The 2+2 Forum Archives: One of the better responses I've seen: Coleman, MN

Terms & Conditions

Internet Magazine

Non–US new players
Get five 2+2 books

Order Books
Book Translations
Forum Login

Expand All Collapse All

Two Plus Two

General Poker Discussion

Coaching/Training

German Forums

French Forums

Limit Texas Hold'em

PL/NL Texas Hold'em

Tournament Poker

Other Poker

General Gambling

Internet Gambling

2+2 Communities

The 2+2 Forums

Before using this Forum, please refer to the Terms and Conditions (Last modified: 2/26/2006)

Be sure to read the Two Plus Two Internet Magazine

This is an archive. The main forums are here

These forums are read only.

UBB.threads™

Groupee, Inc.

You are not logged in. [Login]

Main Index · Search · Classified Ads
New user · Who's Online · FAQ · Calendar

General Poker Discussion >> Poker Legislation

Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)

ubercuber
addict

Reged: 06/03/05
Posts: 695
Loc: 2 12 blitzin FICS

One of the better responses I've seen: Coleman, MN
#7721444 - 10/19/06 12:55 AM

Dear Pipedream,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your opposition to recently passed Internet gambling legislation.

On September 30, 2006, both the House and Senate passed port security legislation to prohibit the use of various forms of payment such as credit cards and checks for unlawful Internet gambling. It is important to note that this legislation does not make Internet gambling illegal but rather seeks to reinforce the prohibition on unlawful Internet gambling.

I had serious reservations about including this legislation in port security legislation. However, once the internet gambling legislation was included, I supported the overall bill because the port security legislation was too important to jeopardize. The President signed this measure into law on October 13, 2006.

Thank you once again for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Sincerely,
Norm Coleman
United States Senate

Post Extras:

KP84
journeyman

Reged: 01/24/06
Posts: 84

Re: One of the better responses I've seen: Coleman, MN [Re: ubercuber]
#7721670 - 10/19/06 01:11 AM

That is a good response...donest help anything...but still

Post Extras:

ubercuber
addict

Reged: 06/03/05
Posts: 695
Loc: 2 12 blitzin FICS

Re: One of the better responses I've seen: Coleman, MN [Re: KP84]
#7721737 - 10/19/06 01:18 AM

Quote:

It is important to note that this legislation does not make Internet gambling illegal but rather seeks to reinforce the prohibition on unlawful Internet gambling.

When I first read this it sounded like what many are saying, they still haven't defined illegal internet gambling.

But after re reading, It could also be a nicer way of saying " The Wire Act of ... already illegal...blah blah"

Post Extras:

PokerBob
Daddy

Reged: 03/24/04
Posts: 17046
Loc: moneyhater

Re: One of the better responses I've seen: Coleman, MN [Re: ubercuber]
#7721963 - 10/19/06 01:37 AM

coleman is a douche. i used to be related to him by marriage. thank god i got divorced.

Post Extras:

Synergistic Explosions
Pooh-Bah

Reged: 06/29/04
Posts: 2358

Re: One of the better responses I've seen: Coleman, MN [Re: ubercuber]
#7722028 - 10/19/06 01:43 AM

Quote:

I had serious reservations about including this legislation in port security legislation.

If they were very serious reservations he would have stood up and said something, even voting against the legislation.

Obviously, very serious to him means very little. Another example of a politician we don't need occupying space in DC.

Post Extras:

coolio4433
newbie

Reged: 01/12/06
Posts: 48

Re: One of the better responses I've seen: Coleman, MN [Re: Synergistic Explosions]
#7724855 - 10/19/06 09:28 AM

I got the same response.

I don't put much stock in it. Clearly a form letter, probably written by a staffer.

As far as the idea that,
"Obviously, very serious to him means very little. Another example of a politician we don't need occupying space in DC"

I can't imagine that anyone voted against the Port Security bill, and if they did, you know that their future opponent just added that to the list of "bad" things they did while in office.

I can hear it now...
"So and so, doesn't want our borders and ports to be secure! He cares more about internet gambling than the safety of our country!"

Post Extras:

thetruest
enthusiast

Reged: 10/17/05
Posts: 318
Loc: Cali.

Re: One of the better responses I've seen: Coleman, MN [Re: Synergistic Explosions]
#7724896 - 10/19/06 09:32 AM

Quote:

Quote:

I had serious reservations about including this legislation in port security legislation.

If they were very serious reservations he would have stood up and said something, even voting against the legislation.

Obviously, very serious to him means very little. Another example of a politician we don't need occupying space in DC.

shut up you self-righteous idiot.

Post Extras:

ouzacprice
member

Reged: 10/29/05
Posts: 182
Loc: Drinkin'

Re: One of the better responses I've seen: Coleman, MN [Re: thetruest]
#7726301 - 10/19/06 12:15 PM

talked to a friend yesterday who worked as an assistant up at the hill this past summer and he said that this whole thing was all politics. This board already knows that Frist was doing this to rally a conservative base- but I think what we might not understand is that democrats could not vote against this bill no matter how much they hated the internet gambling part because then it would have givin republicans ammo in the election to say "dems dont care about port security" etc.

Post Extras:

ubercuber
addict

Reged: 06/03/05
Posts: 695
Loc: 2 12 blitzin FICS

Re: One of the better responses I've seen: Coleman, MN [Re: ouzacprice]
#7737201 - 10/20/06 03:28 AM

IS this strategy really effective? Why not just respond by telling the real story?

Post Extras:

tehDiceman
veteran

Reged: 10/13/06
Posts: 1290
Loc: Indiana

Re: One of the better responses I've seen: Coleman, MN [Re: ouzacprice]
#7737379 - 10/20/06 03:52 AM

Quote:

talked to a friend yesterday who worked as an assistant up at the hill this past summer and he said that this whole thing was all politics. This board already knows that Frist was doing this to rally a conservative base- but I think what we might not understand is that democrats could not vote against this bill no matter how much they hated the internet gambling part because then it would have givin republicans ammo in the election to say "dems dont care about port security" etc.

i thought that seemed obvious.

Post Extras:

Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)

Extra information

0 registered and 0 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator: Berge20, Ryan Beal, Performify, 4_2_it, Mike Haven

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 1701

Jump to

2+2 Publishing

Pages provided by ConJelCo