Return the Favor

Discussion in 'Sidewalk Cafe' started by KenSmith, Oct 12, 2006.

  1. Barney Stone

    Barney Stone New Member

    Noman, you dont get it and it seems almost nobody does even tho I show the proof time after time. The House passed the internet ban on ITS OWN MERITS. The Senate received the internet ban and either didnt have enough time or found a strong arm Senator and was injected into another bill called Safe Port. The bill passed the House of Reps by a mandate MAJORITY which should have SAILED it thru the Senate on its own MERITS. Now if Im wrong prove me so. BTW, if the house is to be taken by dems know this, Nancy Pelosi will be majority leader. She is a far far left San Francisco lady. She voted for internet ban!

  2. Barney Stone

    Barney Stone New Member

    No No Noman! Whats wrong with you?
    The bottom line in THIS angsting legislation is that something that was minimumly kicked around, run up the flag pole, thrown against the wall to see what stuck AND DID NOT GET THE PROPER HEARING, CONSIDERATION, INVESTIGATION OR DEBATE(the bidness of congress)was serendipitously inserted, at the last minute into a CRUCIAL piece of legislation, which no one in their right mind could vote against, even if they had read the entire piece or even been informed of the addition.>>>

    I found evidence this was voted on by Senate in 1998. Yes 1998. It has been kicked around pulled behind investigated put on back burner brought back. Then the last nail, over the past couple years poker exploded on college campuses. Administrators found that college kids were sitting in their room all night playing online poker. Evidence was found they were abusing it in a rage of addiction. Last nail. Bill passes hose with repubs 92% dems 60%. Went to Senate. That my friend is what is known as a political mandate. It should have sailed thru Senate without any trouble.

    Call me.

    Barney :)
  3. mariad

    mariad New Member

    Reading what someone writes without knowing them or the tone they are using can cause you to miss the point. In this case I did. Fgk I agree with much of what you said in your response. I enjoy discussing politics but have little patience for misinformation and spin. Do we all have an agenda? Of course but without an open mind and a closed mouth discussion is useless. Too often I've found that people, instead of wanting to discuss, want to prove that their idea/party/etc is right and you are wrong as opposed to discussing the merits and downfalls of both.

    On a side note I wasn't implying you were an elitist or a snob, only that the comment was. I admit to reading the post quickly and responding with my dander up.

  4. fgk42

    fgk42 New Member

    Hey Noman how about...

    Noman, I USED to agree with that statement, however it seems lately that the weaker the message the louder they scream. Public discourse is shunned upon today. The time for polite, intelligent debate is once again a relic from a bygone era.

    Yes I recall it vividly and I yearn for those day again. Democratic controlled white house, Republican controlled Congress = GRIDLOCK. Those were the glory days. Nothing happened and the average person lived in bliss. The busses ran on time. Gas was 1.20 a gallon, etc… :laugh:

    In all seriousness there was a system of checks and balances established then. The extremists of both parties were shut out and down. The centrists were in control. That is where are current problems started. Since both left and right were not in power they were emboldened to regain control. Being outside and in the cold invigorated them until the right gained the upper hand.

    If 100% of all American voted do you think things would be any different? Without accountability people and officials will continue to push THEIR agenda or the agenda of their party – as long as the money continues to flow!

    My personal belief is that this law will NOT be undone – that isn’t how Washington operates. Very simply put new and creative ways need to be formulated to circumvent the law. I am NOT advocating BREAKING the law – far from it. I AM advocating utilizing any and all the loopholes to the fullest extent available/possible.
  5. mariad

    mariad New Member

    Barney.. Should have??

    Theirein lies the rub. We will NEVER know if it would have passed the senate with flying colors.
  6. fgk42

    fgk42 New Member

  7. Barney Stone

    Barney Stone New Member

    Maria, any mandate coming from the house of reps should sail thru Senate. Only those issues that dont show a mandate should be debated. BTW, you mentioned spinning, which is exactly what anyone claiming the repubs sent this thru with the tilt that only repubs did. It had a strong majority in the reps house including, this is very important, the support of Nancy Pelosi minority leader. Painting any other picture is a spin.

  8. fgk42

    fgk42 New Member


    This bill would NOT have passed the Senate on its own merits. You and I BOTH know that. The spin generated regarding this bill when in the House was tremendous and ridiculous - so much in fact that most of the online gaming people ignored it.

    Slipping it into the Port Security Bill was a tactical stroke of genius for the "pro-family, ultra-right, conservative" groups. It provides the political fodder for re-election issues that motivate the ideologicaly driven right in this country - remember (been there - done that)

    Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, was a member of a politically appointed gambling commission in the 1990's. Before it goes any further I respect and admire Dr. Dobson. I think that he is a fighter for the family and has the best interests of the family and dare I say the country at heart. However I disagree with him on the evils of internet poker and blackjack playing.

    Nevertheless next to Rush Limbaugh Dr. Dobson has one of the largest political soapboxes on the airwaves. Because of the goodwill he has gained over the years (and rightly so) when he tells listeners to contact their congressman regarding pro-family legislations - well they do it!

    The current makeup of the Senate is more evenly mixed. In fact I daresay that once the bill passed in the House certain people/companies woke up to the fact that yes Virginia this COULD happen - regardless of the illegality involved.

    Therefore in an effort to curry political favor it was inserted into a bill that guarenteed its passage. Viola. End of story.

    Now the saga continues.

    Personally I want to see what company wants to be the poster child for violation of this law and have the US government bear down upon them? I can guarentee that the ACLU and others will rally to that companies defense. The case will progress thru the court systems and an eventual supreme court showdown.

    I am surprised at the lack of response to gettng a temporary court restraining order to implementation of the order. I predict that will happen by the end of the Month.

    Boy all this "serious" talk is getting to me. I need some more of the dry British Reachy humor :joker:
  9. mariad

    mariad New Member

    Checks and balances?

    Barney why do we have a a 2 part congress? So you are implying only one side needs to consider an issue? And as I stated earlier I dont have knee jerk and repub slant, I am equally disgusted by both. And as far as Pelosi, I will just say she makes me ill.
  10. pokernut

    pokernut New Member

    Well said!!!
    As players without an effective lobby group, it would seem that it is left directly up to us to determine ways to defend what is our hobby/sport/livelihood. Many of you feel that we can voice our beliefs in the upcoming congressional elections. One statement that seems to surface in these forums repeatedly is "vote democrat..." to protest the passing of this legislation. That is well and fine, but unless you let your republican representives know why you are "voting against them," you are not really protesting. The democratic party has also shown time that is not against impinging on individuals' rights. Take gun control for instance - a topic that repeatedly is associated wtih the democrats. I encourage those of you in areas with congressional races going on to find out where your candidates stand on the gambling/poker issue and other issues that are important to you.

    The current legislation has also been said to be an effort of the religious right. This is definitely one of the groups that supported the current legislation, but also realize that some officials supported it for other reasons. On the website of congressman Goodlatte, one of the sponsors of the original house bill, he states that he wants to ban online gaming because it "makes the economy suffer by draining billions of dollars from the United States and serves as a vehicle for money laundering." This factor seems to be his major reason for wanting to ban it. Perhaps he has some moral/religious reason to oppose online gambling, but that doesn't seem to be his focus. Also, Rep. Goodlatte has accepted donations from the quarterhorse racing association, so I doubt he can effectively argue that his is a moral issue with gambling. Investigate and then VOTE for the right person based on a weighing of all issues not just the party they are a member of.

Share This Page