Gambling and drinking...and I bet the little fella also gets his groove on with loose wimmin meece at some mhouse of ill repute too.
The filthy stinking CINO, RINO,!!
Posted on 03/15/2007 1:04:39 PM PDT by kms61
The Financial Times online edition (subscription required for full article) has noted from an interview that Barney Frank, the democratic House Financial Services Committee chairman, is working on legislation to repeal the ban on online gambling in the US that was passed last year. "Working on" is hard to define without more information
It is not clear at all if this is a "total repeal" or just a loosening of the laws. It is also a question as to whether or not this legislation could even make it to the White House through Congressional votes, and it is unclear of this would be for 2008 and beyond or if it was sooner. But either way, you have to look no further than Cryptologic (CRYP) to see how this could impact other stocks in the sector (they make online gaming software) if there is any truth to this. CRYP has even managed to defy a weak market if you look at the shares.
In Australia, companies like Betcorp and Lasseters Corp were hit hard last year because of the ban. In the UK, companies like PartyGaming Plc and 888 Holdings were also hit in 2006 over such issues. Gigamedia (GIGM) and American Wagering (BETM) were also noted in a story late yesterday along with pari-mutuel horseracing company Youbet.com (UBET). We have all missed the PartyPoker commercials as well.
Once again, take heed that "an interview" and "legislation" can be taken way out of context and there is always the possibility that this could be dead before it even gets started. My own call in so far has partially confirmed this, but with no details yet known. Many of the European online gaming stocks also made some rather large moves last week because of some loosening of regulations in the EU. There is not even assurance that it will make it to the form of a bill, so if you take any of this as "gospel" or as "fact" then the point has not been stressed enough that there may be no follow-through in reality.
I did put in a phone call to Congressman Frank's office and was told that this is true, but I have not been able to get the details from the Financial Services Committee as of yet. I am awaiting a call back to give more details.
Jon C. Ogg March 14, 2007
Jon Ogg can be reached at jonogg@247wallst.com; he does not own securities in the companies he covers.
You didn't address Hunter's ratings by Citizens Against Government Waste -- lifetime 70% (below-average for House Republicans) a lackluster 71% in 2006, and only 51%(!) in 2005: http://www.cagw.org/site/VoteCenter?page=legScore
You also didn't address Hunter's Yea votes for massive expansion of federal government entitlements.
Hunter's overall ACU rating doesn't interest me for the purposes of this discussion, which is solely about pork and fiscal conservatism. That said, Jeff Flake (the person who introduced the 19 anti-pork amendments, every one of which Hunter voted against) has a 100% ACU rating and is listed as a "Best and Brightest" by that organization.
You wrote: First, his amendments didn't pass. Most republicans voted against them. I have not found the text of each of the 19, but there must be a reason they were not accepted.
Yes, the reason is that congresscritters of both parties have been big-spending, pork-barrel politicians. However, the representatives that did support the amendments were overwhelmingly republican. Here are the stats:
-Of those who supported 100% of the Flake anti-pork amendments, 90% were Republicans, and 10% were Democrats.
-Of those who supported most of the amendments (74% or more), 94% were Republicans and 6% were Democrats
-Of those who supported more than half the amendments, 93% were Republicans and 7% were Democrats
On the other hand:
-Of those who supported less than 25% of the anti-pork amendments, 57% were Democrats and 43% were Republicans
-Of those who supported none of the anti-pork amendments -- including Duncan Hunter -- 60% were Democrats and 40% were Republicans.
One has to wonder about these posters who complain against the republican majority, not to mention sighting the club for growth, which is not conservative. http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2006/07/435_districts_435_blogs_agains.php
Here are just a few of the other Republicans who voted the same way as Hunter. I assume you would not vote for them either?? Blunt (MO -7) 0 of 19 0% R Boehner (OH-8) 0 of 19 0% R Goode (VA-5) 0 of 19 0% R Hyde (IL-6) 0 of 19 0% R King, P. (NY-3) 0 of 19 0% R McCaul (TX-10) 0 of 19 0% R Mica (FL-7) 0 of 19 0% R Smith, L. (TX-21) 0 of 19 0% R Weldon, C. (PA-7) 0 of 19 0%
I wouldn't vote for them if cutting federal spending was important to me (which it is). I also wouldn't vote for democrats who voted against every single one of the anti-pork amendments, including Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Sheila Jackson-Lee, William Jefferson, Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney, and Charlie Rangel.
Hunter may have many admirable qualities, but he's no fiscal conservative.
Just like the WOsD's, it was LEGAL before THEY made it criminal. Where was all the "heck" breaking loose? It wasn't. Blackbird.
Rather talibanish of you. Thanks for the insight. I had no idea I was standing so close to perfection such as you. Do you glow? Blackbird.
"There are still a few of us who stand up for traditional morality around here."
There's a VAST difference between standing for morality and the banning by government of various activities. For one thing, you are opening the door to having YOUR activities banned when the "wrong" people get into power. For another, the Constitution for the United States does NOT grant government any such authority, period. And, for yet another, I would wager (online or off) that you call yourself a Christian. So maybe you could point out where Jesus said that we should get Government to pass laws to do what He directed US to do, as His individual disciples? Please be specific. Where is such scripture located? I can't seem to find it in my Bible.
Uh yeah...stand up, hands ready with stones, right? I've never once seen you or those of like mind stand up for the constitution though.
Gambling and drinking...and I bet the little fella also gets his groove on with loose wimmin meece at some mhouse of ill repute too.
The filthy stinking CINO, RINO,!!
You do realize that if you truly believe that, you're a libertarian, right?
Poker Ping!
Freepmail me if you want on the Poker Ping list!
Thanks go out to SubGeniusX for the heads up.
Would I be able to drink a beer or have a glass of wine in your world?
Either way, the is stupid. If everyone is worried about kids gambling and the like, just make the requirements for proof of age much stricter.
Everyone is gambling with their money in their 401ks anyway. I would favor Internet gambling to be legislated by the states where the gaming site actually resides.
It was legal, and in fact, all Hell did not break loose.
This is hysterical!
Thank god social conservatives like you are going to go the way of the do-do.....
I’m going to Vegas in a couple of weeks, and I’ll be playing slots while sipping on champagne. I’m using the money that I earned from my PART-TIME JOB for the trip. Do I have the your permission, oh great Taliban?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.