|
|
#1
10-19-2006, 12:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
One of the better responses I\'ve seen: Coleman, MN
Dear Pipedream,
Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your opposition to recently passed Internet gambling legislation. On September 30, 2006, both the House and Senate passed port security legislation to prohibit the use of various forms of payment such as credit cards and checks for unlawful Internet gambling. It is important to note that this legislation does not make Internet gambling illegal but rather seeks to reinforce the prohibition on unlawful Internet gambling. I had serious reservations about including this legislation in port security legislation. However, once the internet gambling legislation was included, I supported the overall bill because the port security legislation was too important to jeopardize. The President signed this measure into law on October 13, 2006. Thank you once again for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me again. Sincerely, Norm Coleman United States Senate 
|
|
#3
10-19-2006, 01:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One of the better responses I\'ve seen: Coleman, MN
[ QUOTE ]
It is important to note that this legislation does not make Internet gambling illegal but rather seeks to reinforce the prohibition on unlawful Internet gambling. [/ QUOTE ] When I first read this it sounded like what many are saying, they still haven't defined illegal internet gambling. But after re reading, It could also be a nicer way of saying " The Wire Act of ... already illegal...blah blah"
|
|
#5
10-19-2006, 01:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One of the better responses I\'ve seen: Coleman, MN
[ QUOTE ]
I had serious reservations about including this legislation in port security legislation. [/ QUOTE ] If they were very serious reservations he would have stood up and said something, even voting against the legislation. Obviously, very serious to him means very little. Another example of a politician we don't need occupying space in DC.
|
|
#6
10-19-2006, 09:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One of the better responses I\'ve seen: Coleman, MN
I got the same response.
I don't put much stock in it. Clearly a form letter, probably written by a staffer. As far as the idea that, "Obviously, very serious to him means very little. Another example of a politician we don't need occupying space in DC" I can't imagine that anyone voted against the Port Security bill, and if they did, you know that their future opponent just added that to the list of "bad" things they did while in office. I can hear it now... "So and so, doesn't want our borders and ports to be secure! He cares more about internet gambling than the safety of our country!"
|
|
#7
10-19-2006, 09:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One of the better responses I\'ve seen: Coleman, MN
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I had serious reservations about including this legislation in port security legislation. [/ QUOTE ] If they were very serious reservations he would have stood up and said something, even voting against the legislation. Obviously, very serious to him means very little. Another example of a politician we don't need occupying space in DC. [/ QUOTE ] shut up you self-righteous idiot.
|
|
#8
10-19-2006, 12:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One of the better responses I\'ve seen: Coleman, MN
talked to a friend yesterday who worked as an assistant up at the hill this past summer and he said that this whole thing was all politics. This board already knows that Frist was doing this to rally a conservative base- but I think what we might not understand is that democrats could not vote against this bill no matter how much they hated the internet gambling part because then it would have givin republicans ammo in the election to say "dems dont care about port security" etc.
|
|
#10
10-20-2006, 03:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: One of the better responses I\'ve seen: Coleman, MN
[ QUOTE ]
talked to a friend yesterday who worked as an assistant up at the hill this past summer and he said that this whole thing was all politics. This board already knows that Frist was doing this to rally a conservative base- but I think what we might not understand is that democrats could not vote against this bill no matter how much they hated the internet gambling part because then it would have givin republicans ammo in the election to say "dems dont care about port security" etc. [/ QUOTE ] i thought that seemed obvious.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
