Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Select your timezone:
Manne wrote:
It wasn’t exactly the most romantic kiss, especially after a 33 hours of a lip-numbing smooching session, but New Jersey buddies Matt Daley and Bobby Canciello proudly set the Guinness World Record for the longest kiss on record this past weekend in New Jersey – beating out last year’s winners who kissed for 32 hours and 7 minutes.
While the event may sound a bit flowery and fun, the two College of New Jersey students had to prepare both mentally and physically for the lip locked event. Keep in mind that there were no bathroom breaks, no sleep, no meals and had to stand before their college campus while kissing from Saturday morning to Sunday night. While it almost sounds physically impossible to kiss for that long, the two underwent physical training and had to undergo some detox methods that would deter them from needing to use the facilities. That was a good plan since according to the Guiness World Record officials, the two were not allowed to use any diapers.
The entire event was recorded and posted via UStream for the Guinness World Records committee to review which they will then determine if the record was officially set.
The two record holders who admit to being gay are just friends and according to the Gawker, their mission was to “queer the Guinness World Records.”
Bet on the latest celebrity props at Bodog Sports anytime you feel the need to dive into the Hollywood scene. Get your celebrity kicks at Bodog Sports today! 😄
Laugh Out Loud ! =)
Join:
2010/08/21
Messages:
152
NinjaSkija wrote:
Laugh Out Loud ! =)
Man thats one long smooch,lmao. wheres the chapstick......
Join:
2009/07/05
Messages:
148
After making us viewers relive the good, the bad and The Situation, Dancing with the Stars officially saw its first elimination. And sadly, David Hasselhoff has feigned his last orgasm face. Yes, his dancing days are over on Dancing with the Stars and his short-lived stint on the show was, in a nutshell, uber embarrassing. During an excruciating minute and a half, he humped the air to "Sex Bomb" while making faces that should only be reserved for the brothels. It was quite a cha-cha.
"You dance with your mouth more than you dance with your body," judge Cari Ann Inaba had told Hasselhoff.
"It was like a potpourri of insanity disguised as dance," Bruno Tonioli had told the star.
Upon his elimination, Hasselhoff said, "It's been a great ride. I feel bad for Kym [Johnson] because she worked so hard to try to get me where I was going. I'm just so proud that my daughters are here and they saw me go this far."
Joining The Hoff in the bottom three was The Situation, who had only rehearsed for five days before the live performance and comedian Margaret Cho, who poked fun at herself by intentionally flubbing her routine.
As for Bristol Palin, she will be rehearsing her next dance in Alaska and said it was "a bummer" that her mom wasn't able to see her dancing debut in person.
"Hopefully she'll be here for the next week," Bristol said.
With the premiere episode scoring an unprecedented 21 million viewers, this season of Dancing with the Stars is a ratings hit. And despite his sexy faces and questionable dance moves, we will miss The Hoff on future episodes. Want to make some cash from the show? Get your Dancing with the Stars odds in the Bodog Sportsbook today.
😄
"You dance with your mouth more than you dance with your body," judge Cari Ann Inaba had told Hasselhoff.
"It was like a potpourri of insanity disguised as dance," Bruno Tonioli had told the star.
Upon his elimination, Hasselhoff said, "It's been a great ride. I feel bad for Kym [Johnson] because she worked so hard to try to get me where I was going. I'm just so proud that my daughters are here and they saw me go this far."
Joining The Hoff in the bottom three was The Situation, who had only rehearsed for five days before the live performance and comedian Margaret Cho, who poked fun at herself by intentionally flubbing her routine.
As for Bristol Palin, she will be rehearsing her next dance in Alaska and said it was "a bummer" that her mom wasn't able to see her dancing debut in person.
"Hopefully she'll be here for the next week," Bristol said.
With the premiere episode scoring an unprecedented 21 million viewers, this season of Dancing with the Stars is a ratings hit. And despite his sexy faces and questionable dance moves, we will miss The Hoff on future episodes. Want to make some cash from the show? Get your Dancing with the Stars odds in the Bodog Sportsbook today.
😄
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Sportingbet shares jumped 10pc after the company agreed to pay $33m (£21m) to protect itself from prosecution in the US in a move that is likely to thrust the online gaming group into the takeover spotlight.
The company said it had signed an agreement with legal authorities acting on behalf of the Department of Justice. The deal gives Sportingbet protection after it provided internet gaming services prior to the passing of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in October 2006.
Sportingbet said it would pay the fine in three instalments, with an initial payment of $15m this month.
Andrew McIver, chief executive, said the company could now "draw a line" under its US position and that a deal made sense, given the likely effect on the shares. Sportingbet rose 7¼ to 77¼p, adding £36m to the company's value.
Analysts suggested the removal of uncertainty would also thrust Sportingbet into the M&A spotlight, with a takeover by proposed merger partners Partygaming and Bwin a potential scenario.
Mr McIver said Sportingbet was "first on the list of rumours" but said the "company isn't for sale... no one is looking at us and we're not looking at anyone".
:dirol
The company said it had signed an agreement with legal authorities acting on behalf of the Department of Justice. The deal gives Sportingbet protection after it provided internet gaming services prior to the passing of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in October 2006.
Sportingbet said it would pay the fine in three instalments, with an initial payment of $15m this month.
Andrew McIver, chief executive, said the company could now "draw a line" under its US position and that a deal made sense, given the likely effect on the shares. Sportingbet rose 7¼ to 77¼p, adding £36m to the company's value.
Analysts suggested the removal of uncertainty would also thrust Sportingbet into the M&A spotlight, with a takeover by proposed merger partners Partygaming and Bwin a potential scenario.
Mr McIver said Sportingbet was "first on the list of rumours" but said the "company isn't for sale... no one is looking at us and we're not looking at anyone".
:dirol
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Representative Barney Frank painted a grim picture last week for the millions of people in the US that were looking forward to an overhaul of the US online gambling laws. Rep. Frank asserted that he did not believe his Internet gambling legislation would reach the House floor before November.
The mid-term election is on the minds of many lawmakers, and controversial issues such as online gambling are usually not discussed by Congress this close to an election. The opportunity for the other party to jump on a stance on such an issue could be devastating to incumbents.
Although it seems as though Frank's bill will not be discussed, there is still the possibility that online gambling regulations could be approved this session, and the regulations may come the same way that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act came to fruition.
Back in 2006, a majority Republican Congress attached the UIGEA to a port security bill. That allowed the Republican leadership to push through the online gambling laws without having to have a full debate over the issue. In the years since the UIGEA was approved, financial institutions have voiced concern over the law.
The UIGEA places the burden of policing online gambling on financial institutions. The institutions, according to the law, must block transactions to and from online gambling sites. It is a task that many of the institutions have flat out said was impossible.
Rep. Frank has proposed legislation that would overturn the UIGEA, and the bill has already passed the House Financial Services Committee. With Frank understanding that time is short and the agenda of the House is long, there may only be one way to get his bill passed this session.
"There is a growing number of lawmakers who believe that Frank's bill may have its best shot this year if attached to another, more high profile bill," said Gaming Analyst Steve Schwartz. "With Congress aiming to tackle the Bush tax cuts and create a jobs bill this year, it makes sense that a bill that would generate jobs and revenue, such as Frank's, could be part of those discussions as an add-on."
It is estimated that the Internet gambling tax revenue would equal $72 billion over a ten year period. The support in the past couple of years for online gambling regulations has crossed party lines, with both Republicans and Democrats now supporting the regulation plan.
:dirol
The mid-term election is on the minds of many lawmakers, and controversial issues such as online gambling are usually not discussed by Congress this close to an election. The opportunity for the other party to jump on a stance on such an issue could be devastating to incumbents.
Although it seems as though Frank's bill will not be discussed, there is still the possibility that online gambling regulations could be approved this session, and the regulations may come the same way that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act came to fruition.
Back in 2006, a majority Republican Congress attached the UIGEA to a port security bill. That allowed the Republican leadership to push through the online gambling laws without having to have a full debate over the issue. In the years since the UIGEA was approved, financial institutions have voiced concern over the law.
The UIGEA places the burden of policing online gambling on financial institutions. The institutions, according to the law, must block transactions to and from online gambling sites. It is a task that many of the institutions have flat out said was impossible.
Rep. Frank has proposed legislation that would overturn the UIGEA, and the bill has already passed the House Financial Services Committee. With Frank understanding that time is short and the agenda of the House is long, there may only be one way to get his bill passed this session.
"There is a growing number of lawmakers who believe that Frank's bill may have its best shot this year if attached to another, more high profile bill," said Gaming Analyst Steve Schwartz. "With Congress aiming to tackle the Bush tax cuts and create a jobs bill this year, it makes sense that a bill that would generate jobs and revenue, such as Frank's, could be part of those discussions as an add-on."
It is estimated that the Internet gambling tax revenue would equal $72 billion over a ten year period. The support in the past couple of years for online gambling regulations has crossed party lines, with both Republicans and Democrats now supporting the regulation plan.
:dirol
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Manne wrote:
Representative Barney Frank painted a grim picture last week for the millions of people in the US that were looking forward to an overhaul of the US online gambling laws. Rep. Frank asserted that he did not believe his Internet gambling legislation would reach the House floor before November.
The mid-term election is on the minds of many lawmakers, and controversial issues such as online gambling are usually not discussed by Congress this close to an election. The opportunity for the other party to jump on a stance on such an issue could be devastating to incumbents.
Although it seems as though Frank's bill will not be discussed, there is still the possibility that online gambling regulations could be approved this session, and the regulations may come the same way that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act came to fruition.
Back in 2006, a majority Republican Congress attached the UIGEA to a port security bill. That allowed the Republican leadership to push through the online gambling laws without having to have a full debate over the issue. In the years since the UIGEA was approved, financial institutions have voiced concern over the law.
The UIGEA places the burden of policing online gambling on financial institutions. The institutions, according to the law, must block transactions to and from online gambling sites. It is a task that many of the institutions have flat out said was impossible.
Rep. Frank has proposed legislation that would overturn the UIGEA, and the bill has already passed the House Financial Services Committee. With Frank understanding that time is short and the agenda of the House is long, there may only be one way to get his bill passed this session.
"There is a growing number of lawmakers who believe that Frank's bill may have its best shot this year if attached to another, more high profile bill," said Gaming Analyst Steve Schwartz. "With Congress aiming to tackle the Bush tax cuts and create a jobs bill this year, it makes sense that a bill that would generate jobs and revenue, such as Frank's, could be part of those discussions as an add-on."
It is estimated that the Internet gambling tax revenue would equal $72 billion over a ten year period. The support in the past couple of years for online gambling regulations has crossed party lines, with both Republicans and Democrats now supporting the regulation plan.
:dirol
The USA government sure could use the extra tax income from online poker,I dont see why they are not running to take advantage of this great opportunity.
A fund could be set up for gamblin addicts from the procedes too,for those with a gambling problem.Sooner or later I believe the UIGEA will be overturned,so hang in there and make your voice heard,whichever way you decide.
U.S. Senate
A fund could be set up for gamblin addicts from the procedes too,for those with a gambling problem.Sooner or later I believe the UIGEA will be overturned,so hang in there and make your voice heard,whichever way you decide.
U.S. Senate
Join:
2008/11/07
Messages:
145
After 200 shows and three years of performing at the Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, Cher has announced that her final performance will be on February 5, 2011. The 65-year-old star is moving on to bigger and better things including a new tour promoting her new album and a new burlesque flick.
Cher had signed on to head her show titled “Cher” back in 2009 and she was hailed for “bringing plenty of glitz and costumes” generally associated with her eccentric performances. Cher’s 90 minute show was choreographed by Doriana Sanchez, who was recognized for her work during Cher’s Living Proof tour and garnered 4 Emmy awards for her stage work. Doriana’s style and addition of spectacular costumes, designed by Bob Mackie, added to the luster and pizzazz of the show.
Cher made an announcement today of her decision to leave Vegas and will be involved in new projects including a tour promoting her new album. The album name is yet to be released but she is set to release her title track, “Already Been There” at the World Music Awards in 2011.
Fans of Cher can also see her in the movie Burlesque which also stars Christina Aguilera, who plays a small town girl who heads to Hollywood to become a singing sensation and instead learns the art of burlesque under the tutelage of Cher. The movie also stars Stanley Tucci, Kristen Bell and Cam Gigandet and is due for release sometime in November.
Cher had signed on to head her show titled “Cher” back in 2009 and she was hailed for “bringing plenty of glitz and costumes” generally associated with her eccentric performances. Cher’s 90 minute show was choreographed by Doriana Sanchez, who was recognized for her work during Cher’s Living Proof tour and garnered 4 Emmy awards for her stage work. Doriana’s style and addition of spectacular costumes, designed by Bob Mackie, added to the luster and pizzazz of the show.
Cher made an announcement today of her decision to leave Vegas and will be involved in new projects including a tour promoting her new album. The album name is yet to be released but she is set to release her title track, “Already Been There” at the World Music Awards in 2011.
Fans of Cher can also see her in the movie Burlesque which also stars Christina Aguilera, who plays a small town girl who heads to Hollywood to become a singing sensation and instead learns the art of burlesque under the tutelage of Cher. The movie also stars Stanley Tucci, Kristen Bell and Cam Gigandet and is due for release sometime in November.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
The wait is over guys, Ryan Seacrest announced the new American Idol judges in a press conference given live via UStream. The new judges will join Randy Jackson for Season 10 of American Idol and will replace former judges Simon Cowell, Ellen DeGeneres and Kara DioGuardi.
The first judge to be revealed was Aerosmith lead singer, Steven Tyler who claims he wants to “bring some rock to this rollercoaster.” It sounds like this deal was arranged a long time ago but somehow they managed to keep us all in limbo. The 62 year-old rocker is a true veteran of the rock music scene and should provide some valuable input for Idol hopefuls.
The second judge to be announced was Jennifer Lopez, who managed to arrange a $12 million deal for her first year as an Idol judge. Not bad Jenny! According to US Magazine, she almost dropped out especially after all the buzz of her outrageous demands but in the end it seemed like the $12 million kind of took the edge off.
Will the new set of Idol judges have good chemistry? Sounds like a good bunch but Simon Cowell’s sharp humor and commentary will definitely be missed. Auditions for American Idol Season 10 are on now in Los Angeles…..any takers? :dirol
The first judge to be revealed was Aerosmith lead singer, Steven Tyler who claims he wants to “bring some rock to this rollercoaster.” It sounds like this deal was arranged a long time ago but somehow they managed to keep us all in limbo. The 62 year-old rocker is a true veteran of the rock music scene and should provide some valuable input for Idol hopefuls.
The second judge to be announced was Jennifer Lopez, who managed to arrange a $12 million deal for her first year as an Idol judge. Not bad Jenny! According to US Magazine, she almost dropped out especially after all the buzz of her outrageous demands but in the end it seemed like the $12 million kind of took the edge off.
Will the new set of Idol judges have good chemistry? Sounds like a good bunch but Simon Cowell’s sharp humor and commentary will definitely be missed. Auditions for American Idol Season 10 are on now in Los Angeles…..any takers? :dirol
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Rep. Barney Frank, the driving force in Congress behind legislation that would legalize and regulate online poker and gambling, says that the bill likely will not become law during the current session of Congress.
Frank (D-Mass.) is the chairman of the House of Representatives’ Financial Services Committee, is the author of H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act. Although the bill has already cleared his committee, Frank told The Hill, a publication that follows Congress, that the bill probably will not see any action before Congressional elections in November.
Here’s an excerpt from the story from The Hill on Frank and the legislation:
Frank said he wants to see a floor vote on the legislation but, noting the cramped House floor schedule, indicated it would be tough to move his bill this month.
“I’m not optimistic,” Frank told The Hill.
Frank said he doesn’t have a commitment from House leadership officials that they would move the bill before the lame-duck session.
According to the story, Frank has talked to Democratic members of the Senate about moving a similar bill in the other chamber of Congress, but there has been no movement on that as of yet.
There is a possibility that the bill could be added to another bill, related to taxes or job creation, during the lame-duck session following the elections, according to a source in the article.
Another problem facing HR 2267 is the fact that HR 2268, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act, has not seen any action in the House of Representatives. That bill was sponsored by Jim McDermott (D-Wash.).
In related news, the Commerce Casino chief executive officer Haig Papaian did an interview with pokernewsdaily.com about H.R. 2267. Commerce and the other California casinos have been united in their opposition to the bill. The Poker Players Alliance, poker players and the casinos have been trading barbs through the media regarding the legislation.
Here’s some of what Papaian said.
We’re going to do everything we can to ensure it doesn’t become law. We’re not against online poker; we only want legalized online poker. We also have an issue with offshore companies coming in and taking over the industry. As President of the Commerce, I am part of a group of card clubs and tribes that are for poker-only bills in the state of California. For the PPA to say that we’re against online poker – that’s ridiculous.
Stay tuned for updates on the legislation. :dirol
Frank (D-Mass.) is the chairman of the House of Representatives’ Financial Services Committee, is the author of H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act. Although the bill has already cleared his committee, Frank told The Hill, a publication that follows Congress, that the bill probably will not see any action before Congressional elections in November.
Here’s an excerpt from the story from The Hill on Frank and the legislation:
Frank said he wants to see a floor vote on the legislation but, noting the cramped House floor schedule, indicated it would be tough to move his bill this month.
“I’m not optimistic,” Frank told The Hill.
Frank said he doesn’t have a commitment from House leadership officials that they would move the bill before the lame-duck session.
According to the story, Frank has talked to Democratic members of the Senate about moving a similar bill in the other chamber of Congress, but there has been no movement on that as of yet.
There is a possibility that the bill could be added to another bill, related to taxes or job creation, during the lame-duck session following the elections, according to a source in the article.
Another problem facing HR 2267 is the fact that HR 2268, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act, has not seen any action in the House of Representatives. That bill was sponsored by Jim McDermott (D-Wash.).
In related news, the Commerce Casino chief executive officer Haig Papaian did an interview with pokernewsdaily.com about H.R. 2267. Commerce and the other California casinos have been united in their opposition to the bill. The Poker Players Alliance, poker players and the casinos have been trading barbs through the media regarding the legislation.
Here’s some of what Papaian said.
We’re going to do everything we can to ensure it doesn’t become law. We’re not against online poker; we only want legalized online poker. We also have an issue with offshore companies coming in and taking over the industry. As President of the Commerce, I am part of a group of card clubs and tribes that are for poker-only bills in the state of California. For the PPA to say that we’re against online poker – that’s ridiculous.
Stay tuned for updates on the legislation. :dirol
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Manne wrote:
Rep. Barney Frank, the driving force in Congress behind legislation that would legalize and regulate online poker and gambling, says that the bill likely will not become law during the current session of Congress.
Frank (D-Mass.) is the chairman of the House of Representatives’ Financial Services Committee, is the author of H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act. Although the bill has already cleared his committee, Frank told The Hill, a publication that follows Congress, that the bill probably will not see any action before Congressional elections in November.
Here’s an excerpt from the story from The Hill on Frank and the legislation:
Frank said he wants to see a floor vote on the legislation but, noting the cramped House floor schedule, indicated it would be tough to move his bill this month.
“I’m not optimistic,” Frank told The Hill.
Frank said he doesn’t have a commitment from House leadership officials that they would move the bill before the lame-duck session.
According to the story, Frank has talked to Democratic members of the Senate about moving a similar bill in the other chamber of Congress, but there has been no movement on that as of yet.
There is a possibility that the bill could be added to another bill, related to taxes or job creation, during the lame-duck session following the elections, according to a source in the article.
Another problem facing HR 2267 is the fact that HR 2268, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act, has not seen any action in the House of Representatives. That bill was sponsored by Jim McDermott (D-Wash.).
In related news, the Commerce Casino chief executive officer Haig Papaian did an interview with pokernewsdaily.com about H.R. 2267. Commerce and the other California casinos have been united in their opposition to the bill. The Poker Players Alliance, poker players and the casinos have been trading barbs through the media regarding the legislation.
Here’s some of what Papaian said.
We’re going to do everything we can to ensure it doesn’t become law. We’re not against online poker; we only want legalized online poker. We also have an issue with offshore companies coming in and taking over the industry. As President of the Commerce, I am part of a group of card clubs and tribes that are for poker-only bills in the state of California. For the PPA to say that we’re against online poker – that’s ridiculous.
Stay tuned for updates on the legislation. :dirol
Keeping us informed. Thanks for the update. :thumbsup
Join:
2009/03/29
Messages:
399
A year and a half later after Joaquin Phoenix’s wacko performance on the Late Show with David Letterman, he appeared on his show last night to apologize for his odd behavior. The hobo-like Joaquin shocked his fans by appearing on Dave’s show with a thick beard, long hair, dark glasses acting completely unresponsive to any of Dave’s questions, which drove him mad.
Joaquin returned to Dave’s show a year and a half later nicely groomed and completely coherent to apologize to Dave and explain the reason behind his behavior. It turns out that Joaquin was in character for an upcoming mockumentary, I’m Still Here, which he created together with his brother-in-law Casey Affleck, but at the time no one really knew the origins of the project which left everyone wondering if Joaquin had flipped.
After the apology, he took a bit of a beating from Dave but it was all in good fun. Here’s what Joaquin had to say:
"I mean, I think that you've interviewed many, many people, and I assumed that you would know the difference between a character and a real person, so — but I apologize. I didn't — I hope I didn't offend you in any way."
It turns out Dave wasn’t offended, why should he be after all the attention he received after the interview. He explained how it was actually pretty fun since he kept asking Joaquin questions that would lead nowhere. “It was batting practice, you know what I mean? Every one of them was a dinger,” he said.
It seemed that Dave was more interested in finding out if he used the footage of the interview in the film and that he expects “a little something for that.” I suspect he was just kidding, I mean Joaquin was overdue for a little ball busting from Dave wasn't he?
Bet on the latest celebrity props at Bodog Sports anytime you feel the need to dive into the Hollywood scene. Get your celebrity kicks at Bodog Sports today!
Joaquin returned to Dave’s show a year and a half later nicely groomed and completely coherent to apologize to Dave and explain the reason behind his behavior. It turns out that Joaquin was in character for an upcoming mockumentary, I’m Still Here, which he created together with his brother-in-law Casey Affleck, but at the time no one really knew the origins of the project which left everyone wondering if Joaquin had flipped.
After the apology, he took a bit of a beating from Dave but it was all in good fun. Here’s what Joaquin had to say:
"I mean, I think that you've interviewed many, many people, and I assumed that you would know the difference between a character and a real person, so — but I apologize. I didn't — I hope I didn't offend you in any way."
It turns out Dave wasn’t offended, why should he be after all the attention he received after the interview. He explained how it was actually pretty fun since he kept asking Joaquin questions that would lead nowhere. “It was batting practice, you know what I mean? Every one of them was a dinger,” he said.
It seemed that Dave was more interested in finding out if he used the footage of the interview in the film and that he expects “a little something for that.” I suspect he was just kidding, I mean Joaquin was overdue for a little ball busting from Dave wasn't he?
Bet on the latest celebrity props at Bodog Sports anytime you feel the need to dive into the Hollywood scene. Get your celebrity kicks at Bodog Sports today!
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Democratic leaders have for four years been championing the cause to overturn the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. Although leaders such as Representative Barney Frank have appeared as allies to the industry of millions of Americans, they have done nothing to change the laws.
As the new election cycle comes into full swing, Rep. Frank and other Democrats are up against the wall on overturning the UIGEA. Frank has proposed legislation that has made it through the House financial services Committee, but he has yet to advance the bill to the House floor, and he acknowledges that may not happen before the mid-term election.
"I'm not optimistic," said Frank in an interview with The Hill, when speaking about the prospects of H.R. 2267 passing this session. It would be another delay and one that may start costing the Democrats votes in November.
For years, Democrats have held the vote of millions of online poker players that had hoped that by supporting these officials, the current laws would be changed. With nothing getting done, some supporters of Frank and other Democrats may turn their attention to the economy.
"If the economy is taking center stage and the Democrats do not have time to fit in our agenda of changing the online poker laws, then I am going to have to reassess who I vote for in the upcoming election," said Maury Bell. "It has been a frustrating four years, and I'm not going to allow them (Democrats) to hold my vote hostage any more on the hope that they might make my issue a priority."
This November, the Democrats are faced with the possibility of losing the majority in both the House and the Senate. The Senate majority appears more stable, with the Tea Party candidates likely to cost Republicans the majority in the chamber.
In the House, however, there is a real possibility that the Democrats would lose control. if that occurs, the chances of the UIGEA being overturned in the next two years would be slim. Even with bi-partisan support, it is likely that Rep. Spencer Bacchus and anti-online gambling regulation lawmakers would keep Frank's bill from passing.
There is still a chance that during the lame duck session that Frank's bill gains steam. There also is the possibility that the Democrats attach Frank's bill to a jobs creation bill before the November election. If that does not happen, it could mean the balance of power will shift in the House with thousands of people in the US possibly switching their allegiances during the election. :dirol
As the new election cycle comes into full swing, Rep. Frank and other Democrats are up against the wall on overturning the UIGEA. Frank has proposed legislation that has made it through the House financial services Committee, but he has yet to advance the bill to the House floor, and he acknowledges that may not happen before the mid-term election.
"I'm not optimistic," said Frank in an interview with The Hill, when speaking about the prospects of H.R. 2267 passing this session. It would be another delay and one that may start costing the Democrats votes in November.
For years, Democrats have held the vote of millions of online poker players that had hoped that by supporting these officials, the current laws would be changed. With nothing getting done, some supporters of Frank and other Democrats may turn their attention to the economy.
"If the economy is taking center stage and the Democrats do not have time to fit in our agenda of changing the online poker laws, then I am going to have to reassess who I vote for in the upcoming election," said Maury Bell. "It has been a frustrating four years, and I'm not going to allow them (Democrats) to hold my vote hostage any more on the hope that they might make my issue a priority."
This November, the Democrats are faced with the possibility of losing the majority in both the House and the Senate. The Senate majority appears more stable, with the Tea Party candidates likely to cost Republicans the majority in the chamber.
In the House, however, there is a real possibility that the Democrats would lose control. if that occurs, the chances of the UIGEA being overturned in the next two years would be slim. Even with bi-partisan support, it is likely that Rep. Spencer Bacchus and anti-online gambling regulation lawmakers would keep Frank's bill from passing.
There is still a chance that during the lame duck session that Frank's bill gains steam. There also is the possibility that the Democrats attach Frank's bill to a jobs creation bill before the November election. If that does not happen, it could mean the balance of power will shift in the House with thousands of people in the US possibly switching their allegiances during the election. :dirol
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
There's not a lot of justice in the world when Lindsay Lohan, who has learned that she can constantly break the law and violate her parole, is back on the street after serving less than a day in prison. Although she had been sentenced to serve 28 days, Lohan was released last night after posting $300,000 bail.
To try and avoid another early release for Lohan, Judge Elden Fox had denied her bail and she was immediately taken into custody following her hearing. Fox had made this move to keep Lohan in jail until her October 22 court date, but his plan was promptly foiled when Lohan's lawyer, Shawn Chapman Holley, insisted Lohan deserved bail and another judge, Patricia M. Schnegg, overturned Fox's ruling. Lohan is still due back in court next month.
During Lohan's last jail sentence, the floundering starlet served just 13 days of a 90-day sentence and 23 days of an additional 90-day court-ordered rehab.
Now free to engage in all things Lohan, she is required to wear a SCRAM bracelet and avoid venues where alcohol is the "chief item of sale." Lohan has worn a SCRAM before, which went off at an MTV Movie Awards afterparty (where alcohol was probably the chief item of sale).
Now if you bet that Lindsay Lohan would go back to jail in Bodog's celebrity betting section, congratulations! You won your bet – even if she did only go for one day. Bodog's also got odds on whether Kate Gosselin will marry her bodyguard, whether or not Jennifer Lopez will get canned from American Idol and which celebrity couple will be next to split.
:dirol
To try and avoid another early release for Lohan, Judge Elden Fox had denied her bail and she was immediately taken into custody following her hearing. Fox had made this move to keep Lohan in jail until her October 22 court date, but his plan was promptly foiled when Lohan's lawyer, Shawn Chapman Holley, insisted Lohan deserved bail and another judge, Patricia M. Schnegg, overturned Fox's ruling. Lohan is still due back in court next month.
During Lohan's last jail sentence, the floundering starlet served just 13 days of a 90-day sentence and 23 days of an additional 90-day court-ordered rehab.
Now free to engage in all things Lohan, she is required to wear a SCRAM bracelet and avoid venues where alcohol is the "chief item of sale." Lohan has worn a SCRAM before, which went off at an MTV Movie Awards afterparty (where alcohol was probably the chief item of sale).
Now if you bet that Lindsay Lohan would go back to jail in Bodog's celebrity betting section, congratulations! You won your bet – even if she did only go for one day. Bodog's also got odds on whether Kate Gosselin will marry her bodyguard, whether or not Jennifer Lopez will get canned from American Idol and which celebrity couple will be next to split.
:dirol
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
The Washington State Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday to uphold the state’s ban on Internet gambling. The court found that the ban on online gambling does not violate the United States Constitution.
The lawsuit was brought by Lee Rousso, an attorney and online poker player from Washington, who argued that the ban violated the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. However, the court did not agree. According to Justice Richard B. Sanders, who wrote the decision, the state Legislature "balanced public policy concerns and determined the interests of Washington are best served by banning Internet gambling."
However, Sanders also pointed out that the court’s decision shouldn’t be seen as an endorsement of the ban – only an endorsement of the Legislature’s right to enact such a ban. Pointing out that both an outright ban on online gambling and regulating the gambling market had merits, Sanders pointed out that it wasn’t entirely clear what the best choice was in the court’s opinion, saying that “the evidence is not conclusive.”
The Poker Players Alliance, along with Rousso, released a statement reflecting their disappointment at the ruling that was issued.
"Poker players in this state need to make their voices heard,” Rousso said. “Now more than ever we need to rally together to fight this outrageous law. I hope the poker community will stand with me as I appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court."
PPA Chairman Alfonse D’Amato reasserted the PPA’s commitment to fighting this and other poker bans, and called the Washington State law “ridiculous.”
The ruling was the second one this month related to the legality of online gaming in Washington. Earlier in September, the court found that Betcha.com violated the online gambling ban, even though the site attempted to get around the ban by facilitating a betting exchange rather than being a bookmaker itself.
:dirol
The lawsuit was brought by Lee Rousso, an attorney and online poker player from Washington, who argued that the ban violated the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. However, the court did not agree. According to Justice Richard B. Sanders, who wrote the decision, the state Legislature "balanced public policy concerns and determined the interests of Washington are best served by banning Internet gambling."
However, Sanders also pointed out that the court’s decision shouldn’t be seen as an endorsement of the ban – only an endorsement of the Legislature’s right to enact such a ban. Pointing out that both an outright ban on online gambling and regulating the gambling market had merits, Sanders pointed out that it wasn’t entirely clear what the best choice was in the court’s opinion, saying that “the evidence is not conclusive.”
The Poker Players Alliance, along with Rousso, released a statement reflecting their disappointment at the ruling that was issued.
"Poker players in this state need to make their voices heard,” Rousso said. “Now more than ever we need to rally together to fight this outrageous law. I hope the poker community will stand with me as I appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court."
PPA Chairman Alfonse D’Amato reasserted the PPA’s commitment to fighting this and other poker bans, and called the Washington State law “ridiculous.”
The ruling was the second one this month related to the legality of online gaming in Washington. Earlier in September, the court found that Betcha.com violated the online gambling ban, even though the site attempted to get around the ban by facilitating a betting exchange rather than being a bookmaker itself.
:dirol
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Strange things have been happening to online casino players in Canada this past week.
It began with emails sent to Canadian players who have accounts at certain sites, informing them that due to "new regulations" they would not be allowed to download the software from the sites anymore, nor play the games.
These sites include, to date, Paddy Power, Bwin and Casino Club.
The email sent to players at Casino Club read: "We regret to inform you that due to the new regulations of the British Columbia Lottery Corporation, Loto-Qu?c and the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, online gaming products in Canada are prohibited. Unfortunately we are required to add Canada to our list of excluded countries. Players from Canada will no longer be permitted to play at Casino Club starting September 24th, 2010."
The email provides no concrete explanation of what "new regulations" the site is speaking of, nor what the government owned lottery services have to do with the site blocking Canadians.
However, analysts believe that software giant, Boss Media, is behind the move. All three sites that have blocked Canadians carry Boss Media's download casino software.
Some of the emails sent to players state explicitly that players will still be able to access and play at the sites' instant gaming platforms (which are not powered by Boss Media).
As such, analysts predict that Boss Media is hoping to be able to offer its software services when new laws defining online gambling come into effect in Canada on a provincial level.
The group may (rightfully) believe that any foreign group that offered its services to Canadians before the laws were changed may be denied an operating license
As such, analysts believe, Boss Media is seeking to make a hasty exit from the market in a bid to stand a chance of obtaining a license when online gambling becomes a reality in British Columbia, Quebec and other provinces in Canada.
:dirol
It began with emails sent to Canadian players who have accounts at certain sites, informing them that due to "new regulations" they would not be allowed to download the software from the sites anymore, nor play the games.
These sites include, to date, Paddy Power, Bwin and Casino Club.
The email sent to players at Casino Club read: "We regret to inform you that due to the new regulations of the British Columbia Lottery Corporation, Loto-Qu?c and the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, online gaming products in Canada are prohibited. Unfortunately we are required to add Canada to our list of excluded countries. Players from Canada will no longer be permitted to play at Casino Club starting September 24th, 2010."
The email provides no concrete explanation of what "new regulations" the site is speaking of, nor what the government owned lottery services have to do with the site blocking Canadians.
However, analysts believe that software giant, Boss Media, is behind the move. All three sites that have blocked Canadians carry Boss Media's download casino software.
Some of the emails sent to players state explicitly that players will still be able to access and play at the sites' instant gaming platforms (which are not powered by Boss Media).
As such, analysts predict that Boss Media is hoping to be able to offer its software services when new laws defining online gambling come into effect in Canada on a provincial level.
The group may (rightfully) believe that any foreign group that offered its services to Canadians before the laws were changed may be denied an operating license
As such, analysts believe, Boss Media is seeking to make a hasty exit from the market in a bid to stand a chance of obtaining a license when online gambling becomes a reality in British Columbia, Quebec and other provinces in Canada.
:dirol
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Jim Heselden, the owner of the two-wheeled Segway empire, has died after accidentally driving it over a cliff and onto a river. The 62-year-old, millionaire was inspecting his property in Yorkshire, England on one of his upright scooters when he fell over 30 feet.
Was the guy trying out some extreme Segway action when the accident happened? According to the Telegraph, the West Yorkshire Police received a call at around 11:40am that there was a man seen in the River Wharfe who seemed to have fallen from the cliffs above. A Segway-type vehicle was recovered at the scene as well as Heselden who was pronounced dead on the scene. Foul play was ruled out.
Segways were introduced to the world back in 2001 by its U.S. inventor, Dean Kamen. These scooters run with the use of gyroscopes which are linked to a computer and determine the user’s movement. They were commonly used by the police for some time any other people looking to annoy others on sidewalks.
Heselden was a self-made millionaire who came from humble beginnings and started the company HESCO Bastions who are create special wire caged walls used today by the military to protect themselves from bullets, floods – you name it. In 2009, he bought the US Segway company who had introduced these upright scooters to the world. He leaves behind a $265 million fortune to his wife and children.
He was well known as a philanthropist who often donated millions to charities including Help for Heroes and Ledds Community Foundation among other charities in his home town.
:crying
Was the guy trying out some extreme Segway action when the accident happened? According to the Telegraph, the West Yorkshire Police received a call at around 11:40am that there was a man seen in the River Wharfe who seemed to have fallen from the cliffs above. A Segway-type vehicle was recovered at the scene as well as Heselden who was pronounced dead on the scene. Foul play was ruled out.
Segways were introduced to the world back in 2001 by its U.S. inventor, Dean Kamen. These scooters run with the use of gyroscopes which are linked to a computer and determine the user’s movement. They were commonly used by the police for some time any other people looking to annoy others on sidewalks.
Heselden was a self-made millionaire who came from humble beginnings and started the company HESCO Bastions who are create special wire caged walls used today by the military to protect themselves from bullets, floods – you name it. In 2009, he bought the US Segway company who had introduced these upright scooters to the world. He leaves behind a $265 million fortune to his wife and children.
He was well known as a philanthropist who often donated millions to charities including Help for Heroes and Ledds Community Foundation among other charities in his home town.
:crying
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
In what went down as the craziest Bachelor ending ever, Brad Womack sent both finalists home crying, choosing instead to be alone. Yes, way back in 2007, scorned Bachelor fans were up in arms after spending an entire season watching Womack's quest for true love end in a big old pile of nothingness. Well, folks. He's not done. Yes, Texas bar owner Brad Womack is back as The Bachelor again because he didn't quite break enough hearts the first time around.
Yes, on Monday night's episode of Dancing with the Stars (where Michael Bolton got completely crucified, btw), Bachelor host Chris Harrison re-introduced 37-year-old Womack to America.
DWTS host Tom Bergeron quipped, "Brad, this time, pick somebody."
According to ABC, Womack has undergone "intensive therapy" and has been on a "quite painful journey of self-awareness" since he famously dumped Jenni Croft, then DeAnna Pappas after loosening his neck tie and pacing around in circles before confessing to Pappas, "I can't give you any promises that I can't keep. I have to say goodbye."
Do you think Brad Womack will make the harrowing, almighty decision to finally pick a broad on the upcoming season of The Bachelor?
Womack told Ellen DeGeneres,"I don't care if people call me an idiot or don't believe those words coming out of my mouth. I truly believe that it can work. So here are 25 to 30 women that I never, ever would meet in regular life, and I'm clearly doing something wrong. I'm still single. So why not? I really do believe that this can work."
Yes, on Monday night's episode of Dancing with the Stars (where Michael Bolton got completely crucified, btw), Bachelor host Chris Harrison re-introduced 37-year-old Womack to America.
DWTS host Tom Bergeron quipped, "Brad, this time, pick somebody."
According to ABC, Womack has undergone "intensive therapy" and has been on a "quite painful journey of self-awareness" since he famously dumped Jenni Croft, then DeAnna Pappas after loosening his neck tie and pacing around in circles before confessing to Pappas, "I can't give you any promises that I can't keep. I have to say goodbye."
Do you think Brad Womack will make the harrowing, almighty decision to finally pick a broad on the upcoming season of The Bachelor?
Womack told Ellen DeGeneres,"I don't care if people call me an idiot or don't believe those words coming out of my mouth. I truly believe that it can work. So here are 25 to 30 women that I never, ever would meet in regular life, and I'm clearly doing something wrong. I'm still single. So why not? I really do believe that this can work."
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Will the Lone Star state be the next in line to expand its gambling opportunities? If it were up to the gambling group, Penn National Gaming, we would definitely be seeing changes in Texas’ legislation, and many analysts agree that this may not be such a bad idea for the cash-strapped state.
Penn National Gaming recently secured a deal that will see it own and operate two potential gambling hotspots in Texas – the Valley Race Park in Harlingen and the Sam House Race Park in Houston. If gambling laws were changed to allow greater flexibility with regards to slot machines at race tracks, the company is set to make millions. As such, it is not going too far to suggest that Penn National will begin pushing for significant changes in the near future.
One analyst summed it up as such: “Penn National is in the business of casino gambling. They would not have entered the Texas racing industry without the assumption that casino gambling could become a major part of their operation in the future. It makes sense with the way the economic situation in Texas has played out.”
And that is where other analysts agree. Texas is currently facing severe budget restraints and is desperately looking for ways to fill its state coffers. Legislators are seeking ways to make this a reality, and one of the simplest ways to do so would be to expand the gambling opportunities in the state.
Already, a number of US states have taken this route, and are already reaping the benefits.
Pro-gamblers in Texas have a battle ahead of them in a bid to convince legislators to vote for an expansion. However, once they succeed, companies such as Penn National Gaming will be well positioned to take advantage of these new laws.
Penn National Gaming recently secured a deal that will see it own and operate two potential gambling hotspots in Texas – the Valley Race Park in Harlingen and the Sam House Race Park in Houston. If gambling laws were changed to allow greater flexibility with regards to slot machines at race tracks, the company is set to make millions. As such, it is not going too far to suggest that Penn National will begin pushing for significant changes in the near future.
One analyst summed it up as such: “Penn National is in the business of casino gambling. They would not have entered the Texas racing industry without the assumption that casino gambling could become a major part of their operation in the future. It makes sense with the way the economic situation in Texas has played out.”
And that is where other analysts agree. Texas is currently facing severe budget restraints and is desperately looking for ways to fill its state coffers. Legislators are seeking ways to make this a reality, and one of the simplest ways to do so would be to expand the gambling opportunities in the state.
Already, a number of US states have taken this route, and are already reaping the benefits.
Pro-gamblers in Texas have a battle ahead of them in a bid to convince legislators to vote for an expansion. However, once they succeed, companies such as Penn National Gaming will be well positioned to take advantage of these new laws.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
Changes to Danish gambling laws scheduled to go into effect 01 January 2010 will be pushed forward to April or later. The delay is largely due to the need to process and analyze a huge number of license applications – something that the Danish Gambling Board is not accustomed to doing.
“Just imagine 20 or 30 operators applying for a licence,” said Ladbrokes Nordic country manager for Denmark, Richardt Funch. “We are talking about a government that has only dealt with the monopoly licence in 50 years, so there will be a lot of due diligence work and legal requirements. It is unlikely we could make it before Christmas. We have received some of the technical requirements, but still don’t know all the details. So March or April is more likely.”
Despite the delay, good news has emerged regarding online poker sites in Denmark. While some countries like Italy and France keep online poker networks caged up, Denmark has promised that locally-licensed internet poker sites will be able to attach their Danish pages to their existing international networks.
“I think the Danish Gambling Board saw early on in the process that running a ring-fenced poker network based on 5.5 million people would be very unattractive for Danish poker players,” Funch commented.
The internet gambling industry in Denmark is not going to be completely opened. Current gambling monopoly Danske Spil will maintain control over certain slices of the industry, including lottery, scratchcards, keno, and internet bingo sites in Denmark.
Two licenses will be offered once legislation is complete sometime next year. One will be for sports betting, while the other is for online casino and poker games. A €36,000 application fee is being asked of potential licensees. Annual fees start at a base rate of €51,000 plus between €7,000 and €200,000 depending on gross win. A flat tax of 20% will be levied across all sectors.
“Just imagine 20 or 30 operators applying for a licence,” said Ladbrokes Nordic country manager for Denmark, Richardt Funch. “We are talking about a government that has only dealt with the monopoly licence in 50 years, so there will be a lot of due diligence work and legal requirements. It is unlikely we could make it before Christmas. We have received some of the technical requirements, but still don’t know all the details. So March or April is more likely.”
Despite the delay, good news has emerged regarding online poker sites in Denmark. While some countries like Italy and France keep online poker networks caged up, Denmark has promised that locally-licensed internet poker sites will be able to attach their Danish pages to their existing international networks.
“I think the Danish Gambling Board saw early on in the process that running a ring-fenced poker network based on 5.5 million people would be very unattractive for Danish poker players,” Funch commented.
The internet gambling industry in Denmark is not going to be completely opened. Current gambling monopoly Danske Spil will maintain control over certain slices of the industry, including lottery, scratchcards, keno, and internet bingo sites in Denmark.
Two licenses will be offered once legislation is complete sometime next year. One will be for sports betting, while the other is for online casino and poker games. A €36,000 application fee is being asked of potential licensees. Annual fees start at a base rate of €51,000 plus between €7,000 and €200,000 depending on gross win. A flat tax of 20% will be levied across all sectors.
Join:
2006/12/07
Messages:
29893
.jpg?v=1.014689161)
.png?v=1.014689161)
With the government scrambling for funds, it's becoming increasingly difficult to look the other way as billions of dollars in potential tax revenue slips away. Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation estimates legalizing online gambling could bring in more than $40 billion in new tax revenue over the next decade.
Stacked up against a deficit in the trillions, that might not sound like much but a few extra billion here and there certainly couldn't hurt.
Officially known as the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act of 2009 (H.R. 2267), the bill sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) would set up a federal regulatory and enforcement authority that would license gambling operators to accept bids from consumers in the United States.
“We now make it illegal for adults to gamble on the internet,” Frank said in a recent appearance on the Jay Leno Show. “If you have some guy who wants to play poker on the Internet, we say it’s illegal. Why [anybody] thinks that’s the government’s business is beyond me. We could make billions of dollars a year by making it legal and taxing it.”
Under Frank's bill, gambling sites would be required to maintain "effective protections against underage gambling, compulsive gambling, money laundering and fraud, and enforce prohibitions or restrictions on types of gambling prohibited by states, and Indian Tribes."
Online gambling has been illegal ever since October 2006, when Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling and Enforcement Act. There are those who say the law hasn't done much other than starve the government of tax revenue, since gambling -- like drug usage, drinking, prostitution, rolling past stop signs and other human vices -- continues to occur, even when it's illegal.
Lately, however, the feds have been moving aggressively against financial institutions tied to online gambling, using the provisions of the Unlawful International Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), which went into effect in June. The law, passed in 2006, aims to stop online gambling by preventing credit card companies and banks from processing funds transfers for unlawful internet gambling.
Just last week, Goldwater Bank in Scottsdale, Ariz., agreed to forfeit $734,000 in assets tied to money laundering and illegal online gambling operations, the FBI said. The one-branch bank was accused of transferring funds for several online gambling sites, including PokerStars, the world’s largest online poker room. At least $13 million was transferred in the first half of 2009 according to federal reports.
“Although Goldwater Bank denies guilty knowledge of its role in facilitating an illegal online gambling business, it was paid to execute transactions that were essential to the operation of this criminal enterprise,” said Janice Fedarcyk, the FBI’s Assistant Director in charge, in a statement. “The forfeiture settlement means the bank won’t profit by providing this service.”
Underground, under-regulated
Prohibiting online gambling has simply forced it underground, critics say. Most Web sites have stopped accepted advertising for gambling sites and credit card issuers have stopped processing payments from gambling sites located in the U.S. But since gambling is legal in much of the rest of the world, online sites continue to operate and can be easily accessed by any American armed with a keyboard and a mouse. The problem, as Frank and others see it, is that without effective licensing and regulation, U.S. gamblers lack even the most basic protections.
Of course, all bets could be off if the Republicans gain control of the House in the upcoming midterm elections, since most of the opposition to legalized gambling comes, oddly enough, from conservatives who say government should stay out of citizens' private lives. There's also opposition from some but not all casinos.
:dirol