Party Poker Stock up big, news coming on US Online Gambling?

[LuckyTxGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Use even the smallest amount of common sense. Do you really think there are enough votes that house and senate will repeal this act? There is a clear majority in both that is antigambling. Both dem and rep. This is nonsense. There is a better chance of Bush being elected to a third term. The best thing that could happen is for the discussion of this matter stop and no regulations written as to how act will be enforced. The 180 days towrite the regulations is almost up. With no regs as to enforcement the act is essentially worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm thinking you are right. I really can't see there being enough votes to over turn this. While the Republicans are definitely to blame for the UIGEA, this isn't really a hot button issue with the Dems. It was also assumed that the UIGEA would get enough votes by Reps and Dems to pass on it's own merit, even if it wasn't snuck in the Port Security bill.

But hey, I'll take any good news we can get and hope for the best.

[yahboohoo]

Could this be someone's attempt at manipulating the stock market?

Perhaps someone holding a schload of Party stock?

[Skallagrim]

With apologies to all you sports bettors and online slot players, the easiest way Frank can help us out here is to adopt the strategy of the PPA and Al D'Amato and simply insert in some other legislation language to "clarify" the UIGEA to the extent that "unlawful" internet gambling does not include the playing of poker online. Hardly impossible to pass that.

[BruinEric]

[ QUOTE ]

In addition, Frank is simply a member of the House. Someone's going to have to carry the water for this in the Senate, as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of -- if done via an attach to a high-profile bill (like the Port Security one), it could get by without a champion in the Senate. If HR passes the bill with that included and the House members in the conference committee demand its inclusion in the final bill, then it could pass the Senate without meaningful debate on this element.

We're talking about a lot of stars aligning, so I think the chances are super-slim.

The port security attachment happened IMHO because of some HIGH-PROFILE support. You had the Senate Majority Leader making it an issue. He has more chips to bargain with for his cohorts in conference committee than Rep. Frank. The UIGEA side had the NFL & NCAA pushing and wide Representative support for passage when it a similar version was voted on. So that was a lot of momentum.

That said, Rep. Frank has a lot of experience and reasonable pull & respect in the Dem Caucus. Very unlikely though, but I'm rooting for him for probably the first time ever.

As for Rep. Frank being "libertarian," I think that's a reeeeaaal stretch. While he's socially liberal, I'll bet he supports complete opposite perspectives on finance, social spending, etc. It would be more accurate to say he's a proud liberal who is a strong and eloquent advocate for liberal social policy.

[spino1i]

So I just called the offices of Barney Frank (to thank him for his work so far) and was told by his secretary that his was planning to create a bill to repeal the internet prohibition act in the very near future. No joke! Call his offices yourself if you dont believe me. Phone number is in a similar thread in the zoo.

[Wahoo73]

I can understand why you both feel this way, and I'd say the odds are in your favor that your assertions are correct. However, the odds of the UIGEA being partially or completely reversed now are better than they were three months ago.

First, the leading Senate and House proponents of the legislation are no longer in office.

Secondly, many other congressmen/women and senators who voted in favor of the UIGEA are no longer in office.

Thirdly, some of the adverse affects of the UIGEA have now made themselves apparent. This should lead to better organized and effective lobbying efforts by both the banking industry, as well as the legal gaming industry.

Next, the representatives and senators who were in office when the UIGEA passed and are still in office likely had no idea what their own constituencies thought about this issue pre-UIGEA. Hopefully, they have heard from their constituents post-UIGEA and may examine the issue more closely if it ever again comes to the floors of their respective congressional houses.

Lastly, we as constituents have another opportunity to flood our representatives with our opinions to influence their votes if the UIGEA ever comes up for repeal or amendment.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Could this be someone's attempt at manipulating the stock market?

Perhaps someone holding a schload of Party stock?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah okay, somebody went back in time and inserted a bunch of quotes into Barney Frank's mouth. gg.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Edited

[/ QUOTE ]
Yet another rational, intelligent, well-thought-out post from nineinchal. Just as we've come to expect from you....

[yahboohoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could this be someone's attempt at manipulating the stock market?

Perhaps someone holding a schload of Party stock?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah okay, somebody went back in time and inserted a bunch of quotes into Barney Frank's mouth. gg.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure Frank's a supporter, but I was talking about today's rumors smart@ss. It's reasonable to question the authenticity of the early reports in today's news. I don't blindly accept everything I read from news outlets any more than I do from a forum. Skepticism is healthy, imo.

[DONKTARDO]

[ QUOTE ]
It was also assumed that the UIGEA would get enough votes by Reps and Dems to pass on it's own merit, even if it wasn't snuck in the Port Security bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Similar bills had been tried and were unsuccessful. That is the entire reason it was snuck into the Port Security Bill.