Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

07-28-2010 , 03:35 PM
YAY now we wait another 6 months!
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:35 PM
41-22...I feel like Scotty Nguyen when he said..."We did it baby!!!

Michael of NJ
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:35 PM
hells yeah
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPFisher55
What did we get to improve the bill. We played good defense, but did we get any actual improvements other than those designed to make the bill more likely to pass the house? The full legislative session time period helps our legal argument that that the opt out language requires more than a governors decision, but it does not clarify or strengthen the opt out clause like we wanted.
Our victory is in the 41-21-1 bipartisan vote, giving us the momentum we need going forward.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:36 PM
41-22 good enough to be considered broad bipartisan support?

Last edited by GMan42; 07-28-2010 at 03:37 PM. Reason: ha ha I type faster than destroBU
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:36 PM
Would 41-22 be considered "broad bipartisan support"?
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:36 PM
VNH...

Michael of NJ
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:36 PM
Ok, when will the amended bill be available to read?
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:36 PM
How quick before we can get a breakdown on who voted and how they voted?
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:37 PM
So far so good imo.

I lurk the legislation forum everyday but don't participate because I am pretty ignorant when it comes to most of this stuff. Instead, I take in what all posters whom are very informed on these issues have to say and I end up having a good understanding of what's going on.

That being said, I feel pretty good about our chances. As congressmen have become more informed on the issue it seems they are less likely to oppose us because "GAMBUL IS BAD LOL". I think the most effective talking point overall has been "Americans are less safe playing in an unregulated environment. We are better off regulating the industry making it more safe for Americans, and at the same time make some money off it." I feel like this is something that politicians can get on board with, even though they might not know a whole lot about this issue. With that in mind, I feel we have a pretty good chance of getting this done, especially if at some point this turns into a poker-only bill. Then I feel we have a very good chance.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:37 PM
Passes 41-21-1. Not quite down party lines, but heavily weighted that way.

Interesting to note that Ron Paul voted "Present" despite submitting testimony in favor of the bill.

Last edited by numberline; 07-28-2010 at 03:38 PM. Reason: fix factual error
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:37 PM
PH: "I can dodge bullets baby!"
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:37 PM
wp PPA, TE, Pappas, and all other members.

Thanks for fighting.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:38 PM
aye!


.... this was a good use of one of my "one times!!"
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by numberline
Passes 41-21-1. Not quite down party lines, but heavily weighted that way.

Interesting to note that Ron Paul voted "Present" despite submitting testimony in favor of the bill.
Agree on Paul but if one republican supports a dem today it is considered bi-partisan, we had I belive 7 with a few dems voting no.

Over all bi-partisan.

Seems something like 8 did not vote at all and were not even present, I belive there are 71 full members?

obg

Last edited by oldbookguy; 07-28-2010 at 03:42 PM. Reason: add not voting
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:40 PM
So what happens now? How long before it goes to the House?
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:40 PM
Someone post cliffs of the good news for the NVG crowd, one time...(don't know enough to post anything legislatviely accurate or I would do it)

I mean this is going to be the only relevent piece of poker related news to hit NVG for the last 3 years or so
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:42 PM
I need to know how Peter King voted. I lambasted him over UIGEA and he committed to me that he would work to rectify his mistake.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloupnaktouK
Someone post cliffs of the good news for the NVG crowd, one time...(don't know enough to post anything legislatviely accurate or I would do it)

I mean this is going to be the only relevent piece of poker related news to hit NVG for the last 3 years or so
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...44/index5.html
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antneye
I need to know how Peter King voted. I lambasted him over UIGEA and he committed to me that he would work to rectify his mistake.
Fairly certain he was an aye.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:43 PM
bachus makes my ears bleed
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:43 PM
He voted Yea to HR 2267

I assume the 22 who voted in the minority on the Baca and Bachus amendments, along with HR 2267 were the same.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:45 PM
Guys sorry, I haven't watched the stream, tell me when is the next hearing or what should happen now, so the poker would be legislated and another poker boom would occur? thx
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by antneye
I need to know how Peter King voted. I lambasted him over UIGEA and he committed to me that he would work to rectify his mistake.
King voted Ay...It would be foolish to let this momentum die...We really need to push for it this year b4 the november elections...Who is from Minnesota here???Bachman is a fool and a lier...She claims to be a tea party supporter for individual liberties and here she is upholding a uigea that essentially does exactly that...What a blowhard....I couldn't b more disgusted...

Michael of NJ
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:46 PM
lol I just laugh every time I hear about Michelle Bachman. She might be worth keeping in office just for the lols
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote

      
m