- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 30, 2006 at 1:59 am #707949
Anonymous
InactiveSome key elements from the news story:
================================================== =======
The agreement, a blend of earlier measures passed by the House and Senate, would make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to online gambling sites.The bill would leave out an additional provision of the House bill that would have clarified that a 1961 federal law banning interstate telephone betting also covers an array of online gambling.
================================================== =======The latter element may make affiliate websites still be in that “gray area”, but the banking enforcements will have a crippling effect on the overall industry, IMO. I am VERY surprised that the Banking lobbyists didn’t have more say in this, as it will impose on them big-time, for no pay (actually reduced revenue).
Anyone who votes for any of these Reublican *ssholes, should seek immediate pyschological counseling.
September 30, 2006 at 2:07 am #707950Anonymous
InactiveHeres the bill:
http://www.rules.house.gov/109_2nd/text/hr4954cr/hr49543_portscr.pdf
Skip to Page 213
September 30, 2006 at 2:12 am #707951Anonymous
Inactivewell if they pass a law on banks thats not enforceable who cares… although sarbanes got away with it..
September 30, 2006 at 2:12 am #707952Anonymous
InactiveDealerDan wrote:Heres the bill:http://www.rules.house.gov/109_2nd/text/hr4954cr/hr49543_portscr.pdf
Skip to Page 213
Forget it, I got it
September 30, 2006 at 2:13 am #707953Anonymous
InactiveForever an optimist I am. I still highly doubt they can find a way to enforce this effectively in the time they need to enact the law. My guess is this is red meat for the wing-nut base and then the banking lobby will kill it before it is enacted, behind closed doors, of course.
Just be sure to take this into the voting booth with you in Nov. , if you’re in the states. It’s time for a change.September 30, 2006 at 2:17 am #707954Anonymous
InactiveSuperiorshare,
Let me ask you a question – do you ever recall laws being passed, that were never implemented due to them not implementing what was required on time ? And what is “on time” when it comes to enacted legislation ?
September 30, 2006 at 2:19 am #707955Anonymous
InactiveGot any valium to go with that “popcorn and vodka”? I could really use it, this is killing me, I hate living in a country that declares freedom for everyone, unless there is no profit in it for the gov.
September 30, 2006 at 2:20 am #707956Anonymous
InactiveAgain, the one saving grace here (and unfortunately, I’m not an optimist) is that the Senate version of the bill is a watered-dwon version of the passed House bill. Specifically,
“The bill would leave out an additional provision of the House bill that would have clarified that a 1961 federal law banning interstate telephone betting also covers an array of online gambling.”
This clause implies that this is purely a banking regulatory issue, which ironically, was being lobbied hard by them. It still leaves, I believe, what we do in that “gray zone”.
Does everyone agree with me on this or not ?
September 30, 2006 at 2:23 am #707957Anonymous
InactiveLOlll,,,i tell ya, if someone told me a year ago, that i would be sitting here , on a friday night, watching Cspan, I would of cracked up!!
lolllllllllllll
Man things can change!…Everyone keep a positive attitude, everything will be just fine.:shots:
September 30, 2006 at 2:25 am #707958Anonymous
Inactivedhayman wrote:Again, the one saving grace here (and unfortunately, I’m not an optimist) is that the Senate version of the bill is a watered-dwon version of the passed House bill. Specifically,“The bill would leave out an additional provision of the House bill that would have clarified that a 1961 federal law banning interstate telephone betting also covers an array of online gambling.”
This clause implies that this is purely a banking regulatory issue, which ironically, was being lobbied hard by them. It still leaves, I believe, what we do in that “gray zone”.
Does everyone agree with me on this or not ?
Unfortunately, the bill that has been posted looks to be even STRONGER than any previous legislation, including criminal penalties (how does a felony charge and 5 years in prison sound?)
September 30, 2006 at 2:27 am #707959Anonymous
InactiveTriple777s wrote:LOlll,,,i tell ya, if someone told me a year ago, that i would be sitting here , on a friday night, watching Cspan, I would of cracked up!!lolllllllllllll
Man things can change!…Everyone keep a positive attitude, everything will be just fine.:shots:
Lol, got that right, cspan on a friday and sweating it out. Im sitting here thinking it’s not looking good yettt Im still building new pages while watching…lol
September 30, 2006 at 2:29 am #707960Anonymous
InactiveLOlll,,,i tell ya, if someone told me a year ago, that i would be sitting here , on a friday night, watching Cspan, I would of cracked up!!
I’m finding it hard to believe I’m watching this myself.
Pass the popcorn
September 30, 2006 at 2:36 am #707961Anonymous
Inactivei read something about 270 days to find a way to enforce it.
September 30, 2006 at 2:37 am #707962Anonymous
InactiveBeen watching c-span for the past few hours, and on the up note some senators have raised concerns about how is online gambling related to preventing nuclear devices being brought into the US through ports.
Hopefully the bill will be denied and told to be re-worked to be more specific to the port authority.
Fingers crossed for a good outcome for us, and the americans who deserve the right of free speech, and to gamble online since it is there money!
September 30, 2006 at 2:42 am #707963Anonymous
InactiveWell, they are argueing over it now!!!!
pass the popcorn please!
seriously, fingers crossed.
-
AuthorPosts