E-mail from Sen. Clinton

[burningyen]

Summary: "Thank you for sharing."

[ QUOTE ]
Dear _______________:

Thank you for taking the time to write to me. Your concerns regarding internet gambling are important. I am always interested in heari ng from my constituents about challenging public policy i ssues that are important to you and to many New Yorkers . I appreciate the concerns of those on both sides of this issue - on the one hand that Americans deserve the right to freely engage in the gambling activities of their choice but, on the other hand that internet gambling can be addictive and dangerous if not effectively regulated.



As you may know, in September 2006, both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed the Port Security Act of 2006 , a bill intended to address the critical homeland security issues of how to shield America 's ports from terrorist attack. Tacked on to this legislation, however, was a provision that effectively makes internet gambling illegal. Entitled "Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling," the provision bans online gambling companies from accepting credit cards, electronic transfers, checks or any other means of payment facilitated by a financial institution. It also requires the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve to outline procedures to be used by banks and other financial institutions to detect and stop online gambling transactions. The Port Security Act passed the House by a vote of 409-2, and it passed the Senate by unanimous consent. In October, the President signed it into law.



Thank you again for sharing your concerns regarding these important internet gambling issues with me. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind in the future if related measures come before the Senate. For more information on this and other important issues before the United States Senate, please visit my website at http://clinton.senate.gov .



Sincerely,

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

[/ QUOTE ]

[Dave I]

Just got the exact same one 2 minutes ago.

[Voltaire]

Vacuous.

[kevstreet]

[ QUOTE ]
Vacuous.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Obfuscation]

Just got the EXACT same response within the hour.

Not even a good form letter.

Friggin' Hillary. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]

Friggin' Hillary. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


I'd still hit it.












...........and by "hit it" I mean I'd vote for her any day over Bush. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[PoorLawyer]

She seems to be in favor of regulation, so thats something.

[lonn19]

I got it too. Can't really tell what her stance is.

[scscoach]

I don't understand her stance either, maybe she goes both ways.........

[autobet]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand her stance either, maybe she goes both ways.........

[/ QUOTE ]

Most good politicians do!

[chigger]

I just got it as well...

[Wahoo73]

PIAPS (Pig in a pants-suit).

[Knight Vision]

[ QUOTE ]
She seems to be in favor of regulation, so thats something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, definitely caught that too. Regulation != abolition.

[5thStreetHog]

"Americans deserve the right to freely engage in the gambling activities of their choice" ......No way that would have been included if she was in favor of online gambling prohibition.

[Vern]

[ QUOTE ]
Summary: "Thank you for sharing."

[ QUOTE ]
Dear _______________:

Thank you for taking the time to write to me. Your concerns regarding internet gambling are important. I am always interested in heari ng from my constituents about challenging public policy i ssues that are important to you and to many New Yorkers . I appreciate the concerns of those on both sides of this issue - on the one hand that Americans deserve the right to freely engage in the gambling activities of their choice but, on the other hand that internet gambling can be addictive and dangerous if not effectively regulated.



As you may know, in September 2006, both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed the Port Security Act of 2006 , a bill intended to address the critical homeland security issues of how to shield America 's ports from terrorist attack. Tacked on to this legislation, however, was a provision that effectively makes internet gambling illegal. Entitled "Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling," the provision bans online gambling companies from accepting credit cards, electronic transfers, checks or any other means of payment facilitated by a financial institution. It also requires the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve to outline procedures to be used by banks and other financial institutions to detect and stop online gambling transactions. The Port Security Act passed the House by a vote of 409-2, and it passed the Senate by unanimous consent. In October, the President signed it into law.



Thank you again for sharing your concerns regarding these important internet gambling issues with me. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind in the future if related measures come before the Senate. For more information on this and other important issues before the United States Senate, please visit my website at http://clinton.senate.gov .



Sincerely,

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Same e-mail today, only took 5 weeks to get a reply, pre-election.

[MagCFO]

She at least said "can be dangerous if not effectively regulated."

I think that's one of the better comments I've heard so far. At least it wasn't "it's bad no matter what".

[JOHNY CA$H]

Generic and useless.

Kind of sounds like a response from Party support.

[JOHNY CA$H]

I'd still hit it.

And by hit it, I mean stick my cha cha in her whoo hoo.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
I got it too. Can't really tell what her stance is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Her stance: I wanna be president.

[crzylgs]

For an email from an elected official, this one is actually pretty good, in that she betrays at least a little bit of info about her stance.

[mrpurple]

I got it too.


Lol, ambiguaments.

[Vern]

[ QUOTE ]
For an email from an elected official, this one is actually pretty good, in that she betrays at least a little bit of info about her stance.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the response lets anyone read what they want to hear somewhere in the response.

[c5Nfold]

I have written emails, letters and made phone calls to every senator or congressperson, and governor in my state as well as some from other states. I have posted a couple of replies also. The thing is, they keep telling us what the vote count was.....but I have not had one of them actually tell me what their stance is on this. I understand that they voted for it, obviously, but I can't see too many of them voting against the "port security bill" itself. I'd feel alot better if just one of them would say...."I voted for this bill because I couldn't vote against it". I know that there has to be some of them that were politically forced to vote for it. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[KajunKenny]

Fact is most of them don't care. It was must passed legislation and they figure more people care about port security then poker. Guess we got to show them different when we vote.

[Guthrie]

[ QUOTE ]
She seems to be in favor of regulation, so thats something.

[/ QUOTE ]
She's in favor of whatever gets her a vote.

[Grey]

<3 Hillary.
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/1818/1024clintonkq4.jpg
http://www.nynewsday.com/media/photo/2003-05/8005484.jpg
http://www.fiveanddime.net/hillary-clinton-for-president-in-2008/hillary-1967.jpg
http://img15.exs.cx/img15/2194/b5-ClintonHitit.jpg


http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/4705/jesusnlambxo0.jpg

[IndyFish]

Sweet Post! NH, Sir.

[crzylgs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For an email from an elected official, this one is actually pretty good, in that she betrays at least a little bit of info about her stance.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the response lets anyone read what they want to hear somewhere in the response.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nowhere in the email does she speak in favor of prohibition. The following statements are very encouraging for poker players.

[ QUOTE ]
Americans deserve the right to freely engage in the gambling activities of their choice

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]

internet gambling can be addictive and dangerous if not effectively regulated.

[/ QUOTE ]

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For an email from an elected official, this one is actually pretty good, in that she betrays at least a little bit of info about her stance.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the response lets anyone read what they want to hear somewhere in the response.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nowhere in the email does she speak in favor of prohibition. The following statements are very encouraging for poker players.

[ QUOTE ]
Americans deserve the right to freely engage in the gambling activities of their choice

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]

internet gambling can be addictive and dangerous if not effectively regulated.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]Agreed,these are things that someone in favor of prohibition would NEVER put in print.

[WooIsMe]

[ QUOTE ]
Generic and useless.


[/ QUOTE ]

Would you prefer Bill Frist's email response? It wouldn't be generic.

[metsandfinsfan]

i may actually vote for he tuesday ( i cannot believe i just typed that_)

[reddred]

[ QUOTE ]
I got it too. Can't really tell what her stance is.

[/ QUOTE ]


I didn't see any stance in her response. She explained the law and said she can see both sides to the issue.

[NapoleonDolemite]

LOL way to take a stand Hillary. They're all the same.

[chipper57AA]

You'd be better off emailing Monica. You'd get more action that way.

[crzylgs]

Anyone who can't read between the lines of this email probably shouldn't involve himself in the political process.

[rando]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi, my name is Bill Clinton, and I'd still hit it.

And by hit it, I mean stick my cha cha in her whoo hoo.

[/ QUOTE ]

LMFAO in the office at the Lamb. Dang, Jesus!!!

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who can't read between the lines of this email probably shouldn't involve himself in the political process.

[/ QUOTE ]Agreed,it was obvious to me.You guys waiting for her to say,"shuffle up and deal"?

[candyman718]

90 percent of the content of these responses is an explanation of the law. It's as if they think we are blithering idiots. If they bothered to read the letter that we sent them.

It's as if you went to a stockbroker and said "Do you recommend GM stock?" and the response was,

"Thank you for your question. Stocks can either go up or down based on supply and demand. GM is in the business selling cars. Blah, Blah, Blah. If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to ask."

[Webster]

I got the same exact letter from Sen Fiengold here in Wisconsin a few weeks ago.

WOW - think of the chances of THAT happening! UNREAL NH

[thedarknight]

there is no way hillary clinton would be in support of the online gambling regulation. she was a strong proponent of locking down violent video games. it was her agenda trying to steer her back into the center, battling issues that were generally "safe".

[Nikoms]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who can't read between the lines of this email probably shouldn't involve himself in the political process.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but there ARE NO lines - that's the point. Her reply was ambiguous, non-committal and weak (i.e. typical for a politician seeking office, so as not to offend any potential voter). The only way a politican will take a stand on any potentially divisive issue would be that if they thought a significant number of their voting constituents would agree with/support said view, and that the view is fairly easily defended if attacks come from opposing legislators. It is also possible (probable?) - that, while this issue is important to a significant number of us, it may not be to the general population - therefore, has not gotten the political "research" that it warrants (in our opinion) on the part of those running for office. It's safe to assume that many are concerned with a great number of other issues (as we probably all should) - i.e. it's never a good idea to be a 1 issue voter. Besides, there is nothing that would suggest that when a number of Democrats win, that they will see it as a sweeping mandate to legalize online gambling.

Your reply, on the other hand, was condecending, arrogant and generally pointless to the thread. Way to be a community player. Thanks for sharing.

[Webster]

They don't even get the questions. I work for DOJ and all of your questions ever actually get to the intended person and is handeled by over worked staff.

That is why my response from Russ Fiengold is the same exact response, word for word that you recieved from Clinton.

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, there is nothing that would suggest that when a number of Democrats win, that they will see it as a sweeping mandate to legalize online gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true since it was NFL money backing the Bill - however - it WAS a hand-wringing republican neo-con that snuck it in with nobody noticing. I say that is unethical.

[Grey]

[ QUOTE ]
Your reply, on the other hand, was condecending, arrogant and generally pointless to the thread. Way to be a community player.

[/ QUOTE ]Except it was true. It's called a dog whistle and it's used often in politics because it's something one side will notice while the other won't. You can't be for legalized gambling, so you say the word "regulation". Not just for us players, but also to the U.S. casinos that by a 2-1 margin (that's about as lopsided as any industry ever gets) contributes to Democratic candidates.

If a politician were willing to take a principled stand on everything they believe in, they'd be gone quickly. The conrgresspeople who argued against this amendment yet voted for the bill wouldn't even be in Congress if they always voted with their heart.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
there is no way hillary clinton would be in support of the online gambling regulation. she was a strong proponent of locking down violent video games. it was her agenda trying to steer her back into the center, battling issues that were generally "safe".

[/ QUOTE ]I was not in favor of her attacking "video games".But your arguement and comparison is a hollow one.Trying to legislate and or control what a child does,is quite a different story from making that same attempt verse a consenting adult.It seems to me that people are letting their political views blind the reality of her responce.Im not a big fan eithor,but i have seen dozens of these responces from politicians here and elsewhere,and this is by far one of the most positive ive seen as to date.And those who cant see what is implied in her responce,eithor dont want to see it,or are not looking.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your reply, on the other hand, was condecending, arrogant and generally pointless to the thread. Way to be a community player.

[/ QUOTE ]Except it was true. It's called a dog whistle and it's used often in politics because it's something one side will notice while the other won't. You can't be for legalized gambling, so you say the word "regulation". Not just for us players, but also to the U.S. casinos that by a 2-1 margin (that's about as lopsided as any industry ever gets) contributes to Democratic candidates.

If a politician were willing to take a principled stand on everything they believe in, they'd be gone quickly. The conrgresspeople who argued against this amendment yet voted for the bill wouldn't even be in Congress if they always voted with their heart.

[/ QUOTE ]Well stated.Btw,see Mr.Bush and the christian masses for great lesson in this tactic.

[Nikoms]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your reply, on the other hand, was condecending, arrogant and generally pointless to the thread. Way to be a community player.

[/ QUOTE ]Except it was true. It's called a dog whistle and it's used often in politics because it's something one side will notice while the other won't. You can't be for legalized gambling, so you say the word "regulation". Not just for us players, but also to the U.S. casinos that by a 2-1 margin (that's about as lopsided as any industry ever gets) contributes to Democratic candidates.

If a politician were willing to take a principled stand on everything they believe in, they'd be gone quickly. The conrgresspeople who argued against this amendment yet voted for the bill wouldn't even be in Congress if they always voted with their heart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, the poster in question could simply have said what you have said so eloquently. Instead he chose a different path - insult instead of explanation (or even opinion). You bring up a good point - which is the point of posting to a thread like this. But I don't wish to change the direction of this thread so I will return you to explanations and opinions to the OP. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[NapoleonDolemite]

Basically those who buy into the notion that Democrats would have protected your rights are reading into this statement what you want to hear. You're certain that Hillary is on your side because she's the top dog and if you can't turn to her in your world where Democrats protect personal freedom, then who can you turn to?

Of course the real answer is no one. None of these clowns gives a flying f*ck about your personal freedom. Keep buying into this bullsh*t if you want. It's nice that half the elected officials responsible for this law have so many apologists. Wake up.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically those who buy into the notion that Democrats would have protected your rights are reading into this statement what you want to hear. You're certain that Hillary is on your side because she's the top dog and if you can't turn to her in your world where Democrats protect personal freedom, then who can you turn to?

Of course the real answer is no one. None of these clowns gives a flying f*ck about your personal freedom. Keep buying into this bullsh*t if you want. It's nice that half the elected officials responsible for this law have so many apologists. Wake up.

[/ QUOTE ]Your post was just a useless inaccurate rant.The reality is that the majority here have negative opinions about Hillary(they do not see her as being on "their side").Does this mean we must be blinded by this,and not look honestly at an individual statement?And your statement about people believing democrats would have protected our rights,also inaccurate,thats not the point some are making.For example,if i say that the Democrats would have been less likely to lead a christian family value motivated assault on poker,dont add your lies,mix and shake three times and tell me i just said that Democrats are out to protect my rights.And your going to insult people here by saying "wake up"?You were projecting on others the affliction you seem to share.

[burningyen]

The question isn't do Democrats really care about protecting personal freedom. The question is which of the two parties is more likely to support a carveout for poker. This little factoid (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll363.xml) might be some indication.

[The DaveR]

Has anyone here worked as a Hill staffer? These emails/letters should not surprise anyone.

Hint: Hillary Clinton didn't write this.

[NapoleonDolemite]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Basically those who buy into the notion that Democrats would have protected your rights are reading into this statement what you want to hear. You're certain that Hillary is on your side because she's the top dog and if you can't turn to her in your world where Democrats protect personal freedom, then who can you turn to?

Of course the real answer is no one. None of these clowns gives a flying f*ck about your personal freedom. Keep buying into this bullsh*t if you want. It's nice that half the elected officials responsible for this law have so many apologists. Wake up.

[/ QUOTE ]Your post was just a useless inaccurate rant.The reality is that the majority here have negative opinions about Hillary(they do not see her as being on "their side").Does this mean we must be blinded by this,and not look honestly at an individual statement?And your statement about people believing democrats would have protected our rights,also inaccurate,thats not the point some are making.For example,if i say that the Democrats would have been less likely to lead a christian family value motivated assault on poker,dont add your lies,mix and shake three times and tell me i just said that Democrats are out to protect my rights.And your going to insult people here by saying "wake up"?You were projecting on others the affliction you seem to share.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty clear that you're emotionally involved with the Democratic Party. I'm not going to argue with a zealot because I just don't care enough to.

If you need something more I suppose you can read between the lines: I look forward to the coming democratic landslide and a new era of personal freedom, comrade!

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Basically those who buy into the notion that Democrats would have protected your rights are reading into this statement what you want to hear. You're certain that Hillary is on your side because she's the top dog and if you can't turn to her in your world where Democrats protect personal freedom, then who can you turn to?

Of course the real answer is no one. None of these clowns gives a flying f*ck about your personal freedom. Keep buying into this bullsh*t if you want. It's nice that half the elected officials responsible for this law have so many apologists. Wake up.

[/ QUOTE ]Your post was just a useless inaccurate rant.The reality is that the majority here have negative opinions about Hillary(they do not see her as being on "their side").Does this mean we must be blinded by this,and not look honestly at an individual statement?And your statement about people believing democrats would have protected our rights,also inaccurate,thats not the point some are making.For example,if i say that the Democrats would have been less likely to lead a christian family value motivated assault on poker,dont add your lies,mix and shake three times and tell me i just said that Democrats are out to protect my rights.And your going to insult people here by saying "wake up"?You were projecting on others the affliction you seem to share.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty clear that you're emotionally involved with the Democratic Party. I'm not going to argue with a zealot because I just don't care enough to.

If you need something more I suppose you can read between the lines: I look forward to the coming democratic landslide and a new era of personal freedom, comrade!

[/ QUOTE ]Im actually not a democrat at all,so once again your wrong.You did exactly what i asked you not to do,you took my words,ignored them,added your own lies,then typed lol But fair enough,i have no vendetta towards you,and i respect your opinion.

[NapoleonDolemite]

Cool let's just let it go.