View Full Version : Should we be calling the President on Monday?
Uglyowl
10-01-2006, 04:25 PM
Don't know if this is just going through the motions?
----------------------------------------
Phone Numbers
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
As much as I hate to advocate inaction, this is probably not a productive use of people's time. There will be plenty of opportunities for grassroots action in the future, however.
Flip_Dog
10-01-2006, 04:40 PM
Zero chance W. dosen't sign this unless there was some funding for stem stells in the bill.
JuntMonkey
10-01-2006, 04:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
As much as I hate to advocate inaction, this is probably not a productive use of people's time. There will be plenty of opportunities for grassroots action in the future, however.
[/ QUOTE ]
K., what do you have in mind? What do you think about targeting a different Congressman who might be on our side every week or two starting next year? Everyone writes to a Nevada representative one week, Barney Frank the next, etc.
Dunkman
10-01-2006, 04:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Zero chance W. dosen't sign this unless there was some funding for stem stells in the bill.
[/ QUOTE ]
The bill passed almost unanimously...it's veto proof. Even if Bush wanted to stop it from going into law he couldn't (I mean, politically, he probably could have stopped it from being passed, but he didn't.) I agree with Mr. K, there will be many opportunities for us, but not now. We can push start pushing for a study bill next January. I have no doubt that there will be some legal challenges that we can support. I am of the opinion that the uncertainty during the next year will be the worst part. Once the regulations go into place, and then the (I hope) loopholes are found, hopefully things will get back to normal. I do think the next year of confusion will be bad though. Also, in the future, if the govt. sees that prohibition isn't working, maybe all sides can come together and realize that regulation is the best solution for everyone involved. However, between now and January I think it's probably best if everyone just takes a deep breath.
Uglyowl
10-01-2006, 05:45 PM
Mr.K... what about signing statement that Mr. Bush has been a known to do?
Nate tha\\\' Great
10-01-2006, 05:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Mr.K... what about signing statement that Mr. Bush has been a known to do?
[/ QUOTE ]
The president doesn't have a line-item veto, and he wouldn't use it in this instance even if he did.
Seriously ... if you want to call the White House as a coping mechanism that's fine, but the chance that it accomplishes anything is literally zero. If you want to do something in the next six weeks that helps the online poker cause, then donate time or money to Democratic candidates in close midterms races. Too late to save us from a bill passing this year, but a Dem takeover substantially increases the likelihood of study bills or even regulated US poker within the next 1-6 years.
Uglyowl
10-01-2006, 05:55 PM
I kind of figured this, but I continue to scratch my head at all the 90% contracts being offered right now on Tradesports
What is the sliver of hope?
Nate tha\\\' Great
10-01-2006, 05:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I kind of figured this, but I continue to scratch my head at all the 90% contracts being offered right now on Tradesports
What is the sliver of hope?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't assign any significance at all to the Tradesports contract being at <100%.
bottomset
10-01-2006, 06:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Zero chance W. dosen't sign this unless there was some funding for stem stells in the bill.
[/ QUOTE ]
can we get that in there, or get a study saying Online poker drastically reduces stewcell research
SoftcoreRevolt
10-01-2006, 06:13 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Zero chance W. dosen't sign this unless there was some funding for stem stells in the bill.
[/ QUOTE ]
can we get that in there, or get a study saying Online poker drastically reduces stewcell research
[/ QUOTE ]
Online poker would have to be proven to elect Republicans, ban abortion, kill terrorists, stop the printing of Bob Woodward books, and have the word Texas in its name for him to veto.
Well we are 1/5 of the way there.
Uglyowl
10-01-2006, 07:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I kind of figured this, but I continue to scratch my head at all the 90% contracts being offered right now on Tradesports
What is the sliver of hope?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't assign any significance at all to the Tradesports contract being at <100%.
[/ QUOTE ]
Nate, this is very unusual for an event that seems "clinched" to have such a large number of contracts being offered. These usually just die into expiration.
recondite7
10-01-2006, 07:13 PM
I think stars needs to sign GWBUSH to team pokerstars. I would love to play him in a special VIP 10 person sng.
DMoogle
10-01-2006, 07:16 PM
You know, if Bush didn't sign this bill, I'd NEVER say a bad word about him again.
Shame it won't happen. /images/graemlins/frown.gif
schroedy
10-01-2006, 07:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You know, if Bush didn't sign this bill, I'd NEVER say a bad word about him again.
Shame it won't happen. /images/graemlins/frown.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
I could not go so far as to condone the senseless murder of over 100,000 in Iraq motivated nothing more or other than a desire to improve the profit picture at Haliburton and the Carlyle Group (which benefit ends up as in the President's pocket).
But blocking this bill would score points with me.
Political hijack has ended.
erastank
10-02-2006, 05:07 AM
What have we got to lose? I'm calling.
RikaKazak
10-02-2006, 05:10 AM
Bush is in favor of banning internet gambling.
Bush will never run for another political office ever again.
So what good is calling him going to do? NOTHING!
erastank
10-02-2006, 05:11 AM
whatever, fine. I'm gonna go into a deep slumber now. Good bye world. And [censored] our government.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.