I know it's so odd. The opposition doesn't say much. It's kind of like it's just understood among them. They glance at each other and silently agree that "gambling bad, poker is gambling, gambling bad" and there's nothing to say except NO you gambling, whoreloving, rapist, murdering, drug addicts!

tbh, this bill is not going anywhere as written

love how they don't put a source on this...the key world is also "could"

I imagine the bill would have passed with poker attached, it's just that 160 million Americans are WATCHING/DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY this bill.

did they attach ANY BS legislation to the payroll/Med/UI bill? Tough to attach poker when everyone agreed to play nice

I think there is overreaction to the lack of attachment on this bill

Fwiw Senator Reid just created an account of facebook today. I'd imagine since its new to him he will be checking it frequently.

I suggest putting a message on his wall that you are not happy he failed to attach online poker to the tax cuts. Let's get enough of them on there for him to notice.


http://www.facebook.com/SenatorReid

I read somewhere that Rand Paul was intending to block ANY amendments that Reid would put on at the very end.

UIGEA sucks, but it's not like unregulated offshore sites were going to go on forever

they like to say online poker affects their revenues, whether or not they believe that is debatable

Yes, they have other reasons...two scenarios, which do you support if you're the lottery?
a) online poker run by casinos/tribes only
b) online poker that includes lotteries as operator (or exclusively the lottery)

Would it shock you to hear that the NFL was one of the most influential lobbying organizations in getting the UIGEA passed and blocking any regulatory legislation afterwards?

I'm starting to think we might be pretty big underdogs after this saga. If Reid did in fact try to attach a poker bill, he has the support of Kyl and an agreement on the specifics of the bill. Does this mean that the Reid/Kyl combo can't guarantee anything without broader support?

personally, I think it could be the exact opposite...they agreed to play nice and not do any dumb political BS on a bill that affects million of Americans before an election. I'm saying it was more the payroll bill/election than the fact it was online poker.

starting?

How's this for an alternate theory: maybe Reid thinks the UIGEA II is such a slam dunk, he's waiting for a piece of legislation that he needs to swing a few conservative republicans over to his side? Otherwise we're heading straight to Biff Tannen territory.

Pretty big is littler bigger than big to me.

im guessing, but i dont think the GOP is all that upset with the current UIGEA. black friday was a nice feather in their cap. i mean, they got to expose all these huge criminal operations, right? full tilt poker? man... that's just what the social conservatives were warning us about dude.

I'm being coy, of course, but... well not really. that's what it looks like.

additionally, i think some guys may be a little skittish of any thing that regulates internet due to their inherent opposition to net neutrality and now that they may pick up the anti-SOPA(ish) flag. i know this doesn't make logical sense, but sometimes laws don't follow rationality.

it would, after all, instigate a lot of enforcement mechanisms and a tighter gov't grip over how traffic is handled.

again, you are going to say "wat that's wat" but ive heard people cite that as a possible reason for some opposing it before. no idea if that's true, but i wouldnt be shocked.

+1 This made sense to me as well.

This sums up how I feel rather nicely.

Obviously, it is an election year. But this is a strange one, and that is not helping. The approval rating of Congress has never been this low. If you are in the House, or up for reelection in the Senate, you might be really nervous. And the math of elections suggests being conservative when passing new bills (especially if they favor some jurisdiction other than your own).

And I don't know who is gonna win in November.

It could be a Republican sweep. Then anti-gambling advocates will have a field day - why compromise by carving out i-poker now when they can get it all outlawed next year?

Interesting reid:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73008.html

Indeed. Thoughts? You're better at interpreting than I am.

From what I hear, I believe many are supportive of the federal approach, so long as they get what they want in that bill. I hear many smaller tribes are afraid they will get shut out of a state-by-state system, especially in cases where state lotteries choose to sell instant scratch-off tickets online.

It's true. Poker is a complementary offering to what tribal casinos offer now. Socialized state-level gaming (i.e., lotteries with instate monopolies and trade barriers against competition from other states), OTOH, is seen as competitive.

No, they are not. They want to operate their own online games.

Add to that 95% of all politicians and it's a good start.

Crazy that the same organization that had concussion data suggesting a crisis of health problems for former players 15 years ago would be so greedy and post spreads for their games on their websites and in every major paper in the country for gambling purposes while lobbying to cut everyone else off.

Not to mention taking every advertising dollar they can get from the military and relating football to it/being a hero. Wonder how many kids have no appendages because they wanted to "one of the few, one of the proud, one of the meatshields for big oil, the marines".

Ahhhh but I digress.. **** Bill Frist up his vote pandering ass.

nice post sir couldn't agree more

Oh??? Is this thread still up? Hmmmm........

Is that true or are you posing that as a hypothetical?