http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061013/dcf009.html?.v=70
I do not agree with this, do you?
I am conservative - but this approach of sneaking a ban in though another bill is wrong, IMO.
Jeff
Online Poker Banned in 'Safe Port' bill
by AK - Jeff 11 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
SirNose586
Shouldn't he be helping Republicans? Somehow I think upsetting Poker Joe Voter was not a smart thing to do.
-
daystar
but this approach of sneaking a ban in though another bill is wrong, IMO
Happens all the time...
-
AK - Jeff
Does anyone know how to find the text of the actual bill passed. I have no idea but would like to read it personally.
Jeff
-
OUTLAW
There should be a law,against laws that ban poker..Who plays Texas-Hold`em?...OUTLAW
-
Elsewhere
I don't like the way congress will sometimes add unrelated legislation to a bill that's up for a vote.
In my opinion it should be illegal to add anything to a bill that is not directly related to the primary objective of the bill.
-
Jourles
It's all about party polarization, especially when it comes time for elections. Just wait and see - you're gonna be watching TV one day and there will be a "mud-slinging" ad that comes on accusing the opposing party candidate of voting against food for starving children, or money spent on extra armor for the troops in Iraq. You'll think, "What a low down thing to do - voting against armor for our troops! How dare they!" But in reality, the same bill this senator voted against also contained a provision to allow clergy immunity from prosecution for molesting choir boys. It's stupid $hit like this that pits our Society against one another. In the previous example, a senator would appear anti-patriotic but at the same time seem very smart for not letting the clergy off the hook. Most of these bills put the lawmakers in a catch-22.
This is also why you need to thoroughly check out the tv and campaign ads that party candidates put out(if you put stock into them). If so and so voted against a bill that would have put extra armor on the backs of the troops, you need to see what else was included with that same bill. Chances are, there was something major included - something that stunk.
-
sinis
I thought the bill was aimed to stop online gambling by use of CREDIT CARDS. I don't see a problem with this as it might tightened or limit fraud and or the assholes who default and leave the tab for the rest of us.
-
sinis
I also think this is a stratigic move as those in power realize that we are in big trouble floating in the boat of debt, called America. Most of last years GDP was fueled by people sucking the equity out of there "paper only" wealth - AKA house. Not only that but 1.5 trillion in mortgages come due starting the first of 2007, AND on top of that most house notes are no longer kept by the banker but are resold to freddie of fanny mae and then repackaged as HEDGE funds. So what happens when people start defaulting? I have a friend who works for a group or consultants who deal in property and are conservatively estamating a 300% increase in forclosures in summer of 2007.
Bottom line is there is a reason for this and I believe its darker than most think...
-
roflcopter
As a casual online poker player I was very mad. This is a perfect example of how corrupt this government is. This bill they were trying to pass by itself for a long time since they were unable to tax gambling over the net. But it never passed.... so what do they do... attach it to the end of a completely unrelated bill thats guaranteed to pass.
Gambling online is not made illegal here. just the funding via bank account, wire transfer, credit card, etc are banned. The downside is most companies are just banning US customers all together regardless.
Here is a link to the Library of Congress online bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:13:./temp/~c109Cv2nJC::
If that doesnt work go to thomas.loc.gov and search for H.R. 4954