Do You Know how Your Legislator Voted? |
|
Posted Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:15 pm GMT by lwestatbus
Do you know how your representative and senators voted on the online gambling provision of the legislation that has had such a big impact on us? Please be honest (and please don't vote if you aren't a US resident).
If anyone knows where there is a list please post a link in this thread.
Unfortunately the prohibition was sneaked into a wider bill having nothing to do with the Internet and a No vote on the wider bill (regarding port security) would have been tough for most legislators.
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 Nov 13, 2006 2:29 pm GMT by Fat Tony
| lwestatbus wrote: | | Unfortunately the prohibition was sneaked into a wider bill having nothing to do with the Internet and a No vote on the wider bill (regarding port security) would have been tough for most legislators. |
It's not like anyone could have voted against this right before the midterms when you consider what bill it was attached to, so I don't really get the point of this thread. the only thing you can really do is hold the Republican party as a whole responsible since it was some of their guys that snuck it into the port security bill.
Posted Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:57 pm GMT by zinn0
| Fat Tony wrote: | | the only thing you can really do is hold the Republican party as a whole responsible since it was some of their guys that snuck it into the port security bill. |
How can you whole the repubble party as a whole responsible for the actions of a few?
Posted Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:04 pm GMT by Fat Tony
The senior party leadership let it happen didn't they?
Posted Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:28 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| Fat Tony wrote: | | It's not like anyone could have voted against this right before the midterms when you consider what bill it was attached to, so I don't really get the point of this thread. the only thing you can really do is hold the Republican party as a whole responsible since it was some of their guys that snuck it into the port security bill. |
The bill was voted on individually in the House before it was attached to the SAFE act, so the House had the chance to voice their opinions before their hands were forced.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4411
It passed pretty handily too.
Now, in my case, I had little choice but to vote for my incumbent representative who also voted for this bill. The other issues on which we agree were much more important.
Posted Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:36 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| Fat Tony wrote: | | The senior party leadership let it happen didn't they? |
They ARE the senior party leadership.
Posted Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:51 pm GMT by lwestatbus
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | Now, in my case, I had little choice but to vote for my incumbent representative who also voted for this bill. The other issues on which we agree were much more important. |
This is a very valid point and a worry. Do we want to throw the bums out because we disagree with their attitude toward poker if we like their other opinions?
Posted Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:06 pm GMT by Fat Tony
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | Fat Tony wrote: | | The senior party leadership let it happen didn't they? |
They ARE the senior party leadership. |
That's my point, the senior Republican leadership was behind this thus the party as a whole must be the held responsible. If this was so gonna pass anyway, why pull an end run and sneak it into the SAFE act which realisitically, almost nobody could politically afford to vote against.
If the Republicans could just take a step back from the religious right wing of the party, stop spending like drunken sailors, stop this "if you ain't with us, you love terrorists" crap and get back to good old-fashioned fiscal conservatism, i'll happily jump back on the bandwagon.
Posted Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:54 pm GMT by zinn0
Aren't you canadian?
Posted Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:22 pm GMT by supafrey
what the hell could be more important than poker?
please say family values.
Posted Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:34 pm GMT by Fat Tony
Does being Canadian mean that i'm not allowed to follow American politics? A lot of what goes on down there affects us at some point.
Posted Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:20 pm GMT by zinn0
Not at all. Its just funny that you seem to think that democrats are the answer to letting us have our poker. I personally don't think that the bill would have passed even with our newly elected officials. Also, as it has been pointed out on numerous occasions, there are bigger issues in life than our ability to play poker online.
Posted Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:29 pm GMT by supafrey
not when it's my sole income, no, not much.
Posted Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:47 pm GMT by zinn0
| zinn0 wrote: | | Aren't you canadian? |
Posted Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:03 pm GMT by Fat Tony
| zinn0 wrote: | | Its just funny that you seem to think that democrats are the answer to letting us have our poker. |
You assume waaaaaay too much if you are saying that I think the Democrats are the magical answer to letting you guys have online poker back. I just think there's a hell of a lot better chance with them than with the current incarnation of the Republican party. I do think that the Democrats would not have pulled what Frist and attached the online gambling stuff to the port security bill.
| Quote: | | Also, as it has been pointed out on numerous occasions, there are bigger issues in life than our ability to play poker online. |
Of course there are bigger issues in life than online poker, but we happen to be discussing online poker now, don't we? I don't know why are you trying to make it seem like that's all I give a crap about when this doesn't even affect me really, I just think it's wrong. If you guys don't want support on this from outside your borders just say so. Wow, I sure must be an idiot to think that the more support for repealing this the better.
Posted Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:07 pm GMT by supafrey
| zinn0 wrote: | | zinn0 wrote: | | Aren't you canadian? |
|
Oh i'm sorry I forgot that I live in a little bubble that separates me from the rest of the world. It's not like Americans are like 60-70% of my opponents and fresh money, not to mention the fact that most U.S. players at my stakes can't play for shit =/
Posted Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:10 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| Fat Tony wrote: | | If you guys don't want support on this from outside your borders just say so. Wow, I sure must be an idiot to think that the more support for repealing this the better. |
Well, our government doesn't normally give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks, does it?
Posted Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:46 pm GMT by groton
My Rep voted AYE(but to be fair he did get voted out or atleast if the Recount holds he did  )
and being everyother Representive from CT also Voted AYe on it means Foxwoods and Mohagan sun probaly both wanted this bill passed.
instrestingly Enough NV voted straght Nay on this
Posted Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:16 pm GMT by Fat Tony
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | Well, our government doesn't normally give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks, does it? |
True, but unfortunately it also doesn't seem to give a crap what the people want either. (except for the corporate backers of course) That doesn't mean that we should stop trying however.
Posted Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:31 pm GMT by Dave B
There were no politicians on the side of poker. Considering that in 2004, the majority cited "family values" as #1 for their reason for their vote, few uninformed politicians on either side would stand out as pro online gambling. It would have been political suicide.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:58 am GMT by UrAteUp
| Dave B wrote: | | There were no politicians on the side of poker. Considering that in 2004, the majority cited "family values" as #1 for their reason for their vote, |
They stand for family values and then rock Washington with scandal...is it me or is this a bit of hypocrisy going on here?
| Quote: | | True, but unfortunately it also doesn't seem to give a crap what the people want either. (except for the corporate backers of course) That doesn't mean that we should stop trying however. |
That is so so true Tony...if you only knew how bad it is. But I do feel safer knowing they are monitoring my 80 yr old Grandma talking to her friends at the church about the Sunday social. I also feel safer knowing they are pulling that Nun out of the line at the airport and screening her, while the guy wearing the turbine just walks right on board the plane...I also feel safer knowing my poker funds are not supporting terrorists...
Yeah you just to feel safer now living here in the US...who cares if we don't have any rights. At least those middle eastern monsters won't be able to harm us now... will they?  
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:18 pm GMT by ORGrinder
| UrAteUp wrote: | | I also feel safer knowing they are pulling that Nun out of the line at the airport and screening her, while the guy wearing the turbine just walks right on board the plane... |
she's a white christian. it's okay to treat her differently. they're not allowed to single out the dude with the turban. that would be racist.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:20 pm GMT by supafrey
| ORGrinder wrote: | | UrAteUp wrote: | | I also feel safer knowing they are pulling that Nun out of the line at the airport and screening her, while the guy wearing the turbine just walks right on board the plane... |
she's a white christian. it's okay to treat her differently. they're not allowed to single out the dude with the turban. that would be racist. |
you hurt my brain when you talk, sometimes, ORG. Mainly because I don't think you use yours on occasion in favour of knee jerk response. If you don't understand the difference in power relations between "unfairly" singling out a white christ-fearing person and a turban wearing muslim you're just being dense.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:37 pm GMT by ORGrinder
lol. talk about being dense supa. pot calling the kettle black.
i was making a joke son... (though what i said is absolutely true)
you take yourself WAY to seriously... mainly because you think WAY too highly of yourself.
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:40 pm GMT by supafrey
i forgot that uneducated and conservative americans (about .5% of the world population) make up the entirety of the real world.
Edit: OOOO you deleted part of your post with 5 seconds to spare before i answered it. Including your comment about how i don't live in the "real world".
Posted Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:42 pm GMT by ORGrinder
i did... i decided not to play your kiddie games. though for the record since you pointed it out, i said:
"you live in your own supa-reality and have no idea how things work in the real world"
or something to that effect.
Posted Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:45 am GMT by lwestatbus
Wow, talk about thread creep. This thing took on a life of it's own.
Let's be polite everyone.
Posted Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:31 pm GMT by BeerWench13
| UrAteUp wrote: | | They stand for family values and then rock Washington with scandal...is it me or is this a bit of hypocrisy going on here? |
Aren't politics and hypocrisy synonyms? Seems that way to me most of the time. Let's face it folks, in the U.S. money talks and BS walks. No funds, no votes. It's plain and simple.
If we want a reform, we have to commit treason just like those who signed the Declaration of Independence did. The problem is that we're all so spoiled and "busy" that we won't take the time to write our political leaders and/or protest. I'm not saying it would do any good, but it's kind of like women and weight loss. Don't bitch about how fat you're getting if you're not willing to put down the twinkie, step on the treadmill and do something about it.
Posted Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:49 pm GMT by UrAteUp
| BeerWench13 wrote: | | UrAteUp wrote: | | They stand for family values and then rock Washington with scandal...is it me or is this a bit of hypocrisy going on here? |
Aren't politics and hypocrisy synonyms? Seems that way to me most of the time. Let's face it folks, in the U.S. money talks and BS walks. No funds, no votes. It's plain and simple.
If we want a reform, we have to commit treason just like those who signed the Declaration of Independence did. The problem is that we're all so spoiled and "busy" that we won't take the time to write our political leaders and/or protest. I'm not saying it would do any good, but it's kind of like women and weight loss. Don't bitch about how fat you're getting if you're not willing to put down the twinkie, step on the treadmill and do something about it. |
Amen Sister...we have to rise up and make change. We have to make change with our votes...and if that doesn't do it we have to make change with protest...if that still doesn't work we make change with force.
Who's with me?
Posted Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:33 pm GMT by tame_deuces
The big secret in the world is that everybody is just people and very few are terribly smart, and even those that are smart only have a certain share of which actually do smart stuff.
So that's the scary bit. Politicians are just as dumb as the rest of us. People aren't inherently evil or bad, but they are inherently _people_, hence the world goes on a rickety ride as people do what people do..blunder, stumble, mess stuff up and sometimes happen to get it right.
The alternative is elitism (the ruling of the enlightened, or the smart ones if you wish), which...to be terribly frank would be absolutely horrible because in all instances in which it is tried, the wrong people have declared themselves the elite. And even if we got the actually smart, benevolent kind of people to rule something, we well know smart people who doesn't go for simple solutions are prone to disagree with eachother in 75% of all cases (the world of academics come to mind).
So the best form of state is probably:
A bunch of normally stupid to normally smart people in the lead with some sense of getting stuff done, and a bunch of people criticizing them from the sideline.
Posted Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:49 am GMT by Kete51
Both of the liberal democratic senators in my state voted for it. They vote for any anti-freedom nanny state law they can. All of the congresscritters in the libeal areas voted for it also.
It's basiclly a non-issue for most voters, especially since it's tacked on to a 'terrorist' bill.
I really enjoyed the online games and have never voted for any of the people that shut us down.
Will hilary or obama restore our rights? HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted Fri Dec 01, 2006 4:59 pm GMT by Fat Tony
The only chance Hilary has of actually winning a Presidential election is if her opponent gets caught taking a bribe (or something similarly scandalous) during the last week of the campaign.
Posted Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:20 pm GMT by UrAteUp
No one will restore our rights till we make an effort to force them to do so. Send letters to your poloticians. Let them know you are pissed and not going to take it anymore. Get local petitions going in your area and send these to your poloticians. Untill we as a united people stand up and fight, the government will continue to take what it wants as it sees it needs to or wants to. Unless we are big industry we are just fish in the see and the government is the shark. Stand up and make your voice heard. Make your votes count.
If no one is running for president who you agree with for the next election then write me in and I swear to be for the people because it will be the people who put me in office. No more lobbyists, no more pork and no more BS. I stand for truth, justice and freedom for the American people.
Posted Sat Dec 02, 2006 2:20 pm GMT by snoogins47
I kinda wish the important part of ORG's post were left in. It would make the discussion much more interesting. Well, maybe not. Potshots are still potshots.
ORG: It pains me to outwardly defend Supa in anything, but I think anybody who lays into for your "LOL you can't judge my opinion based on what I said since it was just a joke! (LOL btw, what I said is completely true and I stand by it 100%, even though since I said it was a joke, you're an a**hole for criticizing?)" thing are probably justified.
This, despite the fact that I understand where you're coming from. Our country's history of state-sponsored, populous-endorsed fair weather profiling is rich and fascinating. Stereotypes that say, white Christian women are better people than others, are fine, to the point that if we question these stereotypes, we're being unreasonable. We can't act on negative ones. Well, some negative ones. Depends.
I'd be interested to see statistically speaking, what % of people with certain characteristics end up being hijackers/terrorists/starting shit. I'm afeared that this might end up casting the big bad profiling wolf as making some sense from a utilitarian standpoint though, and giving the average profiling supporter any ammunition is a dangerous game.
| Quote: | | Both of the liberal democratic senators in my state voted for it. They vote for any anti-freedom nanny state law they can. All of the congresscritters in the libeal areas voted for it also. |
This sounds dangerously like faux conservative rhetoric. It amazes me actually, that either of the 'modern' sides of the US political spectrum (using the intensely stupid, but fairly typical definitions of Liberal and Conservative as roughly, synonyms for Democrat and Republican respectively) can feel as if they're within twelve country miles of yelling at the other side for taking away personal freedoms. The modern Right is SO MUCH BETTER AT KEEPING US FREE what with all the magic of government controls in the name of 'safety' and 'morality.' I mean, attempts at undermining state control of how to define marriage, massive efforts to move toward censorship, and all that... it's amazing how much they obviously value liberty.
The truly *Conservative* in this country should probably join me in crying in the corner about what we're dealing with these days. People keep saying that the 'left' is building a movement, a la Goldwater and the modern conservative. If this turns out to be more than lefty optimism, it'll be absolutely fascinating to see if they can manage to f*ck up 'liberalism' in 40 years as succesfully as the republicans f*ck up conservatism.
Anyway, my senators are Durbin and Obama, and my rep is Denny Hastert. I didn't bother trying to persuade them of anything./quote
Posted Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:04 am GMT by Jauron
If I voted against every politician that pissed me off by a single action I'd be voting for nobody.
Oh wait...
If people want to fight this on-line is evil mentality they had best do it by protecting what they have left instead of demanding what they used to have. As inefficient as our government is, it pales in comparison to how slowly it moves to do away with any laws it managed to get passed.
If it matters I also vote that Canadians are not real people, but then I tend to feel that way about damn near everyone who is not me.
|
|
