Party Poker.........DEAD

Eaglebauer · Post by **Eaglebauer** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:06 pm

as well as Pokerstars and many others (as far as U.S. citizens are concerned).

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/LSEC ... source=RNS

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061002/bs_ ... ygaming_dc

Thanks to the "Conservative" Thumpers. Way to go.

Neely8 · Post by **Neely8** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:12 pm

Gotta love the government deciding whats best for it's citizens. Nothing like Democracy where people can decide for themselves.

Once they figure out how to tax it then it will be back......

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:42 pm

mvscal wrote:
Eaglebauer wrote:Thanks to the "Conservative" Thumpers.
Guess again, dipshit.

317 Ayes, 93 Nays, 22 Present/Not Voting.

This doesn't have shit to do with thumpers. This more about the dago mafia fuckheads who run gambling in this country pulling strings to shut down a market they don't control.

If this was about morality, I believe we'd hear something about Vegas, Atlantic City, Indian Casinos, Riverboat gaming, horse racing, dog racing, state lotteries and church bingo.

A quick look at the bill's sponsors shows what's up pretty clearly.

Steve Wynn is a "dago mafia fuckhead"? Kirk Kerkorian? Gary Loveman?

You're right about the motivation behind this legislations. It's typical protectionist bullshit. But leave the paisans alone. They haven't run Vegas for years.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:59 pm

BSmack wrote:Steve Wynn is a "dago mafia fuckhead"? Kirk Kerkorian? Gary Loveman?

Those guys are congressmen?

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:07 pm

How much does it cost?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:08 pm

Like a not-so-wise man once said, "there should be limits on freedom."

Oh, and you guys realize these same people are currently debating which types of porn you should be allowed to view over the internet, right?

Nice job at the voting booths, tards.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:13 pm

Cuda wrote:How much does it cost?

As a package deal, it costs the casino industry about 11-15 million dollars every two years to buy their votes.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=N07

Eaglebauer · Post by **Eaglebauer** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:13 pm

mvscal wrote:
Eaglebauer wrote:Thanks to the "Conservative" Thumpers.
Guess again, dipshit.

317 Ayes, 93 Nays, 22 Present/Not Voting.

Frist and fellow thumpers are the ones who made this a priority. The ayes are from attaching it to another unrelated bill re: port security that would've been political suicide to vote against.

The bill was submitted and passed by a Republican controlled House and a Republican controlled Senate, and it will be a Republican buffoon of a President (our Televangelist-in-Chief) who will sign it. Democrats would naver have made this a priority.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 pm

BSmack wrote:
Cuda wrote:How much does it cost?
As a package deal, it costs the casino industry about 11-15 million dollars every two years to buy their votes.

I'm out then

Eaglebauer · Post by **Eaglebauer** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:20 pm

Well there you have it.

JCT · Post by **JCT** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:42 pm

Democrats would naver have made this a priority.

Yeah, because Harry Reid isn't from Nevada, was never chairman of the State Gaming Control Board and his son isn't the current Clark County Commission chair.

Retard.

Eaglebauer · Post by **Eaglebauer** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:06 pm

JCT wrote:
Democrats would naver have made this a priority.

Yeah, because Harry Reid isn't from Nevada, was never chairman of the State Gaming Control Board and his son isn't the current Clark County Commission chair.

Retard.

That Nevada doesn't want online gaming is a given, and not that that ever mattered.

Your point is moot, shit-for-brains.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 6:10 pm

Anyone have Party Poker in the death pool? Big time points if you do.

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:08 pm

So who slipped this turd into H.R. 4954, a bill designed to improve maritime and cargo security??

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:11 pm

They were trying to stop teh gambling that goes on below decks.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:20 pm

JCT wrote:
Democrats would naver have made this a priority.

Yeah, because Harry Reid isn't from Nevada, was never chairman of the State Gaming Control Board and his son isn't the current Clark County Commission chair.

Retard.

All 3 Navada House members voted against the bill.

That's interesting.

Of course Ried would have had to cast a vote against the port security bill in order to vote Nay. So I guess we'll never know.

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:21 pm

Nice job, fuckheads.

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:23 pm

Votes:

Yes / No / Not Voting

Democratic 115 76 10
Independent 1 0 0
Republican 201 17 12
Total: 317 93 22

201 to 17? Fricken Nanny State Republicans.

Degenerate · Post by **Degenerate** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:32 pm

mvscal wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:So who slipped this turd into H.R. 4954, a bill designed to improve maritime and cargo security??
Nobody.

This measure is HR 4411.

H.R. 4411: Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act

No, it isn't.

Port Security Bill Includes Rider Targeting Internet Gambling
By Kathryn A. Wolfe, CQ Staff

Congress agreed to clear a port security measure last week after the Republican leadership largely abandoned its attempts to attach unrelated items such as increased courthouse security to the measure.

The port security bill (HR 4954) had been delayed several days as the GOP leadership sought to attach language that would strengthen security at courthouses and make it easier to deport or deny entry to illegal immigrants who were members of gangs. The leadership had tried to persuade conferees to attach these provisions to the fiscal 2007 defense authorization bill (HR 5122), but had been unable to do so. (Defense authorization bill, p. 2632)

Pete Sessions, R-Texas, called the ports measure “an important victory for the American people.”

But leaders did insert into the conference report, filed late Sept. 29, contentious language intended to make it more difficult to use the Internet to gamble. The provision would prohibit an online gambling business from accepting credit cards or electronic transfers for the purpose of betting.

The language was taken from a measure (HR 4777) sponsored by Virginia Republican Robert W. Goodlatte that had been approved by the House Judiciary Committee in May.

http://cq.com

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:40 pm

It may be a little bit late to raise this issuem, but... has anybody checked the PrimeX's shower rod?

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:06 pm

Yes and no need to worry, Cuda. Your thong and dildo holster are almost dry.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:11 pm

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:Of course Ried would have had to cast a vote against the port security bill in order to vote Nay.
A blatant lie.

You wouldn't happen to have a link to the Senate vote totals on HR 4411?

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:23 pm

It's simply shocking that James Dobson and his followers support this horseshit.

http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/gambl ... 038600.cfm

Sincerely,

No it isn't.

Eaglebauer · Post by **Eaglebauer** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:24 pm

BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:Of course Ried would have had to cast a vote against the port security bill in order to vote Nay.
A blatant lie.
You wouldn't happen to have a link to the Senate vote totals on HR 4411?

I doubt it. The gutless Senate passed it on a voice vote to remain anonymous, save for the idiot sponsors.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:31 pm

Eaglebauer wrote:
BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote: A blatant lie.
You wouldn't happen to have a link to the Senate vote totals on HR 4411?
I doubt it. The gutless Senate passed it on a voice vote to remain anonymous, save for the idiot sponsors.

A link to the Senate website indicating that a vote on the Senate version of HR 4411 happened and that said bill was sent to conference would suffice.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:32 pm

Don't you have google, Monica?

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:33 pm

Cuda Foley wrote:It may be a little bit late to raise this issuem, but... has anybody checked the PrimeX's rod?

Disgusting.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:35 pm

Cuda wrote:Don't you have google, Monica?

He's the one who made the claim, he can back it up.

In the meantime, read this.

http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/10/ ... bling.html

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:44 pm

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote: A blatant lie.
You wouldn't happen to have a link to the Senate vote totals on HR 4411?
Not that your point has any meaning or relevance, but I don't believe that the measure has been voted on in the Senate.

The measure is on its way to Bush's desk.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:17 pm

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:In the meantime, read this.

http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/10/ ... bling.html
More ignorance from clowns who don't know what the fuck they're talking about? Why?

Because they DO know what they are talking about. Christ, you would think that you would have read the conference report for HR 4954 before making yourself look like a complete dumbfuck. Here it is, since your Google seems to be on the fritz.

http://www.aapa-ports.org/files/PDFs/HR ... 9%2D06.pdf

Scroll down to Title VIII. Or you can just STFU now if you like.

However, late on Friday, Senate Majority Leader and presidential hopeful Bill Frist apparently tacked the measure onto a port security bill. The bill was passed by a vote of 409 to 2 in the final minutes before Congress recessed.
How many Senators are there again?

Obviously the Forbes reporter was refering to the House vote on the conference report. Which had you READ the conference report, that would have been obvious to you.

The Safe Port Act was passed months ago anyway. This is a separate issue with a separate vote held on a separate occasion.

Wrong again fucko. Ever tire of being plungered?

Q, West Coast Style · Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:52 pm

Thousands of 20 and 30 something yr old dudes in USA wrote:I wonder if I still have the number for that bookie from college

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:10 am

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote: Christ, you would think that you would have read the conference report for HR 4954 before making yourself look like a complete dumbfuck.
I'd love to, but it isn't available on Thomas or any other reputable source. So where did this alleged report come from?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR04954:

Don't get me wrong, Frist is a knob-gobbling douchebag of the lowest order and I wouldn't completely surprised to see him pull some shit like this, but I'll believe it when I see it in the CR.

It's from the American Association of Port Authorities. They're doing backflips over the pork potential of this bill.

http://www.aapa-ports.org/Press/PRdetai ... umber=1288

You should know that the lobbyists allways have this shit before the CR. Hell, they WRITE the damn laws. Why shouldn't they? My guess is that since this past weekend was a end of year pork fiesta, that the conference report is waiting to be read into the record.

Adelpiero · Post by **Adelpiero** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:28 am

Q, West Coast Style wrote:
Thousands of 20 and 30 something yr old dudes in USA wrote:I wonder if I still have the number for that bookie from college

unfortunately for me, i still have mine.

bbqjones · Post by **bbqjones** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:25 am

i agree e . everytime i turn on espn seven or 4 and its the highlings of the 2003 poker championship final tournament and i cant watch CHEAP SEATS, 8im all " what the fuc:"

Ronnie · Post by **Ronnie** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 1:55 pm

What about online dating sites? Could I get in trouble?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:13 pm

Just an update. Here's the Conference Report as posted in the CR.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r ... 001:H58541

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:08 pm

As long as we're not banned from posting here I don't give a shit what they do.

sayin'

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:20 pm

mvscal wrote:Bill Frist should be shot in the face...and then that rule that allows this kind of shit needs to be changed.

I wouldn't give a damn for the leadership on either side of the aisle. It's not like the Dems gave a damn about upholding their constituents liberties as they allowed this to happen.

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:23 pm

Thank gawd that Republicans went less governmental interference in our lives.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 3:39 pm

teh Frister teenks the taliban need to be included in the afghan gubmint too.

I think that qualifies him as a stupid, brain dead fuck

T1B

Party Poker.........DEAD

Party Poker.........DEAD

Re: Party Poker.........DEAD

Re: Party Poker.........DEAD

Re: Party Poker.........DEAD