Is there anyone everyone surprised at our governement? |
|
Posted Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:48 pm GMT by pokergeorge
I have been following the whole online poker ban all summer and I have to say that I surprised that it happened like this. Outright stopping online gambling is bad enough, but adding the legislation to a port security bill is even worst. I have been reading a lot of different things and have been posting what I find out about the bill on my blog. Check it out if you want and if I am missing something (which I am sure I am) please tell me.
http://save-online-gambling.blogspot.com/
George
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 Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:03 pm GMT by kingetje
| Quote: | | Outright stopping online gambling is bad enough, but adding the legislation to a port security bill is even worst. |
what does this "port security bill" mean?
Posted Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:21 pm GMT by zeroswarm
| kingetje wrote: | | Quote: | | Outright stopping online gambling is bad enough, but adding the legislation to a port security bill is even worst. |
what does this "port security bill" mean? |
I'm not sure what the rest of the bill is about but I believe they tagged the online gaming ban on the end of it in order to get it through.
Previously I think it was thrown out which is obviously why they chose such an underhand method.
Very sneaky and very mean.......
Posted Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:32 pm GMT by wEbMaStEr
The "port security" bill was basically to do with tightening up US ports against drugs/terrorism etc. pretty much nothing to do with internet gambling. But the way US govt. works means that this Senator Frist guy was able to tag on this clause about online gambling and the bill then had to either be wholly passed, or wholly rejected. Who's going to vote against securing their nations ports?
He tried a few weeks ago too, on a bill about military spending? something like that, but the move was blocked. It just so happens that US govt. was finishing up business for their holidays when this bill got squeezed through.
Sen. Frist is likely to be a runner for the Republican candidate for the next presidential elections.
Posted Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:39 pm GMT by kingetje
Jesus, that is retarded. how is that even allowed?
Posted Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:40 pm GMT by Jauron
It happens all the time, in order to stop it they'd have to allow them to vote on parts of the bill or allow line item veto power.
Posted Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:44 am GMT by groton
yah but Line Itam would not work on this since Bush is Pro anti Gambling
he is not a poker player
We have not had a poker player in the whitehouse since what Nixon?
I dont even think Reagan or the elder bush played much Poker
Posted Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:02 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
Considering that this is an election year, I knew if the bill was attached to security/defense spending, it would pass with flying colors.
I'm not surprised, as I've been pessimistic for the last few months. Despite its "land of the free" title, the US remains a country full of moralizing, stifling idiots, particularly among elected officials.
|
|
