internet gambling bill to be protested in d.c. on monday

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just went by the monument with an hour before this supposed "event".......saw a single lone jogger.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can someone ban Coy_Roy. Apparently all his posts are deception and lampooning that kill real dialogue. This one and then his false "Neteller is Shutting Down" posts are really sophomoric.

[/ QUOTE ]

Deception?

That was an EXACT description of the scene.

I would have taken pictures but I think we've all seen the monument before.

[Synergistic Explosions]

Protestors were spotted?

[ QUOTE ]
Rumors (Not rated) 10-Oct-06 06:30 pm
October 10, 2006 - While several major players in the gambling industry were shutting down shop in the UK, the Casino Gambling Web was in Washington D.C. protesting against the gambling ban bill that has not yet been signed by President Bush.

While we were protesting in our nation's capital we saw signs shoved in Senator's faces, we saw President Bush give two speeches, and we heard some very interesting rumors.

All protests rush a great sense of unity and pride through the veins of the protestors, the same holds true with this one, but unusual to this protest, no one wanted to give their last names or explain why they had such a personal interest in protesting. Therefore, no sources can be revealed, but several very serious and interesting rumors were floating through the protesting crowd.

What was the most interesting rumor in Washington D.C. yesterday? That the Port Security Bill the president is expected to sign on Friday will be very different from what was released in Congress - concerning internet gambling.

The rumor was that banks have been lobbying hard over the past two weeks and that they may have achieved their lobbying goals of getting the banking enforcement section of the law discarded from the wording. It was rumored that the part of the law making banks liable for enforcing the law will be removed because banks lobbied that it would be impossible for them to enforce.

The part of the bill that everyone still seemed worried about was the fact that ISP's would still have to block gambling sites if told to do so. The bill would not make it the responsibility of the ISP's to find and shut down sites that either had gambling links on them or were gambling sites in themselves, however if they were informed about such sites they would be held responsible for blocking US citizens from getting to them. But, that part of the bill would not be enforcebale for 270 days, according to the rumors.

Much debate went on as to why the offshore companies were backing out of the US market when apparently they have no real need to. The bill says that a gambling website is not allowed to accept transactions from US citizens, however, most people at the protest did not understand how the US could enforce laws on companies that run their business on foreign land. Alteriror motives were suggested.

Note: All rumors revealed in this article are just that and cannot be taken as fact. We will give more information as we receive more information. As we stated from the time this bill passed, everything is speculaton until the bill is signed and enforced.
Rate it:
awful/not related to pooraveragegoodexcellent

[/ QUOTE ]

I liked that signs were shoved in Senators faces, that's seems to have made the whole thing worth it.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
Protestors were spotted?

[ QUOTE ]
Rumors (Not rated) 10-Oct-06 06:30 pm
October 10, 2006 - While several major players in the gambling industry were shutting down shop in the UK, the Casino Gambling Web was in Washington D.C. protesting against the gambling ban bill that has not yet been signed by President Bush.

While we were protesting in our nation's capital we saw signs shoved in Senator's faces, we saw President Bush give two speeches, and we heard some very interesting rumors.

All protests rush a great sense of unity and pride through the veins of the protestors, the same holds true with this one, but unusual to this protest, no one wanted to give their last names or explain why they had such a personal interest in protesting. Therefore, no sources can be revealed, but several very serious and interesting rumors were floating through the protesting crowd.

What was the most interesting rumor in Washington D.C. yesterday? That the Port Security Bill the president is expected to sign on Friday will be very different from what was released in Congress - concerning internet gambling.

The rumor was that banks have been lobbying hard over the past two weeks and that they may have achieved their lobbying goals of getting the banking enforcement section of the law discarded from the wording. It was rumored that the part of the law making banks liable for enforcing the law will be removed because banks lobbied that it would be impossible for them to enforce.

The part of the bill that everyone still seemed worried about was the fact that ISP's would still have to block gambling sites if told to do so. The bill would not make it the responsibility of the ISP's to find and shut down sites that either had gambling links on them or were gambling sites in themselves, however if they were informed about such sites they would be held responsible for blocking US citizens from getting to them. But, that part of the bill would not be enforcebale for 270 days, according to the rumors.

Much debate went on as to why the offshore companies were backing out of the US market when apparently they have no real need to. The bill says that a gambling website is not allowed to accept transactions from US citizens, however, most people at the protest did not understand how the US could enforce laws on companies that run their business on foreign land. Alteriror motives were suggested.

Note: All rumors revealed in this article are just that and cannot be taken as fact. We will give more information as we receive more information. As we stated from the time this bill passed, everything is speculaton until the bill is signed and enforced.
Rate it:
awful/not related to pooraveragegoodexcellent

[/ QUOTE ]

I liked that signs were shoved in Senators faces, that's seems to have made the whole thing worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That article is a complete fabrication.

The only demonstration in town was and continues to be that of the Gallaudet University students upset over the the choice of their school's president.

[chopper5654]

dont believe everything you read, especially when it "comes out of nowhere."

the part about bank enforcement is interesting considering that the banks only lobbied for PAPER CHECKS, not ETFs (they wont fight EFTs). and the article fails to state that there IS a difference.

this is just some sensationalist author that fails to do diligent research before going on a rant. only showing one side of the argument (your side) by leaving out KEY wording is irresponsible and amateur. something i would expect from the media, not the posters here at 2+2.

[cript2000]

[ QUOTE ]
dont believe everything you read, especially when it "comes out of nowhere."

the part about bank enforcement is interesting considering that the banks only lobbied for PAPER CHECKS, not ETFs (they wont fight EFTs). and the article fails to state that there IS a difference.

this is just some sensationalist author that fails to do diligent research before going on a rant. only showing one side of the argument (your side) by leaving out KEY wording is irresponsible and amateur. something i would expect from the media, not the posters here at 2+2.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know plenty of banks that don't want EFT in there...I for one use a bank that doesn't have the technology to decline EFTs from certain companies as they don't even have online banking. They would never be forced to update their technology to comply with a law they had to say in.

[ojsdaman]

wow..he spent some time to make all that crap up

[Vern]

But if he posts it enough, fiction will become reality. Some press will pick it up as a story, then the story will be that the press picked it up but by the time the law is repealed, the folk lore will be that the passage of the law caused protests in Washington D.C. I still wish there had been a march, those side games would have been great.

[MicroBob]

Over-Under on total number of protestors at this event = 10