Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006

[amatrine]

Re

Any type of action is good.

I feel quite frustraded in the middle of Central America not able to do much.

Any advise? Would be appreciated

You can always send a blimp over the dc area with your message))

Ama

 

[spearmaster]

Ouch... LOL...

Keep in mind that the Southern Baptists are not responsible for this legislation, despite what Frist says. He is simply trying to play their tune.

It's Frist that needs a major wake-up call.

 

[casino employee]

All I can say is ..." It's darkest before the dawn ". Many people were in fear of the Y2K computer meltdown but it turned out to be just a pfffft of fear smoke. I believe the same in this scenario.

"It's always darkest just before it all goes pitch black" (courtesy of despair.com).

I work at an operator using software from a publicly traded company, and for the life of me I can't figure out the overnight panic in that segment of the market. What are they all scared of? If they'd stood their ground I actually believe their stocks would have bouyed back, and perhaps deflated much of the misguided media coverage about online gambling being "illegal".

If there's anything we've learned in the last 30 years of history it's that you can get knocked down today and rise back up tomorrow. The pols toyed with you today, you elect a pro-gaming guy next time around. The longer we stick around the better our chances of surviving - what would have been so terrible if we'd continued servicing US players until the last minute? Perhaps something would have offset/changed/cancelled this law. More than that, we pulled the plug so fast we panicked them....

And then there's the WTO: won't that be a laugh if Antigua beats the US in the WTO, the market reopens (as it were), and all of us who left in a hurry struggle to re-enter. I don't believe for a second that the US will be locked out of online gambling in the medium term (if this bill gets signed).

Somehow the big players didn't do their homework: they didn't prepare for today (by penetrating foreign markets) even though we've seen US anti-gaming legislation rumbling for years, and now they've abandoned the turf in such haste it will be excrutiating for them to return and reclaim their place later.

For its part, the US government is killing a goose which lays golden eggs: instead of, say, imposing a moratorium for regulation (and thereby profiting from taxation), they've chosen to bludgeon the whole thing. Like shooting a pigeon with.... 14 tomahawk missiles (ref. Saddam).

 

[Rollo]

First of many online gambling dismissals begin

Old / Expired Link - the real fallout begins.

 

[Simmo!]

Old / Expired Link - the real fallout begins.

This is a shame. Not that Frist or the US will care at all. Although you do feel that the companies are reacting a little too quickly...unless they were just looking for an excuse!

 

[Rollo]

Internet Gambling Protest Saw Rumors Fly About New Law

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Interesting article...

but unusual to this protest, no one wanted to give their last names or explain why they had such a personal interest in protesting. Therefore, no sources can be revealed

- too funny.

What was the most interesting rumor in Washington D.C. yesterday? That the Port Security Bill the president is expected to sign on Friday will be very different from what was released in Congress - concerning internet gambling.

- not possible. They must not have wathced their Schoolhouse Rock about how a bill becomes a law. Bush can't change it, only sign it, veto it, or ignore it.

The part of the bill that everyone still seemed worried about was the fact that ISP's would still have to block gambling sites if told to do so. The bill would not make it the responsibility of the ISP's to find and shut down sites that either had gambling links on them or were gambling sites in themselves, however if they were informed about such sites they would be held responsible for blocking US citizens from getting to them.

- this does not worry me as there are an abundence of non-US servers and this would only US ISPs. As a webmaster, what worries me a bit is if they order domain name registrars to block sites (not likely) or if webmasters can actually do time for aiding and abetting by advertising to US players (not likely, but hella scary).

I have to go now because I just saw Bigfoot being abducted by a UFO.

 

[spearmaster]

- not possible. They must not have wathced their Schoolhouse Rock about how a bill becomes a law. Bush can't change it, only sign it, veto it, or ignore it.

I just saw that as well - immediately raised a red flag with me, I cannot see how a modification can be made without the entire bill being sent back to Congress.

 

[Rollo]

Lobbying scandal revived drive against online gambling

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

- here's a good read with a few new insights about how this thing came to pass.

What I find most interesting is this:

"two lobbyists who followed the bill alleged the last-minute intervention of the White House, which encouraged Republican senators to support the legislation, gave the bill the momentum it needed to be attached to the port security bill and passed by the Senate."

I didn't know the White House was secrtetly supporting the bill (provided the the info is true).

Hmmm.

 

[jetset]

I agree [regarding the Washington protest report].

That whole report looked a tad too wooly and general for me personally to take on board, and I have yet to see other independent confirmation of this protest and the detail one would normally associate with it like how many, where they met, where they went, when it happened, who they confronted, what the police did etc etc etc

I guess the report is covered by this sort of statement:

"Note: All rumors revealed in this article are just that and cannot be taken as fact. We will give more information as we receive more information."

 

[dirk_dangerous]

Hey, I'm back after my temporary time out.

Well, looks like as usual, I was right, the end is here--for U.S. players that is.

And the end is here for most affiliates. Now they know what it's like to be screwed by online casinos. But we bonus hunters knew all along what kind of brigands we were dealing with.

LoL, you people should have listened to the bonus hunters instead of maligning them.

Damn, some times I hate always being right.

Enjoy your day.

Oh, and these pipe dreams about getting the law changed. Forget it. Unless you relish the fate of Sisyphus.

 

[jetset]

Goodlatte's exploitation of the Abramoff "guilt factor" is well documented in the news section at Casinomeister over the past several months, together with the other detail brought together so well in the FT article.

However, the intervention of the White House in that misinformed vote on the 30 September is something I haven't seen before and is definitely interesting.

Ironically, Abramoff was involved in all sorts of lobby efforts for all sorts of people, making for strange bedfellows, some who have benefited from the present situation.

The FT article underlines one theme for me yet again - this Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act 2006 was more about garnering mid-term election votes and shielding vested interests than it was about protecting the American public and the fabric of American society!!!

 

[spearmaster]

Hey, I'm back after my temporary time out.

Sorry about that, LOL... your presence is welcome when you keep the vitriol in check

Well, looks like as usual, I was right, the end is here--for U.S. players that is.

The end is not yet here. Though the legislation is expected to pass, it is still not clear in the slightest what exactly will happen, nor what is covered by the legislation.

Oh, and these pipe dreams about getting the law changed. Forget it. Unless you relish the fate of Sisyphus.

Well, one can always dream, or act, at least up until the time the legislation is signed into law - and then one can always try to work towards a repeal or legislation which effectively regulates these activities.

Do keep in mind that playing online is NOT criminalized or even addressed by the new legislation. The only real question is, will there be any avenues left for funding accounts and receiving payments?

 

[lots0]

I didn't know the White House was secrtetly supporting the bill...

There was no secrecry about the support of the Whitehouse (Bush) for this bill.

Bush has made it perfectly clear for years to anyone that listens to him that he supports a ban on online gambling.

G. Bush and K. Rove are also working very hard out of the public view to see that this asshole Frist is President of the US in 2008.

the end is here--for U.S. players that is.

No its not. Not one American Gambler is EVER going to jail because of this bill, soon to be law. You got that? Not one, not ever...

And the end is here for most affiliates.

Again, your wrong, it is not the end for most affiliates. It is only the end for those that don't want to continue. Any American affiliate that wants to continue only has to move their servers out of the US.

Or the American affiliates can stand and fight it out in the courts, this is where I am leaning.

As a matter of fact there are more than a few American affiliates that have already sold out in a knee kerk reaction to this law. I'll make you a bet, that most if not all those affilaites that sold out will regret it, sooner or later.

 

[SlotsWizard]

Interesting article about Monday's protest...

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

What was the most interesting rumor in Washington D.C. yesterday? That the Port Security Bill the president is expected to sign on Friday will be very different from what was released in Congress - concerning internet gambling.

The rumor was that banks have been lobbying hard over the past two weeks and that they may have achieved their lobbying goals of getting the banking enforcement section of the law discarded from the wording. It was rumored that the part of the law making banks liable for enforcing the law will be removed because banks lobbied that it would be impossible for them to enforce.

 

[lots0]

I mentioned in an earlier post, in a different thread, about this Bill that the Banks and ISPs were going to be our best allies.

The Bill requires the Banks to enforce the law with nothin in it for them, except that they won't get sued if they make a mistake and block a non-casino transaction.

Putting the type of regulations that this Bill requires will cost the Banks Billions of USD and slow down all transactions.

Not to mention the ISPs, turning them into law enforcement, is not going over very well with the folks I know that run or work for the ISPs.

 

[dirk_dangerous]

Sorry about that, LOL... your presence is welcome when you keep the vitriol in check

I promise I'll be good, and while I may be many things, I am a man of my word.

The U.S., as usual, screwed up. Blame it on the persistent and still strong Puritan strain that runs through our culture.

Maybe someday it will die off, but probably not in my lifetime.

 

[Rollo]

Bush has made it perfectly clear for years to anyone that listens to him that he supports a ban on online gambling.

Excuse my loose adverbs, perhaps "descretely" would have been a bit better. At any rate, he wasn't exactly out there using the bully pulpit.

I don't make it a habbit of listening to Bush generally, but I've never heard him mention online gambling. Can you provide us with a text of a speech where he mentiones it? I'd be interested in reading it.

 

[soflat]

I mentioned in an earlier post, in a different thread, about this Bill that the Banks and ISPs were going to be our best allies.

The Bill requires the Banks to enforce the law with nothin in it for them, except that they won't get sued if they make a mistake and block a non-casino transaction.

Putting the type of regulations that this Bill requires will cost the Banks Billions of USD and slow down all transactions.

Not to mention the ISPs, turning them into law enforcement, is not going over very well with the folks I know that run or work for the ISPs.

I don't see how it will cost the banks billions. Can't they just flag anything going to Neteller (or whatever else the government tells them to)?

Wouldn't you think this would have cost the casinos billions? But so many of them pulled out before the law was even enacted. At the very least it will cost the casinos more than the ISPs and banks, so I don't expect much fight from the banks and ISPs.

 

[lots0]

No transcripts, the speech I heard was for a fund raiser in 2001 behind closed doors and no reporters or recording devices were allowed. Most of Bush and Cheney’s ‘real’ policy speeches are this way now (another reason Bush and his cronies need to go IMO).

I don't make it a habbit of listening to Bush generally...

Most people feel the way you do, that is why he is the president, no one really listened to him before hand.

If people would have listened to Bush rather than just watch his commercials and listen to his sound bites, it would have scared the hell out of them and he never would have been president.

don't see how it will cost the banks billions.

In order to identify transactions that involve 'illegal' online gambling (not to just Neteller or the Casinos but any transaction to any online casino some 1700 of them at last count or any of their agents, only god knows how many of those there are), the Banks will have to identify EVERY transaction made. If you don’t identify every transaction, then how are they going to stop the ones that involve “illegal” online gambling and allow the legal online gambling tranactions, like Lottery, BINGO or Horse racing?

 

[Rollo]

I've read a couple articles where the banks indiacte the regulations are pretty light becuase they don't have responsibility to police it. As I understand it, what happens is that an feds, likely the Department of Justice, hands them a list of companies, Neteller, Firepay, Golden Palace Casino, et al. and says block these. It's pretty easy to find out who the intermediaries and casinos are, their logos and banners are plasterd all over the net. I imagine a motivated person could compile a pretty good list in an afternoon. All the banks need to do is enter these flagged entities into their system. It doesn't look like it will cost much of anything, unless I'm missing something.

The real cost will be one of oportunity cost for government resources who devote resoruces to online gambling as opposed to hunting down Bin Laden, child molesters, serial killers and the like but I don't think they'll make a big effort either - beucase they don't need to.

They've pretty much collapsed the US indsutry already and the hold outs will start bailing out after one or two more prosecutions becuase who wants to be the biggest player left in the US market? You know you'll be the target. I bet Bodog could be an exception becuase Calvin Ayre probabaly already knows he's next no matter what he does at this point.

I wonder how extradition is going to play out in these cases. I bet with a federal warrant, the US isn't the only country the operators have to worry about.

Dog the Bounty Hunter may be about to be extradited from the US to Mexico. It's hard to tell just where the safe havens are nowadays.

 

[lots0]

The Bill as passed, does require the banks to police and enforce the bann. Just read the bill yourself, that part is plain wording, that even us non-lawyers can understand.

You also sound like the casinos and their payment processors are going to be static in this whole thing, that is not going to happen, the smart ones will be changing and adapting on a daily basis.

Only the ISPs, will be handed a list of sites to remove or block.

 

[Rollo]

that is why he is the president, no one really listened to him before hand

Well, I'd like to believe it's passitivty but Bush won the most votes of any president in history and even the % turnout relative to total popualtion of voting age was historically very large. Bush has a very strong, active base (who think gambling is morally reprehensible, er, except when done in Vegas).

If he were allowed to run again, even after all the mess, he'd have a good chance of winning. America's simply moved to the right. Even most democrats now run on traditional republican themes nowadys.

 

[lots0]

If he were allowed to run again, even after all the mess, he'd have a good chance of winning.

Don't follow US politics much do you?

The latest poll numbers for Bush are in the toliet, under 35% and dropping fast, Bush could not win an election for dog catcher in his home town right now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Outdated URL (Invalid)

but Bush won the most votes of any president in history

I have no idea where you got that misinformation, but he did not even come close to Ike or JFK and even Gore received more actual votes than Bush 2002.

 

[Rollo]

The Bill as passed, does require the banks to police and enforce the bann

Could be I missed something... can you cite the speicifc passage in the law? It's attatched to this thead.

Still, I'm doubting this for this simple reason: banks are on record saying the regulations are not too burdensome. If they were forced to police the entire online world, I think they would be complaining loudy. There should be some links to such articles here in the thread somewhere. I posted one which indicated that the law doesn't even apply to checks.

I could be wrong, so let us know what sort of evidence (articles or passages from the bill) that support that and I'll convert.

 

[Rollo]

Don't follow US politics much do you?

Clinton was also extremely unpopular at one point (remember the Gingrich revolution of 1994?) as was Reagan in his first term. Bush is one terrorist attack/confrontation with Iran away from having approval ratings in the 60s. Yes, I do follow politics.

No need to get smart.

 

[soflat]

I'm pretty sure the banking lobby had a hand in developing the bill so it won't be too much of a burden and they won't have to identify each company processing gambling transactions individually.

Presumably, there will be a central database of processors to block, which will be compiled and updated by either the government or a private entity, then it is just plugged into the system and everything is blocked automatically.

The only catch is when people start calling and asking for legitimate transactions to be allowed to pass through the security. That might take some manpower initially.

 

[lots0]

Read section 5364 (a) of the Bill, located on page 231.

This section lays it all out and puts the enforcement burden on the Banks.

I am not going to post the bill my free copy of adobe will not allow me copy and paste and I aint going to pay adobe just so I can copy and paste, I despise adobe.

 

[lots0]

I'm pretty sure the banking lobby had a hand in developing the bill

If you have any evidence of that I would love to see it, got a link?

All the information I have is that the Banking Lobby had no more idea of this bills passage than we did.

>>> I don't think Bush starting another war is going to win him any elections or improve his poll numbers, it may get him impeached though, after this next election.

 

[Rollo]

No transcripts, the speech I heard was for a fund raiser in 2001 behind closed doors

You gave me a grilling for using the term "secretly" based on this? Dude...

I am not going to post the bill my free copy of adobe will not allow me copy and paste and I aint going to pay adobe just so I can copy and paste, I despise adobe.

How about typing us a few lines? Adobe can't charge you for using your fingers.

Ok, I'm the one getting smart now...

This section lays it all out and puts the enforcement burden on the Banks.

Enforcement seems to mean blocking transactions, this section doesn't say anything about banks being required to police (i.e. research and identify gambling operators). Based on my read, that is something that the Federal Reserve and the Attrorney General have 270 days to work out how to do. Anyone have a second opinion?

Anyway, I'd really like to believe it since you sound pretty certian and I'm always open to being totally wrong about any given subject at any given moment, but what you've come up with so far is what I'd call, um, not too convincing. Got anything else to fill out the billion dollar banking cost/policing theory?

By the way, what did Bush say about online gambling at the 2001 fundraiser?

 

[lots0]

How about typing us a few lines?

Are you nuts? Typing is sooo 1999...

You gave me a grilling for using the term "secretly" based on this? Dude...

I don't think I gave you a 'grilling' (not really sure what that means), if you think I did, Im sorry.

If I sounded a little harsh, I apologize, there is so much bull shit and rumor being said about this Bill I can't believe it, I have never seen anything like this in my life.

See, I have several dogs in this fight, so I hired a team of real lawyers, to look things over, cost me a bundle. I am not going to tell you what they said, but...

I am personally NOT going to close or move my affiliate sites out of the US. My sites are going to stay up inside the US until they come kick in my door and drag me off to prison. If the government won't let me make a living, I guess they can support and feed me.

I refuse to be cowed by all the rumors and bull shit floating around.

I have made what I consider to be a lot of money with online gambling and unlike others I am not going to give up ten years of work without a fight. For me this is not just an abstract discussion.

what did Bush say about online gambling at the 2001 fund raiser?

It was several years ago, so I don't remember word for word, but his entire speech was about his support of 'Family Values'.

BTW Rollo, I get the feeling you are a little right leaning yourself. Maybe you should ask yourself why I was invited to a Republican closed door fund raiser and I still get invitations to the same closed door speeches and fund raisers all the time...

 

[SlotsWizard]

Here is that section (I inserted periods to indent the text similar to the actual bill):

5364. Policies and procedures to identify and prevent restricted transactions

(a) REGULATIONS.Before the end of the 270-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this subchapter, the Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall prescribe regulations (which the Secretary and the Board jointly determine to be appropriate) requiring each designated payment system, and all participants therein, to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit restricted transactions through the establishment of policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit the acceptance of restricted transactions in any of the following ways:

...(1) The establishment of policies and procedures that

......(A) allow the payment system and any person involved
...... in the payment system to identify restricted transactions
...... by means of codes in authorization messages or by other means; and

......(B) block restricted transactions identified as a result of
...... the policies and procedures developed pursuant to subparagraph (A).

...(2) The establishment of policies and procedures that prevent or
... prohibit the acceptance of the products or services of the
... payment system in connection with a restricted transaction.

 

[Mousey]

requiring each designated payment system, and all participants therein, to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit restricted transactions through the establishment of policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit the acceptance of restricted transactions in any of the following ways:

...(1) The establishment of policies and procedures that—

......(A) allow the payment system and any person involved
...... in the payment system to identify restricted transactions
...... by means of codes in authorization messages or by other means; and

......(B) block restricted transactions identified as a result of
...... the policies and procedures developed pursuant to subparagraph (A).

Highlighted above are sections that get my back up... What "other means" ???

...(2) The establishment of policies and procedures that prevent or
... prohibit the acceptance of the products or services of the
... payment system in connection with a restricted transaction.

What does this mean?? It reads sort of weird to me. Players can't 'accept' products or services? (Like a withdrawal?) Or payment systems (NETeller) can't ? Or the casinos can't? Or the banks can't?

Hell... I'm sorry... The more I read this thing the less sense it makes.

I need coffee and valium...

 

[dominique]

Hell... I'm sorry... The more I read this thing the less sense it makes.

I need coffee and valium...

Me too.

It's too early to wrap my head around that.

 

[Westland Bowl]

What does this mean?? It reads sort of weird to me. Players can't 'accept' products or services? (Like a withdrawal?) Or payment systems (NETeller) can't ? Or the casinos can't? Or the banks can't?

Hell... I'm sorry... The more I read this thing the less sense it makes.

I need coffee and valium...

As typical of legal and government wording, some stuff is not meant to be clear to the average person on the street. (Not that you are just an "average" person....or mouse.)

...(2) The establishment of policies and procedures that prevent or
... prohibit the acceptance of the products or services of the
... payment system in connection with a restricted transaction

Ok, in this case "restricted transaction" is "a online bet" or "online casino" or "funding a casino account"...along those lines. Actually, elsewhere in the bill it's supposed to define what "restricted transaction" means.

The banks, credit card companies, etc must have or must develop some established (written) policies and procedures to prohibit (block) and reject any product or service coming from a payment system (Neteller, Firepay, EFT, wire, checks, etc) that is related to online betting or gambling,

Gummmit wording are infamous for run-on sentences.

 

[lots0]

What "other means" ???

In this context I believe it was worded this way so if the Banks came up with a different or ‘better’ system to identify and block transactions than they have written into the law, they would be able to implement this new and better system without having to amend the law.

Section 5362 Definitions section III (3)

(30 Designated Payment System.- The term ‘designated payment system’ means any system utilized by financial transaction provider that the Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in consultation with the Attorney General, jointly determine, by regulation or order, could be utilized in connection with, or to facilitate, any restricted transaction.

Now the next question would be; What is a restricted transaction?

Section 5362 Definitions section III (7)

Restricted Transaction.- The term “restricted transaction means any transaction or transmittal involving any credit, funds, instrument, or proceeds described in any paragraph of section 5363 which the recipient is prohibited from accepting under section 5363.

Both of these can be found on pages 220 and 221 of the Bill.

The “restricted transaction” part is where I believe there are a lot of grey areas. There are also a lot of carve outs for Horse Racing, Indian Casinos and Lotteries thrown in there that really confuse things.

 

[Rollo]

Sportingbet caved

Looks like Sportingbet caved into the pressure:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[SlotsWizard]

What does this mean??

I think it means it's time to move to the UK.

 

[Pinababy69]

I think it means it's time to move to the UK.

You don't like Canuck Land?

It's alot closer.

 

[SlotsWizard]

You don't like Canuck Land?

It's alot closer.

Well sure, it is, and no offense here... but the USD is weak enough... let alone the CAD...

As of this writing:

1 USD = 1.135700 CAD / 1 CAD = 0.880514 USD
1 GBP = 1.856790 USD / 1 USD = 0.538561 GBP
1 GBP = 2.108760 CAD / 1 CAD = 0.474210 GBP

 

[Rollo]

A bit of fallout news...

From Focal Click: "Sands of the Caribbean and Omni Casinos are no longer accepting players from the US. Luckily, our RTG casino, 49er Casino, has not banned players from the US if they're able to fund their accounts."

From Vegas Partners: "In the light of the recent US Safe Port Act, we would like to make the following announcement: that we will be continuing business as usual for the time being.

Fortune Affiliates doesn't even seem to have noticed anything as happened. Absolutely nothing from them... they should have gone into poker.

The vultures are circling... I've never got messages from folks wanting to buy my site before. My reaction is a big FU.

If it's illegal to accept US players, fine, I'll play ball by only advertising casinos that comply... but I see no need for anyone to pack it in. It's not illegal for American webmasters to market to say, Canadians. In fact, I'm moving my one lonely gambling site from Arizona to Toronto.

One safe route for Americans is to only place banners of operators that don't accept US players and leave the risky marketing to the rest of the world.

How are my fellow American webmasters planning to deal with things?

 

[SlotsWizard]

How are my fellow American webmasters planning to deal with things?

So far I have been gathering information, and only today started marking which casinos are US-friendly, which ones are somewhat US-friendly (only excluding states that have specific anti-online gaming laws) and those which have abandoned the US altogether.

I already have a mechanism in place that will block as much US traffic as possible, but that line of code is currently commented out right now. When doofus signs the bill I will likely uncomment it.

While I have already cancelled my hosting service, I still have the service for another 21 months (I prepaid 2 years) so I'm not moving it offshore yet. I can't imagine that I would get in trouble by blocking US traffic and marketing to non-US players.

 

[Rollo]

BTW Rollo, I get the feeling you are a little right leaning yourself.

- ha, I voted for Ralph Nader.

I studied political science as an undergrad and have two masters degrees in related fields so I try to keep up even though I haven't lived in the US for years. I can't help looking at things now analyitcally and as something of outsider.

I think that the the GOP has a highly effective political machine and are far more disciplined at election time than Democrats, plus they have what amounts to their own 24 spin machine in Fox. The GOP has a natural majority in the US becuase they all but control the south and western states (during the Dems long reign they held the South until beasically after LBJ's civil rights push and Nixon's subsequent "southern strategy" to capitalize on this which slowly stripped the South away from the Democrats); the GOP are far better at defining the parameters of the political debate... though I think they are going to get a big spanking this November. But I'd argue that's not becuase the Dems are doing well, it's becuase many outside events and many naked self-created failures are really hurting the GOP and they can't rely on their typical values-related wedge issues like gays and guns or call the Dems tax and spend (after their big-spending performance) ... but they (the GOP) generally run a much tighter political ship (I mean that as a pejorative) than the Democrats. It will be tough for the Deomocrats in 2008 under the best of conditions, but that doesn't mean they can't do it. But just as events can sink the GOP, it can bring them back to life as well. At the end of the day, Americans trust the Republicans more when they think they need a bunch of remorseless hard-asses to protect them from some threat real or imagined.

Anwway, way, way, way off topic.

 

[silcnlayc]

Now you know why the Ports Bill attachment by Frist!

U.S. Politics: Current Events

From Kathy Gill,
Data Show Enormity of Terrorism Pork Potential: A federal inspector general has analyzed the nation's database of top terrorist targets. There are more than 77,000 of them up from 160 a few years ago, before the entire exercise morphed into a congressional PORKFEST.

And on that list of national assets are ... 1,305 casinos! ... The list has 234 restaurants... here's more of what the inspector general found passes for "critical infrastructure." An ice-cream parlor. A tackle shop. A flea market. An Amish popcorn factory. Seven hundred mortuaries made the list. Terrorists know no limits if they're planning attacks on our dead people.

Be afraid people...with this government...be very afraid...for if the dead are a target.......is nothing scared????