- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 4, 2006 at 8:02 pm #596035AnonymousInactive
Was watching CNN today and they reported that Congress has adjourned for their summer break as of today. Apparently they are out for a full month and once they are back they have a scant 15 days of work left before the elections. It would seem this leaves little to no time for a vote on HR4411.
August 4, 2006 at 8:40 pm #701069AnonymousInactiveYep.
I get to say it a couple times more?
I TOLD YOU SO!
Hehe, I am going to milk this for all it’s worth!
August 4, 2006 at 8:49 pm #701071AnonymousInactiveNevermind, edited.
August 4, 2006 at 9:56 pm #701077AnonymousInactiveIt’s on the schedule of things Frist wants to accomplish when they return:
http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dynamic/News.php?NewsID=37381&lang=fra&NewsRubrique=2
Only good news is that he doesn’t mention any extension past the 15 remaining days. Also, there are currently holds on the bill so unless Kyl manages to overcome the oppositions over the break, 15 days won’t be enough time accomplish much.August 5, 2006 at 7:06 am #701100AnonymousInactiveNice find Erik.
As the Senate begins a four-week recess, Frist laid out his agenda for September, which will include port security legislation, completion of the annual budget for the Defense Department, a bill banning certain types of Internet gambling and legislation codifying court procedures for military prisoners held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
Hmm, which of these just doesn’t seem quite as important as the others?
Dom, I can’t wait until your “I Told You So’s” are in stone.
August 5, 2006 at 11:07 am #701106AnonymousInactiveStill on the list, so it ain’t over til it’s over, but I’ll be the 1st one to thank Dominique for her words of wisdom, if we get around this.
My take on what’s going on:
– BetOnSports not showing up to court is a bold statement. My guess
is it was on the advisement of their attorneys, who are adept at
international extradition laws. Their response was a good one for us.– The noted “holds” on this legislation (from some notables, including
Republican Senators) is going to make it very hard to move this in a
15-day period.– The Republican party (more in favor of this legislation than the Dems
currently) are in jeopardy of losing some elections, and potentially
losing majority in the Senate. This means that we can be rest
assured that they DEFINITELY will be going home to campaign for
the election (of course, only 1/3 of them are up for re-election this
year, given the 6-year-terms).All in all, I’d say things look good for us in the short-term (this year), but before I give Dominique a big hug, I want to be definitively sure. As I’m sure you can tell from prior posts, I DO NOT TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT, and anything is still within the realm of possibility.
August 5, 2006 at 2:15 pm #701119AnonymousInactivewebber286 wrote:Dom, I can’t wait until your “I Told You So’s” are in stone.Darn, I’ll be eating rocks if I’m wrong after all!
August 5, 2006 at 10:15 pm #701151AnonymousInactiveSo the very interesting question is:
So how long can a Senator put a hold on bill so it do not move anywhere.´
Anybody know?
We know that there are a few Sentators that dont want bill and already put a hold on bill.Can a hold be declined or not by The Majority Leader and what options do the Sentators that have put a hold then have, if The Majority Leader not follow the Senator’s hold wishes ?:
Anybody know?
From Senate website about a hold:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/hold.htm
hold – An informal practice by which a Senator informs his or her floor leader that he or she does not wish a particular bill or other measure to reach the floor for consideration. The Majority Leader need not follow the Senator’s wishes, but is on notice that the opposing Senator may filibuster any motion to proceed to consider the measure.August 5, 2006 at 10:31 pm #701153AnonymousInactiveDon’t forget the impact of this:
August 5, 2006 at 11:51 pm #701159AnonymousInactiveNice find, Dominique !!!
August 6, 2006 at 7:01 am #701181AnonymousInactiveI found this quote particularly interesting.
We urge Congress to recognize that the nation’s banks have already taken on major responsibilities to help detect and prevent terrorist financing and illegal money laundering. Attempting to monitor and block gambling transactions, particularly given the limits of the current payment technology, could detract from those efforts.
So, the very reason for banning internet gambling (terrorists and money launderers) could actually make the situation worse overall.
August 6, 2006 at 12:45 pm #701201AnonymousInactiveAugust 6, 2006 at 3:20 pm #701205AnonymousInactiveDominique wrote:Don’t forget the impact of this:http://www.icba.org/files/ICBASites/PDFs/ltr072806.pdf
Unfortunately the icba isn’t a very strong lobby, but the US Chamber Of Commerce IS & they want the bill amended: http://casinocitytimes.com/news/article.cfm?contentID=160135
August 6, 2006 at 3:47 pm #701207AnonymousInactiveCool!!!
August 6, 2006 at 9:00 pm #701230AnonymousInactiveThanks for link dominique
-
AuthorPosts