Reid won't help?

[Cactus Jack]

[ QUOTE ]
Soo.. a Republican politician told you he was on your side after voting against you, and then told you that it was also a Democrat's fault and you believed it.

Did he happen to mention how Reid could do it? I'm guessing not.

I'm sure Reid could burn a lot of political capital, and sacrifice a lot of other things to get it done, but "wave of a hand" is a complete lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm reporting the incident as it was told to me. I would stand by the source absolutely. She and her husband are both poker players and had a conversation with Sen. Ensign. They sent a note via the waiter, first, and the Sen. stopped by their table on his way out. They told him their thoughts about the poker ban (you know what I'm saying) and he said he didn't understand all the ins and outs of the legislation. He gave them every indication that Sen Reid could make the problems for poker go away quite easily, but was not going to change anything with regard to the legislation. A simple rider attached to a bill that would give poker a carveout is all it would take, with Reid's blessing.

I think poker has simply gotten caught up in a mess that wasn't specifically targeting it, but it's done and we'll have to wait a long time for anything to change for the better.

Sad. I think it's really in the long term interest of the casinos here, as well as Sen Reid to change the situation. We'll see, I guess.

[MiltonFriedman]

Consider what you are saying .... your source says that Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate Democrats, actually considered leading a filibuster against the Safe Ports Act, on the eve of an election where his party had everything to gain by leaving the GOP twisting in the wind ... AND, he would hand the GOP a "soft on Homeland Security" club because some offshore companies, most of which were violating the Wire Act, were going to have their cashflow interupted.

No, one does not have to BE all-knowing to recognize the complete and utter lack of credibility in that scenario being considered. All it takes is NOT to be a political moron.

Sorry your feelings got hurt, but what you spouted about the filibuster was complete and utter nonsense. (I had no disagreement with the rest of your analysis by the way.)

[MiltonFriedman]

The ongoing effort is not confined to Nevada regulators. This is a first step only, albeit across a number of jurisdictions.
How it will pan out is anyone's guess, but the weight of the market IS pushing it forward.

[MiltonFriedman]

Is the Powerball a federal issue ? (Hey Jose, I plead ignorance on this point of fact, happy ?)

I think it is inevitable that federal sufferance/tolerance would be required, but I doubt that Nevada gaming companies want Federal regulation.

[MiltonFriedman]

"he said he didn't understand all the ins and outs of the legislation'

A true statement I am sure.

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the Powerball a federal issue ? (Hey Jose, I plead ignorance on this point of fact, happy ?)

I think it is inevitable that federal sufferance/tolerance would be required, but I doubt that Nevada gaming companies want Federal regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regarding Powerball/Mega Millions, I haven't a clue. But what I meant is if it's allowed in the US (Harrah's internet poker room), I assume the feds will try to make the 11 states see the light.

[jschaud]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is the Powerball a federal issue ? (Hey Jose, I plead ignorance on this point of fact, happy ?)

I think it is inevitable that federal sufferance/tolerance would be required, but I doubt that Nevada gaming companies want Federal regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regarding Powerball/Mega Millions, I haven't a clue. But what I meant is if it's allowed in the US (Harrah's internet poker room), I assume the feds will try to make the 11 states see the light.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that i read the multi-state lotteries are based upon a compact made by the states.

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) is the Senate Majority Leader, for those who aren't up on these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

For those who aren't up on things, Reid was not the Majority Leader when this happened. OP is being extremely misleading.

I'm not surprised that Ensign didn't understand the UIGEA. It is far from the first thing he doesn't understand.

This was done in conference committee, without allowing for any debate or amendment by Democrats, attached to a vital piece of legislation at the last moment, without allowing for time to even read the changes made in committee. This sort of egregious conduct became popular during the time when Ensign's party controlled the legislature (but not prior).

You won't find too many friends on the other side of the political aisle either, but you can be pretty damn sure that this wouldn't have happened under their watch. Unfortunately, it currently would cost too much political capital for too little gain to fix it now. Debated and voted on its own merits and separately, you would have pulled enough civil libertarians from both parties to prevent passage. (Adding up to more than the number of Rs who feel beholden to pandering to religious nutjobs and nanny-state Ds.) By the way, I wouldn't count too much on Ensign being one of the good guys on this one. His voting record on civil liberties issues is atrocious.

[Grey]

Thanks for summing up well what I didn't have the patience to.

[TheEngineer]

Hopefully we'll all be able to send Reid and Ensign letters this week advocating our position on the UIGEA.