Bush's Big Bluff by Marc Cooper - Page 2

Lottery Larry · #11 10-20-2006, 10:36 PM

Who is Marc Cooper, since you quoted him?

And blaming Bush for this seems silly- it's on the legislators.

bottomset · #12 10-20-2006, 10:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And by Bush he means Frist. No president would veto a bill based on that addendum; he has much greater things to worry about, and has to hope Congress is capable of doing their job. It's not about Bush. It's about Frist, Congress, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the president was able to send a bill back to congress unsigned with suggestions

if he sent it back saying get the Igaming crap out, they could remove it and send it back clean

Xhad · #13 10-20-2006, 11:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I thought the president was able to send a bill back to congress unsigned with suggestions

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course he can. Even if there's not an offical procedure in place for this, what's to stop him from offically vetoing the bill, then informally saying "Hey guys in congress, I'll sign this if you send it back without the igaming stuff."

BAK · #14 10-21-2006, 12:42 AM

I have no doubt that Bush was perfectly happy to sign this bill as is. Why would he care? And he surely can't veto the port security act!

tmfs · #15 10-21-2006, 04:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And by Bush he means Frist. No president would veto a bill based on that addendum; he has much greater things to worry about, and has to hope Congress is capable of doing their job. It's not about Bush. It's about Frist, Congress, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, jesus why does every one try to pin everything him. It was obviously one person who had an agenda to push this through and our [censored] up system that allowed it. It's been going on for years before Bush was in office.

jrbick · #16 10-21-2006, 04:56 AM

No way was bush going to send this bill back. Didn't they work on this for something like, 4 years or so?

And M is right here in that this is not about Bush/President; it's totally about Frist/congress.

Listen to "The Circuit" with Shelley Berkley. She talks about some sick sick hypocrisy that went on here. They would not allow any language to be added that would protect the rail system and busses, etc BECAUSE THIS IS A "PORTS ONLY" BILL. So, obviously UIGEA was 100% political slobber.

Grey · #17 10-21-2006, 05:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And by Bush he means Frist.

[/ QUOTE ]No- Bush said months ago that he'd sign a bill banning internet gambling.

Megenoita · #18 10-21-2006, 05:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And by Bush he means Frist.

[/ QUOTE ]No- Bush said months ago that he'd sign a bill banning internet gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course he would sign it, lol. What, you think any president would NOT sign it? Take a stand with...internet gambling? LOL. That he said he would sign it (like basically every member of Congress) doesn't mean he pushed it, or had anything whatever to do with pushing it through. In fact, he didn't, and I'm sure would care less if it got done, like most of our nation. There was a small, select few who wanted this done, and it wasn't the "religious right", and it wasn't Bush. You posters' penchant for warrantless babble is irresponsible.

MyTurn2Raise · #19 10-21-2006, 05:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this scenario - if the US turns round somewhere down the line and says "hey - online poker is OK now - as long as its AMERICAN BASED poker"

The WTO will have a field day. And it wont be just Antiga. The EU will [censored] create havoc if this scenario occurs.

The US destroys a global gaming economy by making deposits illegal then turns round and legalises it for US-based businesses! Even the monkeys that run the US couldn't be as stupid as to think they would get away with this blatent protectionism.

[/ QUOTE ]
If online poker is legalized in the U.S. there is absolutely no reason to restrict it to only U.S. companies. The marketplace will take care of that. Where would U.S. players rather risk their money, with shady operators on a barge somewhere, the utterly incompetent morons at Party, or a U.S. company licensed and regulated by federal or state governments, with EFTs handled through federally-insured banks?

A reputable offshore company like Stars would instantly open a U.S. subsidiary and U.S. bank accounts, if not just move here altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's just my opinion, but if online poker were officially recognized by the US gov't, it wouldn't come with competition.

Thos gambling industry campaign contributions count for something.

It will be an official monopoly approved by the US Gov't that would make you long for Party's Monster rake structure.

Harv72b · #20 10-21-2006, 06:22 AM

I find it misleading at best that he ties this legislation to George W. Bush as if it were his own personal baby. But I'm more than willing to use the anti-Bush sentiment of a lot of people if it will help the case against the UIGEA.

I also find his example of a 25 year-old busting out at a NL table and rushing off to the ATM to get more money to be more than a little counterproductive.

I wish that I could Cooper's final analysis, too, but I tend to think that ranks right up there with the legalization of marijuana in the "likely to happen soon" category.