- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
So is she FOR or AGAINST internet gambling?
I was just confused by this:
I’m certainly not trying to falsely inject any optimism into a dire situation, but I just had a 30-minute telephone conversation with Debbie Richardson, who organized the impromptu Anti-Gambling protest in Washington D.C. this past Monday. Her telephone # and Email address were out on the Net, so I decided to give her a buzz on a whim.
AdioKing wrote:So is she FOR or AGAINST internet gambling?
Pro-gambling, of course.Not too sure what to think about this.. If he does toss it back, the ? is will they have time to fine tune it before they break for Thanksgiving? If they don’t well then the thing will surely die, and it will be back to square 1 with the new Congress, and I’m sure the New Congress is not going to have Anti-Gambling as their #1 priority. This would be a nice opt-out for Chimp and Friends. They cannot pin it all on Bush if Congress gave him Garbage to sign and he refused to do it. Fiest, inc will have already had their fill of what they want out of the legislation long before it gets back to Congress, cause the election will be over (and I’m sure thats the only reason Fiest was in a hurry to ship it out the door).
The real question is do we REALLY want it sent back. I would rather have Chimpy sign a piece of Garbage legislation that is sure to not be inforced and challenged in the Courts, just to be tossed out later. Then to have Congress get The Bill back and find the time to make it more like its predecessor HR 4411 which actually Updates the Wire Act. Then things will get REALLY messy.
Nice work dhayman.
Should have had one of Golden palaces streakers at the Anti-Gambling protest in Washington D.C.
That would have made the news
Bradjohn1124 wrote:The real question is do we REALLY want it sent back. I would rather have Chimpy sign a piece of Garbage legislation that is sure to not be inforced and challenged in the Courts, just to be tossed out later. Then to have Congress get The Bill back and find the time to make it more like its predecessor HR 4411 which actually Updates the Wire Act. Then things will get REALLY messy.
Keeping mind that I am the internal pessimist when it comes to what is going on here, if we had a chance to throw it back to Congress, I would take that in a heartbeat. If we could push out past elections, that would give us a fighting chance on several fronts:1) Chance for a Democratic House or Senate majority to vote differently
(I think there is a good chance that at least the House will swing
Democratic);2) Pushing this issue out after elections, will make it a non-issue for a lot
of the politicians who will be using a signed version of this bill to their
political and campaigning advantages;3) It may give more time for the people to rally (aka Denise Richadson
protest rally).Listen, this may all be a pipe dream at this point, based on a rumor that I am promoting, but let’s see what happens come Friday. I was 100 % sure that this would be signed Friday, and now I think it’s 90/10 %. Maybe we can draw this Ace on the River, and pull this one out.
Maybe we can draw this Ace on the River, and pull this one out.
I promise I will not B&%@# about it either :laughcry:
Great post and I will share in your restrained optimism.
We can all only hope.
Arrgghhh !!!!!
It’s Debbie Richardson, not Denise Richardson. No wonder I heard groans on the other end of the line, when I said “Thanks Denise, for your time…”.
P.S. I made the name corrections in the 1st post of this thread.
Who are you guys kidding??
Congressional members were scared shitless to vote against a port security bill, but Bush won’t sign one?
The big figurehead will decide not to sign, while all of the small people wouldn’t even vote against it for fear of looking weak on security?
Let’s be realistic about what’s realistic.
I’ll happily eat those words. Just don’t see it.
As usual OneGuy makes a damn good arguement although I wish he didn’t. (btw OneG, I’m still available for marriage … especially now
… been a lot of years since you first heard that proposal hasn’t it? )kidding aside …. I just don’t see bush not signing since all the rediculous and outrageous crap to come out of his mouth has been based on the threat of terrorism whether real, imagined or just plain made up out of thin air.
hope I’m extremely wrong.
I think you guys are not understanding what she is saying … I believe she is saying that he will sign the port bill but throw back the gambling part of it
I think Bush has to throw back the whole bill, but I could be mistaken.
IMHO If he throws it back it will be because he wants a “more secure” port security bill.
If she was talking about the whole bill their would be no reason to compare it to a line-item veto …. which is throwing back part of the bill …. no need to even mention a line-item veto unless she thinks he can throw back part of it
The thread title “Denise Richardson” lured me in hoping it was actually Denise Richards…damn :satisfied Think it should be changed to Debbie Richardson if a Mod is reading.
On topic, I can’t see this not going through. However my understanding is that just because a law is passed, it doesn’t mean they start to enforce it and if changes are required, this may delay that side of things. Doesn’t change the fact it’s law mind. But it’s more likley he’ll sign it off for the Port Security bit and then mods will be made to the rest of it.
I’m far more worried about HR4411. Hopefully the casinos are sitting down and analysing that one ahead of it passing and preparing a strategy.
Does anyone know WHO Debbie Richardson is and on what level she is involved in the industry?
Just curious.
