Posted Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:15 pm GMT by wEbMaStEr
You need to call your Senator RIGHT NOW!
Looks like that c*cksmoker Bill Frist is at it again, This time trying to attach an anti-online gambling bill to Port Security legislation...
FROM THE PPA PRESIDENT:
This is going to our members ASAP
The U.S. Congress is Trying to Ban Online Poker TODAY!!!
THIS IS NOT A TEST -- Call Your Senator Now
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is attaching the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act to a bill that is expected to be approved by the Congress early this evening. PLEASE call your Senators today and tell them that they should oppose the Internet gambling bill being part of Port Security legislation.
If the Port Security bill passes, with the Internet gambling language included, your ability to enjoy poker online will be at serious risk.
Each member of the Poker Players Alliance has two Senators which are listed below. They need to hear from you RIGHT NOW! Let them know that you care about your rights to play poker.
Please Call!!! Tell your Senators to oppose attaching Internet gambling to Port Security!
First Name Last Name State Phone Number
Ted Stevens AK (202) 224-3004
Lisa Murkowski AK (202) 224-6665
Richard Shelby AL (202) 224-5744
Jeff Sessions AL (202) 224-4124
Mark Pryor AR (202) 224-2353
Blanche Lincoln AR (202) 224-4843
John McCain AZ (202) 224-2235
Jon Kyl AZ (202) 224-4521
Barbara Boxer CA (202) 224-3553
Dianne Feinstein CA (202) 224-3841
Wayne Allard CO (202) 224-5941
Ken Salazar CO (202) 224-5852
Joseph Lieberman CT (202) 224-4041
Christopher Dodd CT (202) 224-2823
Joseph Biden DE (202) 224-5042
Thomas Carper DE (202) 224-2441
Mel Martinez FL (202)224-3041
Bill Nelson FL (202) 224-5274
Johnny Isakson GA (202) 224-3643
Saxby Chambliss GA (202) 224-3521
Daniel Akaka HI (202) 224-6361
Daniel Inouye HI (202) 224-3934
Tom Harkin IA (202) 224-3254
Charles Grassley IA (202) 224-3744
Michael Crapo ID (202) 224-6142
Larry Craig ID (202) 224-2752
Barack Obama IL (202) 224-2854
Richard Durbin IL (202) 224-2152
Richard Lugar IN (202) 224-4814
Evan Bayh IN (202) 224-5623
Pat Roberts KS (202) 224-4774
Sam Brownback KS (202) 224-6521
Mitch McConnell KY (202) 224-2541
Jim Bunning KY (202) 224-4343
David Vitter LA (202) 224-4623
Mary Landrieu LA (202) 224-5824
Edward Kennedy MA (202) 224-4543
John Kerry MA (202) 224-2742
Barbara Mikulski MD (202) 224-4654
Paul Sarbanes MD (202) 224-4524
Olympia Snowe ME (202) 224-5344
Susan Collins ME (202) 224-2523
Carl Levin MI (202) 224-6221
Debbie Stabenow MI (202) 224-4822
Norm Coleman MN (202) 224-5641
Mark Dayton MN (202) 224-3244
Christopher Bond MO (202) 224-5721
James Talent MO (202) 224-6154
Thad Cochran MS (202) 224-5054
Trent Lott MS (202) 224-6253
Conrad Burns MT (202) 224-2644
Max Baucus MT (202) 224-2651
Richard Burr NC (202) 224-3154
Elizabeth Dole NC (202) 224-6342
Kent Conrad ND (202) 224-2043
Byron Dorgan ND (202) 224-2551
Chuck Hagel NE (202) 224-4224
Ben Nelson NE (202) 224-6551
John Sununu NH (202) 224-2841
Judd Gregg NH (202) 224-3324
Robert Menendez NJ (202) 224-4744
Frank Lautenberg NJ (202) 224-3224
Jeff Bingaman NM (202) 224-5521
Pete Domenici NM (202) 224-6621
John Ensign NV (202) 224-6244
Harry Reid NV (202) 224-3542
Charles Schumer NY (202) 224-6542
Hillary Clinton NY (202) 224-4451
George Voinovich OH (202) 224-3353
Mike DeWine OH (202) 224-2315
James Inhofe OK (202) 224-4721
Tom Coburn OK (202) 224-5754
Gordon Smith OR (202) 224-3753
Ron Wyden OR (202) 224-5244
Arlen Specter PA (202) 224-4254
Rick Santorum PA (202) 224-6324
Lincoln Chafee RI (202) 224-2921
Jack Reed RI (202) 224-4642
Jim DeMint SC (202) 224-6121
Lindsey Graham SC (202) 224-5972
Tim Johnson SD (202) 224-5842
John Thune SD (202) 224-2321
Bill Frist TN (202) 224-3344
Lamar Alexander TN (202) 224-4944
Kay Hutchison TX (202) 224-5922
John Cornyn TX (202) 224-2934
Robert Bennett UT (202) 224-5444
Orrin Hatch UT (202) 224-5251
George Allen VA (202) 224-4024
John Warner VA (202) 224-2023
James Jeffords VT (202) 224-5141
Patrick Leahy VT (202) 224-4242
Maria Cantwell WA (202) 224-3441
Patty Murray WA (202) 224-2621
Russell Feingold WI (202) 224-5323
Herb Kohl WI (202) 224-5653
Robert Byrd WV (202) 224-3954
John Rockefeller WV (202) 224-6472
Michael Enzi WY (202) 224-3424
Craig Thomas WY (202) 224-6441
I JUST CALLED THE TWO FROM VIRGINIA, IT TAKES 15 SEC, JUST MAKE SURE AND KNOW UR ZIP CODE.
JUST CALL AND SAY, I DONT AGREE WIHT INTERNET GAMBLING BILL BEING PLACE ON PORT SECURITY BILL. THATS IT. ITS SUPER EASY. PLZ CALL.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:25 pm GMT by Ciso_B
Would this mean some poker sites would close down?
Posted Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:27 pm GMT by wEbMaStEr
No, because most poker sites are concentrating on emerging markets like Europe, Russia and Asia rather than the already saturated US market.
No poker sites are actually located in the US anyway.
This will just make it more difficult for US residents to get their money online.
Posted Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:32 pm GMT by Ciso_B
Yeah , I thought most sites are in obscure countries like Gibraltar but thought maybe funded by americans or influenced by.
Doesnt affect me then at least.
Posted Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:33 pm GMT by Jefecaminador
it will if the US is cut off from online poker.... There goes half of your players.....
Posted Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:44 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| Jefecaminador wrote: | | it will if the US is cut off from online poker.... There goes half of your players..... |
...and about 90% of your donators.
Posted Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:14 pm GMT by Jefecaminador
| suitedaces84 wrote: | | Jefecaminador wrote: | | it will if the US is cut off from online poker.... There goes half of your players..... |
...and about 90% of your donators. |
Yup, almost all americans are stupid and suck at poker......
Posted Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:35 pm GMT by suitedaces84
...I'm American. 8)
Posted Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:13 am GMT by Jefecaminador
| suitedaces84 wrote: | | ...I'm American. 8) |
me too
Posted Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:51 am GMT by Moon_Child
CANADA IS NEXT!!! f*ck!!!!
Posted Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:22 am GMT by wEbMaStEr
I'm not going to pretend I know the first thing about American legislative procedure or how far exactly this bill will go, but I do know that this will be another nail in the coffin for online gambling in the US.
No doubt there will be ways around this for regular players or internet savvy players, but how long before pressure is put on neteller, firepay etc as well. Already there are sites who have banned US players, or players from certain states. Will others follow? CEO's of these companies don't want to be arrested next time they visit the US do they? Your site could be next!
Talk about your actual restriction of freedom of choice?
Elections are coming up in the US. Don't not vote, Don't vote for the f*cks who are passing this legislation, just because you have always voted for them (or their party) Use your vote to make your voice heard and vote for the other guy!
Or, just don't bother and leave your right to choose in someone elses hands.
Posted Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:07 am GMT by Geno
I'd be willing to bet that this never comes to anything and that online poker in the US remains legal.
Posted Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:01 pm GMT by groton
| Geno wrote: | | I'd be willing to bet that this never comes to anything and that online poker in the US remains legal. |
nope bush will defently sign this into law
since he is well a Monkey man Retard
by the way I am already voting againce Liberman and my Congrass man
this just makes it better I Called Liberman Yesterday and his staff basicy blew me off
Posted Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:29 pm GMT by Adam Marshall
They managed to attach it to the port security bill...so it will pass as soon as Bush signs it.
Casino Gambling Web
Another Article
Another Article
The consensus is that nothing will change, because the amendment to the Wire Act was taken out. So it basically just stops american banks from handling online gambling transactions. Which...um...banks have already been doing for years.
So I guess the aim was to push more money into non-american banking services. Should I invest in Neteller right now? X
I hope that everyone who wasn't paying attention before starts to now, because this is still a step in the wrong direction. I recommend reading the report that the PPA put out. Join the Poker Players Alliance or at least go there and sign up for the newsletter. We should all be working to push online gaming regulation and not online gaming prohibition.
Posted Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:17 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| Adam Marshall wrote: | | The consensus is that nothing will change, because the amendment to the Wire Act was taken out. So it basically just stops american banks from handling online gambling transactions. Which...um...banks have already been doing for years. |
The text of the conference report.
The danger here is on page 234. The "No Liability" subsection says that there will be no legal recourse against an entity that refuses to accept a restricted transaction, and even more importantly, any transaction that they reasonably believe to be restricted. All that will be required now is a blacklist of financial transaction providers, domestic and international, suspected or known to provide transfer services to gambling sites, i.e. Neteller, Firepay, etc and they'll receive the same treatment as the poker sites themselves. No US bank will touch them.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid the consensus that believes this won't change anything is that same consensus that thought this would never get passed at all.
Posted Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:41 pm GMT by ninetensuited
thats when Western Union becomes your friend
Posted Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:33 am GMT by jimmer
I live in the UK. Can i do anything to help?
Posted Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:24 am GMT by Pokerfarian
| jimmer wrote: | | I live in the UK. Can i do anything to help? |
Invade the US?
There is not a single senator that will try and get this language removed, and the "president" will sign anything that has even the most remote to his war on terror.
So my bank in the US will be closed to tainted finacial transactions. Boo Hoo. That means I actually have to spend 15 minutes on line opening up an international bank account that will do business with a poker site and my bank.
Just an example after5 minutes on line: http://www.huntington.com/tm/TM88.htm
Posted Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:18 pm GMT by UrAteUp
| wEbMaStEr wrote: |
First Name Last Name State Phone Number
Ted Stevens AK (202) 224-3004
Lisa Murkowski AK (202) 224-6665
Richard Shelby AL (202) 224-5744
Jeff Sessions AL (202) 224-4124
Mark Pryor AR (202) 224-2353
Blanche Lincoln AR (202) 224-4843
John McCain AZ (202) 224-2235
Jon Kyl AZ (202) 224-4521
Barbara Boxer CA (202) 224-3553
Dianne Feinstein CA (202) 224-3841
Wayne Allard CO (202) 224-5941
Ken Salazar CO (202) 224-5852
Joseph Lieberman CT (202) 224-4041
Christopher Dodd CT (202) 224-2823
Joseph Biden DE (202) 224-5042
Thomas Carper DE (202) 224-2441
Mel Martinez FL (202)224-3041
Bill Nelson FL (202) 224-5274
Johnny Isakson GA (202) 224-3643
Saxby Chambliss GA (202) 224-3521
Daniel Akaka HI (202) 224-6361
Daniel Inouye HI (202) 224-3934
Tom Harkin IA (202) 224-3254
Charles Grassley IA (202) 224-3744
Michael Crapo ID (202) 224-6142
Larry Craig ID (202) 224-2752
Barack Obama IL (202) 224-2854
Richard Durbin IL (202) 224-2152
Richard Lugar IN (202) 224-4814
Evan Bayh IN (202) 224-5623
Pat Roberts KS (202) 224-4774
Sam Brownback KS (202) 224-6521
Mitch McConnell KY (202) 224-2541
Jim Bunning KY (202) 224-4343
David Vitter LA (202) 224-4623
Mary Landrieu LA (202) 224-5824
Edward Kennedy MA (202) 224-4543
John Kerry MA (202) 224-2742
Barbara Mikulski MD (202) 224-4654
Paul Sarbanes MD (202) 224-4524
Olympia Snowe ME (202) 224-5344
Susan Collins ME (202) 224-2523
Carl Levin MI (202) 224-6221
Debbie Stabenow MI (202) 224-4822
Norm Coleman MN (202) 224-5641
Mark Dayton MN (202) 224-3244
Christopher Bond MO (202) 224-5721
James Talent MO (202) 224-6154
Thad Cochran MS (202) 224-5054
Trent Lott MS (202) 224-6253
Conrad Burns MT (202) 224-2644
Max Baucus MT (202) 224-2651
Richard Burr NC (202) 224-3154
Elizabeth Dole NC (202) 224-6342
Kent Conrad ND (202) 224-2043
Byron Dorgan ND (202) 224-2551
Chuck Hagel NE (202) 224-4224
Ben Nelson NE (202) 224-6551
John Sununu NH (202) 224-2841
Judd Gregg NH (202) 224-3324
Robert Menendez NJ (202) 224-4744
Frank Lautenberg NJ (202) 224-3224
Jeff Bingaman NM (202) 224-5521
Pete Domenici NM (202) 224-6621
John Ensign NV (202) 224-6244
Harry Reid NV (202) 224-3542
Charles Schumer NY (202) 224-6542
Hillary Clinton NY (202) 224-4451
George Voinovich OH (202) 224-3353
Mike DeWine OH (202) 224-2315
James Inhofe OK (202) 224-4721
Tom Coburn OK (202) 224-5754
Gordon Smith OR (202) 224-3753
Ron Wyden OR (202) 224-5244
Arlen Specter PA (202) 224-4254
Rick Santorum PA (202) 224-6324
Lincoln Chafee RI (202) 224-2921
Jack Reed RI (202) 224-4642
Jim DeMint SC (202) 224-6121
Lindsey Graham SC (202) 224-5972
Tim Johnson SD (202) 224-5842
John Thune SD (202) 224-2321
Bill Frist TN (202) 224-3344
Lamar Alexander TN (202) 224-4944
Kay Hutchison TX (202) 224-5922
John Cornyn TX (202) 224-2934
Robert Bennett UT (202) 224-5444
Orrin Hatch UT (202) 224-5251
George Allen VA (202) 224-4024
John Warner VA (202) 224-2023
James Jeffords VT (202) 224-5141
Patrick Leahy VT (202) 224-4242
Maria Cantwell WA (202) 224-3441
Patty Murray WA (202) 224-2621
Russell Feingold WI (202) 224-5323
Herb Kohl WI (202) 224-5653
Robert Byrd WV (202) 224-3954
John Rockefeller WV (202) 224-6472
Michael Enzi WY (202) 224-3424
Craig Thomas WY (202) 224-6441 |
Do more then call all these pole smoking bastards....vote the SOBS out of office and fire their asses. Then take them out behind the woodshed, put a good ole country ass whoopin on them and tar and feather them for the chicken shits they really are.
(Mods forgive my foul language but this crap is just pissin me off almost to the point I am ready to move to Canada or the UK. If it wasn't for having the damn English over there it might not be such a bad place...  
Posted Sun Oct 01, 2006 8:58 pm GMT by groton
lol.
Well I am planing on Voteing out Lieberman
Posted Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:49 am GMT by Gogie
It seems to me that internet banking should make it easy for people to open up bank accounts in other jurisdictions and manage their funds online. Is it possible for an American to open up an account with a Canadian bank? I don't know why not, but since I'm Canadian I don't have to worry about it (for now) :D .
Why don't some of you Yanks try opening an account online and see how it goes? If you're successful, there's no way the U.S. law could affect your "off shore" account. It may be a bit of a PITA, what with having to send deposits (cheques - be sure to use the Canadian spelling or our banks won't take your checks) and make withdrawals by mail, but it at least would give you access to offshore "gambling" sites.
Posted Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:51 am GMT by shorn7
Like I really have any chance of voting out Fat Teddy Kennedy and John Corpse Kerry from Massachusetts. HA!
I think the international bank route is going to be the way to go. But, I hope the NETeller way is still OK too.
Posted Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:09 am GMT by metal1
this is a Reuters article, not good at all...
Online gaming in crisis over U.S. ban By Pete Harrison
Mon Oct 2, 8:12 AM ET
Online gambling firms faced their biggest-ever crisis on Monday after U.S. Congress passed legislation to end Internet gaming there, threatening jobs and wiping 3.5 billion pounds ($6.5 billion) off company values.
Britain's PartyGaming Plc, operator of leading Internet poker site PartyPoker.com, and rivals Sportingbet and 888 Plc said they would likely pull out of the United States, their biggest source of revenue.
"This development is a significant setback for our company, our shareholders, our players and our industry," PartyGaming Chief Executive Mitch Garber said.
The House of Representatives and Senate unexpectedly approved a bill early on Saturday that would make it illegal for banks and credit-card companies to make payments to online gambling sites.
The measure was sent to President George W. Bush to sign into law, which most analysts see as a certainty.
"We believe that this will have a very material impact on the long-term prospects of online gambling, and in particular poker," said analyst Julian Easthope at UBS. "This will lead to a rapid decline in the use of online poker sites."
PartyGaming generates about 78 percent of its revenue from the United States, while Sportingbet gets about 62 percent there.
CRACKDOWN
Shares in PartyGaming, which rakes in nearly $4 million a day from its 19 million customers, fell 57 percent by 1155 GMT.
Sportingbet, which owns sportsbook.com and ParadisePoker.com, lost 60 percent, 888 was down 33 percent and Austria's bwin.com fell 24 percent.
Bwin could be pushed to the brink, having paid heavily for Swedish online poker site Ongame earlier this year to gain access to the U.S. market, said Leopold Salcher, an analyst at Austria's RCB. "This could break their neck," he said.
Online gaming exploded in 2005 with a string of high-profile company flotations in London, which has become the industry's corporate center.
The bulk of revenue has always come from U.S. players, but the firms were located in offshore jurisdictions like Costa Rica and Antigua for fear of prosecution in the United States, where the legal status of online gaming and betting was uncertain.
Shares in Sportingbet and BETonSPORTS had already been hammered after recent arrests of senior executives on charges of illegal gambling in individual U.S. states, but investors remained hopeful online betting and gaming would not be completely banned at a federal level.
Meanwhile, big American corporations like Las Vegas-based Harrah's Entertainment Inc. were forced to sit on the sidelines as gaming money streamed out of the country.
PartyGaming said in a statement, "If the President signs the act into law, the company will suspend all real money gaming business with U.S. residents."
"Any such suspension would also result in the group's financial performance falling significantly short of consensus forecasts for 2006 and 2007," it added.
MERGER SCRAPPED
Stephen Whittaker, joint chief investment officer at Britain's New Star Asset Management, said the likely ban could be challenged.
"This represents protectionism, and the WTO have said you can't do that," said Whittaker, whose portfolio includes about 2 percent of online gaming stocks. "Overall, we'll probably remain with most of our holdings."
"We'll probably reduce one, maybe two," he added. "We want to let the dust settle a bit -- it will take a few days."
Sportingbet said a ban would hit trading and it would scrap a planned merger with World Gaming as a result.
888 Plc said the move would hit its results, as did gaming software provider Playtech, whose shares fell 42 percent.
But Paul Leyland at Arbuthnot Securities said Playtech was relatively well positioned. "The only company for which you could categorically say that redeployment is easy is Playtech," he said. "But for the others it's much more difficult."
A ban would also hit payment processors such as Neteller Plc and Optimal Group's FireOne subsidiary.
Posted Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:19 am GMT by Montrealer
From the gerrymandering that ensures a 95% incumbent re-election rate to the ridiculous practice of attaching riders that have nothing to do with the bill being voted on to quickly pass legislation that isn't even properly debated... it makes you wonder about how democratic the United States really is.
A Port Security bill? Give me a break.
Posted Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:36 am GMT by Fat Tony
| shorn7 wrote: | | Like I really have any chance of voting out Fat Teddy Kennedy and John Corpse Kerry from Massachusetts. HA! |
You do know that both of those guys are NOT members of the majority party right? You need to vote FOR Democrats (which they both are) and AGAINST
Republicans. (Which is Bush's party and the majority in the House and the Senate)
Posted Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:45 pm GMT by khaosanroad
Just look up the Voting record for the bill and if your congressman voted in favor of the bill, then vote against him.
Posted Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:37 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| khaosanroad wrote: | | Just look up the Voting record for the bill and if your congressman voted in favor of the bill, then vote against him. |
The vote in the house was 421-2, so looking it up is a waste of time. Also, the number of people that hate this bill are an extreme minority in the constituency of your average representative. There was no way they could vote against it and not look like idiots. That's why Frist did it: he knew it was bulletproof. The two people that voted against it did so because of their concerns with the port security part of the bill. It wasn't because of the gambling rider.
Besides, my political agenda is (and yours should be) a little bigger than internet poker. Stem cell research, foreign policy, etc. These things are a much bigger deal to me than whether I can play cards. All things being equal, it'll play a role, but if my local poker-friendly candidate also happens to be pro-life and against funding of stem cell research, then c'est la vie.
Posted Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:53 pm GMT by groton
| shorn7 wrote: | Like I really have any chance of voting out Fat Teddy Kennedy and John Corpse Kerry from Massachusetts. HA!
I think the international bank route is going to be the way to go. But, I hope the NETeller way is still OK too. |
well those two only voted yes Since it was tucked with the Port Securty Bill.
unlike Joe Rightest Liberman Oh how much i hate him and he shakes like a fairy also
Posted Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:07 pm GMT by zinn0
| Fat Tony wrote: | You do know that both of those guys are NOT members of the majority party right? You need to vote FOR Democrats (which they both are) and AGAINST
Republicans. (Which is Bush's party and the majority in the House and the Senate) |
I don't really see how voting democrat would have changed anything had this vote taken place after the mid-term elections.
Posted Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:59 pm GMT by Gunslinger
Taken from a poker blog, how each senator voted:
Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-
Posted Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:42 pm GMT by ORGrinder
very well said sean. 100% correct (except for the pro-life part... but that's a different thread).
at this point i think we're all going to just have to hurry up and wait to see how, exactly, this pans out. hopefully not too many sites will take the same road as party and 888.
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | khaosanroad wrote: | | Just look up the Voting record for the bill and if your congressman voted in favor of the bill, then vote against him. |
The vote in the house was 421-2, so looking it up is a waste of time. Also, the number of people that hate this bill are an extreme minority in the constituency of your average representative. There was no way they could vote against it and not look like idiots. That's why Frist did it: he knew it was bulletproof. The two people that voted against it did so because of their concerns with the port security part of the bill. It wasn't because of the gambling rider.
Besides, my political agenda is (and yours should be) a little bigger than internet poker. Stem cell research, foreign policy, etc. These things are a much bigger deal to me than whether I can play cards. All things being equal, it'll play a role, but if my local poker-friendly candidate also happens to be pro-life and against funding of stem cell research, then c'est la vie. |
Posted Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:12 pm GMT by vyni
I agree, when you vote I would pray that we all look at more than just poker lol.
It's a shame, even disguesting, that this kind of thing was allowed to happen. From what I understand, Frist already tried to attach this to another bill, but it was rejected due to its lack of relevance on that matter. Now at the last second he manages to squeeze it onto this one.
It happens all the time in our government and it's sickening. I personaly feel it should be criminal to push matters through in this manner. Zero relevance to the bill that it's attached to. Of course with coming elections, everyone almost has to vote yes to the safe port act: voting against it would be almost suicide. Election debates and smear tactics against them for voting against a security bill... one that was clearly needed from what I've read of the port issue.
Politicians playing dirty. All I can say is these political tactics are far too common and is one of the many reasons I have no faith, or even support, of my own government. I only say that because I'm almost afraid to say that in todays climate, so I opt to voice it on principle.
Posted Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:17 pm GMT by vyni
Pasting an email just received from the PPA.
If you're not a member of the PPA, isnt it time to consider it?
| Quote: | Dear Members,
As you may already know, the U.S. Congress approved an online poker prohibition late Friday evening. The ban was snuck into the Port Security Act during a back room deal and following extensive political strong-arming by the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and the Speaker of the House, J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL). This tactic discouraged debate on the bill and allowed it to pass without any public discussion. Why a poker ban was included in the Port Security Act is beyond me and most poker players and should be of concern to every American. It was a “bad beat” but we are still at the table.
This is no time to panic, but rather we must learn and build from this loss. The Poker Players Alliance is not leaving the fight, although now it is going to take an even greater effort from poker players and our organization to achieve our objectives.
What do we want to do now?
Poker Exemption
We continue to demand that poker receive separate treatment from other forms of gaming. It is a game of skill, where performance is merited, and a community game, where the house is not your competition. These are real and significant differences. Our desire is to achieve the same type of exemption from legislation that other interests have received (Horseracing, Lotteries, and Fantasy Sports). We will continue to push forward to obtain this separate treatment when Congress comes back from the elections and into the next legislative session. Between now and when the new bill becomes effective (3 to 6 months) poker has an opportunity to achieve the same exemption. This is our most immediate short-term goal.
License, Regulate and Tax
Regulation is the best public policy solution for both the federal government and the American poker player. Prohibition of on-line poker will only drive the game underground and build distrust and misunderstanding amongst the 70 million Americans who enjoy the great game of poker. I spent the better part of the year engaging members of the House and Senate about the idea of regulating Internet poker. This has raised interest from both Democrats and Republican’s alike. There has even been legislation introduced that seeks to establish a Congressional commission that would examine the best way to regulate this industry. Early this summer the PPA commissioned an economic analysis of the potential tax revenue that could be raised through regulation. Members of Congress have been receptive to this study and the $3.3 Billion that could be raised annually for the federal government. This is our ultimate goal and the PPA will drive this ag! enda.
What should you do know? First, every member of the PPA should be registered to vote in the upcoming state and federal elections. If you are not yet registered there is still time, click here to find out about how to register in your state. https://ssl.capwiz.com/congressorg/e4/nvra/ Second, be sure to vote on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 7th. We must put our vote where our voice is and establish a poker voting block. While the Port Security Act which included the prohibition legislation was passed near unanimously in both the House and the Senate, the House did have a clean vote on the poker prohibition in July. A list of how House members voted in July is available on our Web site too, click here. Finally, the PPA needs your help to spread the word about our organization. Please tell at least nine friends who might not know about the Poker Players Alliance to join the fight. We need to be 1 Million strong going into 2007.
Very soon a brief analysis of the Internet Gambling Prohibition Amendment will be posted on our website. Please return to www.pokerplayersalliance.org soon so you can learn how this legislation will affect you.
Again, I want to thank you for your support, and hope that you will continue that support as the Poker Players Alliance enters the next level of commitment. This is not over.
Regards,
Michael Bolcerek
President
Poker Players Alliance
|
If you wish to review the text in the legislation, we have it available here.
Posted Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:29 am GMT by groton
this is Realy odd
I cant even find using Thomas when They added on this admendment to the port securty Bill.
that is odd since all Bill's are there The Last Admendments i can find were added on 9/14 and the Internet Gaming act was not one of them
Posted Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:13 am GMT by ORGrinder
i think the greater issue here isn't who, but how and what. the whole system of riders on bills is quite suspect to me. there needs to be some regulations there for sure. it's completely bogus (and quite shady) to attach completely irrelivant things onto a bill in an attempt to sneak them into law. even if you AGREE with a particular rider, you should have a problem with the system that allows riders that are completely irrelivant to the law in which it is attached. it goes completely agains the whole idea of our system of government where congress can actually make informed decisions about these things.
like i said in my previous post... this isn't a red vs. blue thing... there's a break down in the system that needs to be fixed with respect to these riders.
jmho though.
Posted Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:48 am GMT by MasterShake
| Fat Tony wrote: | | shorn7 wrote: | | Like I really have any chance of voting out Fat Teddy Kennedy and John Corpse Kerry from Massachusetts. HA! |
You do know that both of those guys are NOT members of the majority party right? You need to vote FOR Democrats (which they both are) and AGAINST
Republicans. (Which is Bush's party and the majority in the House and the Senate) |
That's a bunch of crap. Most of the Dems voted for it too. This isn't a party issue, it's a politician issue.
Posted Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:08 pm GMT by mackkie
The only positive thing that I can say is at least my MA senators either didnt vote or voted no. Woohoo.
Posted Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:26 pm GMT by MasterShake
| mackkie wrote: | | The only positive thing that I can say is at least my MA senators either didnt vote or voted no. Woohoo. |
Woohoo! Avoid condemnation through avoidance!
Posted Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:58 pm GMT by mackkie
| MasterShake wrote: | | mackkie wrote: | | The only positive thing that I can say is at least my MA senators either didnt vote or voted no. Woohoo. |
Woohoo! Avoid condemnation through avoidance! |
You are a much wiser man than I.
Posted Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:36 pm GMT by MasterShake
| mackkie wrote: | | MasterShake wrote: | | mackkie wrote: | | The only positive thing that I can say is at least my MA senators either didnt vote or voted no. Woohoo. |
Woohoo! Avoid condemnation through avoidance! |
You are a much wiser man than I. |
And you are a very intelligent man for realizing that. :D
Posted Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:22 pm GMT by Fat Tony
| MasterShake wrote: | | Fat Tony wrote: | | shorn7 wrote: | | Like I really have any chance of voting out Fat Teddy Kennedy and John Corpse Kerry from Massachusetts. HA! |
You do know that both of those guys are NOT members of the majority party right? You need to vote FOR Democrats (which they both are) and AGAINST
Republicans. (Which is Bush's party and the majority in the House and the Senate) |
That's a bunch of crap. Most of the Dems voted for it too. This isn't a party issue, it's a politician issue. |
What do you think it would do to the Democrats chances in the upcoming mid-term elections if they voted against securing American ports? Frist KNEW that they couldn't vote no and that's why he chose this bill to attach this BS to. Think about the attack-ads the Republicans could air if they did get a lot of Democrats voting no on securing American ports.
Posted Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:04 pm GMT by MasterShake
| Fat Tony wrote: | | MasterShake wrote: | | Fat Tony wrote: | | shorn7 wrote: | | Like I really have any chance of voting out Fat Teddy Kennedy and John Corpse Kerry from Massachusetts. HA! |
You do know that both of those guys are NOT members of the majority party right? You need to vote FOR Democrats (which they both are) and AGAINST
Republicans. (Which is Bush's party and the majority in the House and the Senate) |
That's a bunch of crap. Most of the Dems voted for it too. This isn't a party issue, it's a politician issue. |
What do you think it would do to the Democrats chances in the upcoming mid-term elections if they voted against securing American ports? Frist KNEW that they couldn't vote no and that's why he chose this bill to attach this BS to. Think about the attack-ads the Republicans could air if they did get a lot of Democrats voting no on securing American ports. |
I disagree. They could have easily turned the blame on the Republicans by lynching Frist and saying, 'The reason we couldn't vote for this bill was because a Republican sabotaged it', and the Reps couldn't even do anything to hide or deny it.
Posted Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:09 pm GMT by vyni
Distract Bush please please please. lol Isn't he due for a vacation anyways? Shouldnt he go clear more brush or something? We need FEMA speed here guys!
| Quote: | | The U.S. Constitution requires the President to sign or veto any legislation placed on his desk within ten days (not including Sundays). If he does not, then it becomes law by default. The one exception to this rule is if Congress adjourns before the ten days are up. In such a case, the bill does not become law; it is effectively, if not actually, vetoed. Ignoring legislation, or "putting a bill in one's pocket" until Congress adjourns is thus called a pocket veto. Since Congress cannot vote while in adjournment, a pocket veto cannot be overridden. |
|
|
