Barney Frank--realistic timeframe?

[Thremp]

Senator7,

This isn't a major legislative move.


Dennisa,

There is almost zero chance of Bush vetoing this bill if it was standalone.

[MelchyBeau]

[ QUOTE ]
Senator7,

This isn't a major legislative move.


Dennisa,

There is almost zero chance of Bush vetoing this bill if it was standalone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say it would be close to 100%. Remember he still panders to the religious right

[Fly]

Asssuming the pill passes through the house, it still has to make it through the Senate and there are no indications that any Senators are interested/care about this (except opponents)

[Barrin6]

There is no way in hell a bill that legalizes online gambling will ever pass in both house or senate without it riding on another bill. Online gambling is at the bottom of bottom priorties. Online gambling is not big enough of an issue for something to get passed right now. What we need are banks venting thier frustrations and U.S citizens to complain about thier freedoms being infringed upon. Until then, we sit back and wait for that to happen. It's like waiting for the first black, jew, female, lesbian, athiest U.S president; It will never happen

[yahboohoo]

First, repealing UIGEA is not going to legalize online gambling. They aren't the same thing. Repealing UIGEA rolls back the clock a little, but there's still a long way to go before this country's legislators figure out that they're going to have to pass laws that acknowledge online gaming as a reality that's not going away.

Second, I think it helps to scrutinize the arguments offered by opponents to online gaming. There are always two reasons people do anything: the good reason, and the real reason. "Good reasons" are the logical rationalizations people offer up to justify their true emotional motivations -- the real reasons.

Politicians are offering up a lot of "good reasons" to oppose online gaming:
* It's addictive and destroys American families
* It's praying on America's young people
* It's a potential funnel for terrorist funding

This is the kind of stuff they say when defending UIGEA. But for the most part, it's all bullshit. You know it. I know it. They know it. Sure, there's a few right-wing extremists who actually believe the shit that dribbles out their lips, but there aren't that many.

The real reasons online gambling isn't legal yet has to do with money and power. Money. Power. Period. Legislators will always exploit every situation to maximize their political yield. If supporting UIGEA wins them more votes and gets them more campaign contributions, they'll support it. If money and votes flow the other direction, they'll oppose it.

For a long time, money was coming from the B&M industry. That's how poker became a felony in Washington state -- all because of Indian casinos.

And the votes have been coming from the religous right.

My guess is that few politicians -- left or right -- really give two squirts about the morality or immorality of online gaming. But they'll exploit the situation by pandering to those voices who vote and pay to be heard. Their real motivations are money and power, not "doing God's work."

EDIT - Think about this: What does any politician have to win by answering the online gaming debate prior to the 2008 election? If you can answer that question (whether you're for or against it), then we can expect to see some movement on the issue. Otherwise, they'll focus their attention on "issues important to the American people." Translation: If supporting poker gets me re-elected or my man in the White House, I'll go for it. If not, I'm going to talk about health care, education and the war in Iraq.

[Grey]

Reminder link: http://www.actblue.com/page/poker

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
First, repealing UIGEA is not going to legalize online gambling. They aren't the same thing. Repealing UIGEA rolls back the clock a little, but there's still a long way to go before this country's legislators figure out that they're going to have to pass laws that acknowledge online gaming as a reality that's not going away.

Second, I think it helps to scrutinize the arguments offered by opponents to online gaming. There are always two reasons people do anything: the good reason, and the real reason. "Good reasons" are the logical rationalizations people offer up to justify their true emotional motivations -- the real reasons.

Politicians are offering up a lot of "good reasons" to oppose online gaming:
* It's addictive and destroys American families
* It's praying on America's young people
* It's a potential funnel for terrorist funding

This is the kind of stuff they say when defending UIGEA. But for the most part, it's all bullshit. You know it. I know it. They know it. Sure, there's a few right-wing extremists who actually believe the shit that dribbles out their lips, but there aren't that many.

The real reasons online gambling isn't legal yet has to do with money and power. Money. Power. Period. Legislators will always exploit every situation to maximize their political yield. If supporting UIGEA wins them more votes and gets them more campaign contributions, they'll support it. If money and votes flow the other direction, they'll oppose it.

For a long time, money was coming from the B&M industry. That's how poker became a felony in Washington state -- all because of Indian casinos.

And the votes have been coming from the religous right.

My guess is that few politicians -- left or right -- really give two squirts about the morality or immorality of online gaming. But they'll exploit the situation by pandering to those voices who vote and pay to be heard. Their real motivations are money and power, not "doing God's work."

EDIT - Think about this: What does any politician have to win by answering the online gaming debate prior to the 2008 election? If you can answer that question (whether you're for or against it), then we can expect to see some movement on the issue. Otherwise, they'll focus their attention on "issues important to the American people." Translation: If supporting poker gets me re-elected or my man in the White House, I'll go for it. If not, I'm going to talk about health care, education and the war in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]


Very very good post sir.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First, repealing UIGEA is not going to legalize online gambling. They aren't the same thing. Repealing UIGEA rolls back the clock a little, but there's still a long way to go before this country's legislators figure out that they're going to have to pass laws that acknowledge online gaming as a reality that's not going away.

Second, I think it helps to scrutinize the arguments offered by opponents to online gaming. There are always two reasons people do anything: the good reason, and the real reason. "Good reasons" are the logical rationalizations people offer up to justify their true emotional motivations -- the real reasons.

Politicians are offering up a lot of "good reasons" to oppose online gaming:
* It's addictive and destroys American families
* It's praying on America's young people
* It's a potential funnel for terrorist funding

This is the kind of stuff they say when defending UIGEA. But for the most part, it's all bullshit. You know it. I know it. They know it. Sure, there's a few right-wing extremists who actually believe the shit that dribbles out their lips, but there aren't that many.

The real reasons online gambling isn't legal yet has to do with money and power. Money. Power. Period. Legislators will always exploit every situation to maximize their political yield. If supporting UIGEA wins them more votes and gets them more campaign contributions, they'll support it. If money and votes flow the other direction, they'll oppose it.

For a long time, money was coming from the B&M industry. That's how poker became a felony in Washington state -- all because of Indian casinos.

And the votes have been coming from the religous right.

My guess is that few politicians -- left or right -- really give two squirts about the morality or immorality of online gaming. But they'll exploit the situation by pandering to those voices who vote and pay to be heard. Their real motivations are money and power, not "doing God's work."

EDIT - Think about this: What does any politician have to win by answering the online gaming debate prior to the 2008 election? If you can answer that question (whether you're for or against it), then we can expect to see some movement on the issue. Otherwise, they'll focus their attention on "issues important to the American people." Translation: If supporting poker gets me re-elected or my man in the White House, I'll go for it. If not, I'm going to talk about health care, education and the war in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]


Very very good post sir.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. This poster has come a long way since his unfortunate beginning (with the crazy posts about the conspiracy between the mafia, the Don, corrupt US attorneys and their political aspirations, the possibility of racketeering charges, etc.).

Let's see more of the good stuff, sir!

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
The standard path for a bill to move is:
Idea/Drafting (relatively simple)
Introduction
Hearings (Subcommittee/Committee)
Markup (Subcommittee/Committee)
Floor Consideration


[/ QUOTE ]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iRg2OIEMZwQ

[blutarski]

I would add that most Dems and liberals aren't fond of internet gambling. There isn't enough motivation from the sources of conservative or liberal power to do anything in favor of online poker.

Hope I'm wrong.