Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!!

[JoseGonzlez]

I guess Frist is trying to be Mr. Ethics. Yet he was involved in somewhat shady dealings with possible insider trading of Tenet Health Care Stock. What a scumball.

I might actually vote this election. Probably libertarian.

Screw the Republican party.

[Jack Bando]

"I've said it before and I'll say it again: Democracy simply doesn't work."

So I'm guessing our best two shots at the moment are

A)Frist tries to add it, ACS says "WTF? No piggybacking!"
B)(Longshot, I know) Frist "tries" add it, but doesn't really give any effort, it doesn't stick, he now both fought for morals and did not anger the banks.

[uphigh_downlow]

Has anyone noticed that the bill passed by the house makes online poker clearly illegal ( by improving upon the wire act).

So even a watered down cc only bill will still make all these sites illegal, and they cud well withdraw their services from us customers.

Isnt that a significant factor in itself???

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
i have actually heard from my parents that Jeff Sessions is extremely unhappy with Mr. Frist for this, and he is completely against anything being added on. (they know him and speak to him on occasion and see him when he comes back to alabama) Mr. K, i am curious when you said that the opposition of the armed services committe may not be enough, how likely do you think it is that leadership will roll them on this one? Also, does anyone think it would matter if Frist got a few thousand calls/letters/emails from people all over the country letting him know that should this language be attached to the DOD bill he probably shouldnt get his hopes up for a presidential bid?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah yes! This MIGHT be an opening for us...only we can't let it be known that the real reason we object is because of online poker...think about it!

---Leavenfish

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
2)Does the fact that leadership is trying to include an abortion provision as well help our cause any at all? For example, many believe the Internet Gambling provisions to be relatively speaking, non-controversial. The same can't be said, however, for anything pertaining to the abortion debate. Is it possible, some conferees may see the abortion language and object to any and all extraneous subject matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did do some real work... in fact lots of it, but yeah, I spent a little too much time on 2+2 today. Just lots of things to update on, I guess.

As for your point (quoted above) re: abortion, I think you are on to something. The dems might filibuster the conference report in the Senate if they put that abortion bill on it. Thing is, I doubt Frist & Co will have the balls to actually jam the abortion thing in there. I just don't see it happening. The gambling bill, however does seem to be in contention, and the contracts on TS are moving north quickly, which suggests that others feel the same way.

I have gotten into action item suggestions before, but won't this time. Strictly news & rumors from me from here on out. Also, for those of you asking about the actual effects of the proposed language, and the neteller stuff, I have to say that I have no clue. Hate to let you down on that but it is the truth.

[Reject]

[ QUOTE ]
As for your point (quoted above) re: abortion, I think you are on to something. The dems might filibuster the conference report in the Senate if they put that abortion bill on it. Thing is, I doubt Frist & Co will have the balls to actually jam the abortion thing in there. I just don't see it happening. The gambling bill, however does seem to be in contention, and the contracts on TS are moving north quickly, which suggests that others feel the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]
One reason to try to stick abortion in there is to force a Dem response before the elections, so that they could continue the election theme of voting for the dems = a vote against the military/for the terrorists.

I think that something working in favor of the situation is that both sides need to get this thing passed so they don't have a political liability come Oct/Nov. Well, actually I guess that is both a liability and asset in this situation because the gambling bill might not be controversial enough to hold it up. I wonder if that might be a source of objections to riders in general, the members don't want anything controversial getting in the way.

[PPA President]

Mr. K,
You are very up to date and knowledgeable on the legislation and process.
Here is what I know from the last 3 days in Senate Offices.
1. This is the Leach Bill in Conference.
2. Accordingly the Leach bill covers all financial instruments, not just CCs. I assume that this would cover Firepay and Netteller, but this will not be determined for 270 days post passage, if it passes.
3. This is an hour by hour issue, not even day by day, and with even the best lobbyists in the US, no one can tell you where this will fall.
4. You can help if you live in TN, NH, and IA. These are either key states in a presidential race, or Senator Frist's own, for which Frist believes are essential for a run at the Presidency in 2008. Strange issue to run on, but we do not run his campaign. (Why was Frist in IA?). Perhaps poker players can call their Senate offices in DC, if they live there. You can look on the net or go to the PPA's website to get their DC office.
4. I want to thank our members, and the on-line community for calling on Sept. 12th. It was a great success. I have met with 15 Senator offices the last 2 days and will continue to represent poker players in the coming weeks, and your efforts provide grassroots constituent interest for me and my lobbying team. Senators now know who the PPA is and have been generally open to a discussion in favor of regulating internet poker, with some reservations, of course. Is it too late, I hope not.

We will continue argue for an exemption for poker, or in opposition to this legislation. Back on the Hill tomorrow, but I thank our members and others who called.
Michael Bolcerek

[scrapperdog]

Umm why would netteller and firepay not be determined until 270 days post passage?

[Custer]

That's prob when the enforcement of the bill begins.

[scrapperdog]

So they are gonna have no policies in place until the day enforcement starts? They are just gonna start enforcing without letting people know exactly what they are enforcing beforehand?