Online Casinos - Casinomeister Logo Online Casinos - Casinomeister

Go Back   Casinomeister's Online Casino and Poker Forum > The Amazing World of Online Casinos and Poker Rooms > Online Casinos

Notices

Online Casinos Online Casinos - Information, Experiences, questions and such. This is no place for ads or cloaked promos. Shills and spammers be warned

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 10th March 2006, 03:43 PM
managra's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 180
WTGs: 0
WTGd at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks: 38
Thanked 33 Times in 22 Posts
Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 0
Reputation Points: 234
Rep Power: 13
managra is very cool!managra is very cool!managra is very cool!
The WSJ poll is currently at 83% No and 17% yes with 6694 votes so far.

And quoting from the Discussion below that poll:

Gambling is perfectly acceptable to government so long as government gets a cut either directly as in the case of lotteries or indirectly as in the case of Las Vegas's economic growth. Once government doesn't stand to benefit, it is suddenly a moral issue that is destroying the fabric of our society.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 10th March 2006, 04:55 PM
Meister Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 498
WTGs: 30
WTGd at 141 Times in 22 Posts
Thanks: 307
Thanked 860 Times in 178 Posts
Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 0
Reputation Points: 4437
Rep Power: 36
Cynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond repute
Exclamation Introduction of S.AMDT.2953

Senator Kyl's most recent amendment in regards to his opposition of online gambling, is:

S.AMDT.2953-Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.


He has submitted this amendment under Trent Lott's pending bill S.2349-Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006. As previous posts state, Lott's bill was motioned to invoke cloture on March 8, and this motion was rejected yesterday. (To explain, the motion to invoke cloture is to set a time limit for any further consideration and debate, usually 30 hours from the time the motion is granted, to get to the final voting process. "Motion to invoke cloture" was originally designed to prevent filibusters via lengthy debate.) However, since the motion was rejected (after the rejection, Senator Frist made a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked), Lott's proposed bill is still considered "pending" and placed on the Senate Calendar for the continuation of floor proceedings. The status of Kyl's proposed amendment remains as submitted (submitted to be printed in the Congressional Record as full text of his proposed amendment).

The next step for Kyl's amendment is to be referred to a committee (under Senate rules, similiar to rules of the House of Representatives). It then goes back to the Senate floor to be proposed for consideration, in which the final vote will be taken by Senate Members (accepted or rejected).

CM- I guess the thread title could be updated to:
"Fighting H.R. 4777/S.A. 2953" ??

... now that a similiar act has been introduced in the Senate as well.

Last edited by Cynthia777; 10th March 2006 at 05:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 10th March 2006, 05:01 PM
Casinomeister's Avatar
Xmas Cheer Meister
 
Join Date: Jun 1998
Location: Here near my Bier, my dear.
Posts: 13,711
WTGs: 10
WTGd at 32 Times in 18 Posts
Thanks: 1,453
Thanked 4,613 Times in 1,691 Posts
Blog Entries: 2
Reputation Points: 23929
Rep Power: 15
Casinomeister has a reputation beyond reputeCasinomeister has a reputation beyond reputeCasinomeister has a reputation beyond reputeCasinomeister has a reputation beyond reputeCasinomeister has a reputation beyond reputeCasinomeister has a reputation beyond reputeCasinomeister has a reputation beyond reputeCasinomeister has a reputation beyond reputeCasinomeister has a reputation beyond reputeCasinomeister has a reputation beyond reputeCasinomeister has a reputation beyond repute
Posted this in the main section and hopefully Google will be picking up on this soon.
http://www.casinomeister.com/bill4777.html

If anyone could suggest any additional links to include here - please let me know. Thanks!
__________________
Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy
~Ben Franklin

Useful links: ~ Accredited Casinos ~ I-Gaming Representatives ~ Evil Section ~ My Wish List ~ The Meister on YouTube ~ Donate Now!
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 10th March 2006, 05:53 PM
Meister Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 498
WTGs: 30
WTGd at 141 Times in 22 Posts
Thanks: 307
Thanked 860 Times in 178 Posts
Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 0
Reputation Points: 4437
Rep Power: 36
Cynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond repute
I really think that after reviewing the past couple days of events, in my opinion, that Kyl has been using what could be considered 'sneaky tactics' in his presentation of this amendment.

If cloture had been invoked, the following guidelines would have applied:

- All amendments must be relevant to the debate. (Sen. Kyl's amendment 2953 would have been considered non-germane (not relevant [primary issue being the U.S. Ports/Dubai company]))

However, because Sen. Kyl submitted his amendment on March 8, and the petition to invoke cloture was made on March 8 (after Kyl's Amendment was submitted), and the decision on the motion was made on March 9, Kyl's Amendment may not have been thrown out because of the timing and possible protection under this next Senate guideline:

- No amendments may be moved unless they were filed on the day in between the presentation of the petition and the actual cloture vote.

I am not aware of any/all the loopholes when it comes to this type of situation, but it leant to my speculation when I learned that Senator Kyl voted "YEA" to motion to invoke cloture. (Meaning, he supported the process to 'speed up' voting on the Bill with minimized debate, which would have included Kyl's proposed amendment....if he thought that invocation of cloture would include 'throwing out' his 'non-germane' amendment, I am sure that he would not have voted "YEA" to this motion). But, knowing that his amendment had already been submitted, it may/would have been protected under the guideline that his amendment was not submitted between petition for cloture and the cloture vote (i.e., 'after the fact', hurry up and get it in there because there will be a rush and little review/time for debate.. so it can get voted on and possibly passed quickly).

Like I said, this is just my personal take on the matter, what some may term 'speculation' but it doesn't always mean that speculation is not correct, or leads to being correct, and I am basing it on facts of this process so far. What angers me the most, is if this was his intent, that he used the presentation of a Bill (S2349) and provisions of that bill, and debate that is revolving/focusing on such a sensitive matter (the Dubai ports deal (although they have now backed out)), that has conjured up high emotion in the U.S. and security issues, ... to serve his own personal selfishness in doing whatever he needs to do in getting Amendment passed (even his amendment co-sponsor Pryor voted "NAY" to invocation of cloture).
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 10th March 2006, 07:40 PM
sdaddy's Avatar
Meister Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 483
WTGs: 0
WTGd at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks: 210
Thanked 238 Times in 124 Posts
Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 0
Reputation Points: 1348
Rep Power: 24
sdaddy has much to be proud ofsdaddy has much to be proud ofsdaddy has much to be proud ofsdaddy has much to be proud ofsdaddy has much to be proud ofsdaddy has much to be proud ofsdaddy has much to be proud ofsdaddy has much to be proud ofsdaddy has much to be proud ofsdaddy has much to be proud of
^Thanks for that great explanation of what happened with Kyl's amendment, Cynthia. I was confused myself as to why Kyl would support the motion to invoke cloture, but that clears it up.

So do you know which Senate committee will be taking up the Kyl amendment? Judiciary?

CM,

I think that given the recent course of events it would be wise for US players to begin contacting their Senators as well, expressing their opposition to S.AMDT.2953-Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. Contact info can be found through this link:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 11th March 2006, 01:03 PM
Webzcas's Avatar
Drink Up Thy Cyder!
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England where it never ceases to rain...
Posts: 741
WTGs: 0
WTGd at 41 Times in 7 Posts
Thanks: 178
Thanked 217 Times in 95 Posts
Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 0
Reputation Points: 1461
Rep Power: 25
Webzcas has much to be proud ofWebzcas has much to be proud ofWebzcas has much to be proud ofWebzcas has much to be proud ofWebzcas has much to be proud ofWebzcas has much to be proud ofWebzcas has much to be proud ofWebzcas has much to be proud ofWebzcas has much to be proud ofWebzcas has much to be proud of
Send a message via MSN to Webzcas
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casinomeister
Posted this in the main section and hopefully Google will be picking up on this soon.
http://www.casinomeister.com/bill4777.html

If anyone could suggest any additional links to include here - please let me know. Thanks!
I've referenced this page on CasinoMeister on the article concerning this on my main portal. I will also be writing an article regarding this proposed act which will appear on the home page of my politics site which is fairly active.

Last edited by Webzcas; 11th March 2006 at 01:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 11th March 2006, 05:07 PM
Meister Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 498
WTGs: 30
WTGd at 141 Times in 22 Posts
Thanks: 307
Thanked 860 Times in 178 Posts
Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 0
Reputation Points: 4437
Rep Power: 36
Cynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdaddy
So do you know which Senate committee will be taking up the Kyl amendment? Judiciary?

More than likely, but his proposed amendment will not be formally referred until he has had the opportunity to propose his amendment for consideration. Since his submission of the amendment was "ordered to lie on the table" (set aside, and determined to not be considered by the Senate floor in that session)...the only action taken thus far is the printing of the text of his proposed amendment in the Congressional Record.

In the meantime, before Sen. Kyl has the opportunity to propose his amendment for consideration, he does have the right to "make an amendment to the amendment", outlining any additions, changes, or deletions to SA2953. Do not confuse the "motion to table" with rejecting his amendment, it has merely been "set aside" so to speak, until another Senate session. They were not in session Friday March 10, and will not reconvene until Monday, March 13.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cynthia777 For This Useful Post:
cipher (12th March 2006), sdaddy (12th March 2006)
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 13th March 2006, 02:00 AM
managra's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 180
WTGs: 0
WTGd at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks: 38
Thanked 33 Times in 22 Posts
Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 0
Reputation Points: 234
Rep Power: 13
managra is very cool!managra is very cool!managra is very cool!
I have a question for Cynthia, since she has been so helpful in these threads and has been acting as our insider on the Hill. I wrote an email to my Representative. What other people (specific committee members???) could we email and where would we find their email addresses?
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 13th March 2006, 12:34 PM
Meister Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 498
WTGs: 30
WTGd at 141 Times in 22 Posts
Thanks: 307
Thanked 860 Times in 178 Posts
Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 0
Reputation Points: 4437
Rep Power: 36
Cynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond repute
Link to House Committee Members

Here is the link for the full member list of U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary:

http://judiciary.house.gov/fullcommittee.aspx

If you scroll down to "Committees" on the left menu, it will give you a list, and concentration on this will likely be under the subcommittee: Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property.

It will give you a list of members, and you can click on each name to get more information, including their individual website. For example, the Chairman of the Subcommittee Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property is Hon. Lamar Smith, and I have found under his website that you can sign up for his newsletter of ongoing events, news, and legislation to be emailed to you, and you can post comments as well to be sent to him. If the member's individual website does not post a direct email address, it does list the specific physical address, phone and fax number (probably easiest to fax as I can imagine the complexities trying to reach them by phone).

As well, this proposed bill (H.R. 4777) has also been referred to the House Committee on Financial Services, and the link to the members of that committee is: http://financialservices.house.gov/members.asp

Hope this helps
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Cynthia777 For This Useful Post:
chuchu59 (13th March 2006)
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 13th March 2006, 02:18 PM
Meister Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 498
WTGs: 30
WTGd at 141 Times in 22 Posts
Thanks: 307
Thanked 860 Times in 178 Posts
Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 0
Reputation Points: 4437
Rep Power: 36
Cynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond reputeCynthia777 has a reputation beyond repute
Just a note- Goodlatte currently has 118 co-sponsors of his proposed H.R. 4777 (inclusive of 3 that just jumped on board on 3/1/2006)

The House of Representatives is comprised of 432 voting members.. and when this goes to roll call he needs to get 2/3 of the vote for this, meaning 332 would have to vote in favor, so we have a very good chance, but your efforts are still crucial (writing your reps., etc.) Although we cannot be sure how the members who are not co-sponsors of this bill feel about this legislation, by them not co-sponsoring this bill lends to the influence we can have on their potential decision.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PR: U.S. Congress and Internet Gambling Casinomeister Casino Industry Discussion 1 13th January 2006 01:25 AM
New info on internet gambling marasta Online Casinos 4 8th April 2005 12:50 PM
Is U.S. far behind Britain with Internet gambling regulation ? oldman Casino Industry Discussion 1 3rd November 2004 02:45 AM
Internet Gambling scatz500 Online Casinos 0 21st February 2003 12:45 PM


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0
© All Rights Reserved, 1998-2008
Inactive Reminders By Mished.co.uk