_N20242069_RTRIDST_0_LEISURE-GAMBLING-SENATE-UPDATE-1.XML&rpc=66) is from a few hours later, also from Reuters.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't surprise me if Reuters screwed something up. God knows they never go with a story without all the facts.
damaniac
07-21-2006, 10:56 AM
What issues generally come up at lameduck sessions? Is it a pork sandwich sendoff for the retiring/defeated members, or will they try to finish up substantative legislation?
I assume if the Dems won back the Senate (or I suppose the House), the GOP would spend time trying to pass legislation that might not fly with a Democratic Congress. I'm not sure how that cuts with the gambling ban, since Dems may well support it anyway, albeit less likely to bring it up. There may also be other pending legislation more urgent to the GOP, but I don't know about that.
What if the GOP holds both houses with little change? Any ideas on what general issues (substance or not) that they'll tackle?
[ QUOTE ]
What issues generally come up at lameduck sessions? Is it a pork sandwich sendoff for the retiring/defeated members, or will they try to finish up substantative legislation?
I assume if the Dems won back the Senate (or I suppose the House), the GOP would spend time trying to pass legislation that might not fly with a Democratic Congress. I'm not sure how that cuts with the gambling ban, since Dems may well support it anyway, albeit less likely to bring it up. There may also be other pending legislation more urgent to the GOP, but I don't know about that.
What if the GOP holds both houses with little change? Any ideas on what general issues (substance or not) that they'll tackle?
[/ QUOTE ]
Lame duck sessions are always a bit of a wild card. The substance of the things they tackle tends to depend to some degree on how the elections come out. Best example I can think of is after the '02 elections, when the Dems lost the Senate... they had been holding up the bill creating the Dept. of Homeland Security due to some union/labor protection concerns. Since they lost, they cut a deal and the bill was cleared in late Nov or Dec.
As far as substance, usually one ore more appropriations bills (the bills that spend your tax $$$ and set budgets for federal agencies), plus often times a defense or security package, or something of that nature. The members generally do as little as possible in these sessions, and this is particularly true of lame ducks where the Senate has changed hands in the election immediately beforehand.
Still, net gambool legislation is still a threat to pass in such an environment. Much less so than before the elections, but a threat nonetheless. The degree to which Senators opposing the bill express their willingness to cause delays, the less likely it is to ever come up.
NoSoup4U
07-21-2006, 01:45 PM
In my opinion, the main value of passing an anti-gambling bill is to score points with the conservative voters prior to the election. I would think that the chances of it getting passed in a lame duck session are much lower, because there is almost no political value to be gained by the vote then. This is why they really want to push a vote right now.
[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, the main value of passing an anti-gambling bill is to score points with the conservative voters prior to the election. I would think that the chances of it getting passed in a lame duck session are much lower, because there is almost no political value to be gained by the vote then. This is why they really want to push a vote right now.
[/ QUOTE ]
No. I keep reading over and over and over again that this bill is just a PR stunt designed to woo conservative voters. Get off it, people. Your analysis is totally off the mark, ok? Nobody, and I do mean nobody, is basing voting decisions on this bill, except maybe a few pissed off poker players. If this bill passes, the conservative movement will hardly notice it.
The bill is being advanced because its sponsors really actually believe net gambooling is a problem. The probably oppose non-net gambooling too (viz opposition to allowing Katrina recovery funding to rebuild casinos in NO). These guys see what they consider to be a moral vice, and they're out to legislate against it. Same [censored] with gay marriage and other things, only those issues actually have resonance with voters. This one doesn't.
Yes, they base these anti-gambooling beliefs on general social/moral conservatism, but I don't think any of them (maybe exception of goodlatte) who believe this bill makes much difference at the voting booth. Now, I could see the argument that the very hard line tax cutters/moralists want to keep the debate in Congress on issues like net gambooling, so as to keep people in the dark about just how bad they're getting hosed on energy, taxes, medicare, and other pocketbook issues. That's what the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" would say, at least -- not that I agree with him at all, but just thought I'd throw that out there. Point being, from some members' point of view, every day debating net gambooling, flag burning, abortion, etc is a day not spent debating Iraq, gas prices, deficits, and other big, difficult issues.
dieharder
07-22-2006, 12:30 AM
seems like we are going to have a full scale war in the middle east, ironically this war will help us to kill this bill
SoftcoreRevolt
07-22-2006, 02:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, the main value of passing an anti-gambling bill is to score points with the conservative voters prior to the election. I would think that the chances of it getting passed in a lame duck session are much lower, because there is almost no political value to be gained by the vote then. This is why they really want to push a vote right now.
[/ QUOTE ]
No. I keep reading over and over and over again that this bill is just a PR stunt designed to woo conservative voters. Get off it, people. Your analysis is totally off the mark, ok? Nobody, and I do mean nobody, is basing voting decisions on this bill, except maybe a few pissed off poker players. If this bill passes, the conservative movement will hardly notice it.
[/ QUOTE ]
While any Senate support is very likely what you say, people who honestly think online gambling is evil, I would not be surprised if the supporters of the House bill weren't motivated at least in part by PR.
That is not to say they wanted to get re-elected on this bill, instead they may have seen it as a good way to get national or state wide attention and possibly launch themselves beyond the house. (In the case of the Senators, they are as high as they realistically will be going.)
Because if this bill was just an election year stunt, then EVERY bill on either side of the fence is. If this bill had riders on it to ban Doom and calling for Marilyn Manson to be crucified in front of a neon replica of the Ten Commandments, then you would have a reasonable argument that this is just an attempt to bolster conservative Christian support.
But even in the case of the House, there's a good chance it is just what you say, a bill they believe in.
[ QUOTE ]
seems like we are going to have a full scale war in the middle east, ironically this war will help us to kill this bill
[/ QUOTE ]
I hope you don't mean that. Regardless of what you think of the Internet gambling bill, none of us should be rooting for increased violence in the Middle East.
Leavenfish
07-22-2006, 10:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
seems like we are going to have a full scale war in the middle east, ironically this war will help us to kill this bill
[/ QUOTE ]
I hope you don't mean that. Regardless of what you think of the Internet gambling bill, none of us should be rooting for increased violence in the Middle East.
[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously, why not? I mean continuing to skirt problems and leave terrorists on the border of Israel to continue to keep thing unstable is an untenible position that keeps getting the Middle East into turmoil ever so often. A real solution is needed and that seems to require some violence. You do indeed have to break a few eggs to make an omlet.
---Leavenfish
Copernicus
07-23-2006, 02:32 AM
The bills are not to woo conservative voters and they are not because of the evils of gambling. Their purpose is to protect the lotteries, race tracks and B&M casinos.
Its unlikely to pass this year, but it will keep coming back every year and eventually pass unless:
A real lobbying organization shows them the potential tax/licensing revenues. Online gambling/poker WILL be regulated...either regulated in or out. The best chance is to make it so fiscally attractive that its regulated in.
Leavenfish
07-23-2006, 03:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The bills are not to woo conservative voters and they are not because of the evils of gambling. Their purpose is to protect the lotteries, race tracks and B&M casinos.
Its unlikely to pass this year, but it will keep coming back every year and eventually pass unless:
A real lobbying organization shows them the potential tax/licensing revenues. Online gambling/poker WILL be regulated...either regulated in or out. The best chance is to make it so fiscally attractive that its regulated in.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you say it unlikely to pass this year? There will be plenty of time after the August recess and Frist says it's a 'priority'. I think it's on the Conservatives 10 point's document as a priority for this session. It seems to me more like something that passes so easily in the House would be an 'easy' check off that list.
---Leavenfish
nation
07-23-2006, 11:03 AM
All,
To be honest, I haven't really kept up with the online gambling bill. As such, I'm pretty misinformed. What are the realistic chances that playing poker online is banned in the US?
IMO, the folks on tradesports.com have the odds of passage priced correctly into the contracts, which are currently trading at just about 26 or 27... meaning about 3:1 against passage. Frankly, I think there will absolutely be a push to get this bill passed through the Senate, but matters of time, priorities, and procedural difficulty may be enough to blunt that push.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.