Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : GLOW - Global Games, Inc. - Great Profit Potential ! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: robwin who wrote (5100)	7/25/1998 9:29:00 PM
From: Thomas George Warner	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8879

Robwin now you see why I have stopped responding to this bag of wind. Why doesn't he answer Bob Davis's questions if he is so smart. Answer: He has no facts. Give up red big whatever.

To: robwin who wrote (5100)	7/26/1998 2:28:00 PM
From: BigRedMan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8879

Robin, you said... Thanks for the rudimentary primer on U.S. democracy, I guess I must have learned nothing studying American politics for four years at University. Obviously not! First, you give incorrect procedure. From your post #5056... ...the only thing awaiting enactment of the legislation is Clinton's signature or his VETO (not likely). Very interesting! Now, let's excerpt your last post... ... rather the House passes their own legislation and any differences between the two are reconciled prior to being sent to Clinton for his signature or veto... First, you say "the only thing awaiting enactment" is Clinton's signature. Then you say, "Oh gee, I guess there is this little matter of the House passing its version and the two bills going to committee for reconciliation" prior to Clinton's signature. It only takes you two posts to contradict yourself? Gee, TGW usually takes longer than that! Anyway for those of you that are interested in the actual procedure in passage of this legislation rather a simple grade school explanation, please go to the following link: rgtonline.com Then, to back up your assertion, you send me to some internet newsletter! Robin, Let me give you a little lesson about the internet. Just because someone publishes something on the internet does not mean it is fact! Case in point...read some of your and TGW's posts! ;-) Now, let's assume for a moment that your link is more authoritative than the United States Government itself. (I apologize to everyone else out there...I know it is absolutely ludicrous to compare interpretations of the legislative process between Charles W. Johnson, Parliamentarian, United States House of Representatives, and "Rolling Good Times Online, Inc.") I'll go with you a moment here (BTW, your four years of "studying American Politics" did wonders for your ability to conduct legitimate research. I find it comical what you consider as authoritative sources. What university did you study at, anyway?) Now, let's take a few "quotes" from your source, shall we? Because of procedural rules in the House, it is much more difficult to add a provision like the Kyl amendment to a funding bill. In fact there's some discussion that a House version of the Kyl bill might be attached to yet another appropriations bill which may make for some interesting procedural maneuvering. Then we're talking about Presidential approval and it's rumored in some quarters that this appropriation will likely be vetoed by President Clinton for reasons wholly unrelated to the Kyl amendment. Stay tuned. This is only the 4th inning in a 9 inning game. Robin, According to YOUR source, this legislation has a long way to go before it becomes law. The Senate appropriations bill that contains the KYL amendment banning internet gambling WILL NOT go to the full House for approval... I never said that the senate bill containing Kyl's amendment WOULD go to the full house for approval. ...rather the House passes their own legislation and any differences between the two are reconciled prior to being sent to Clinton for his signature or veto... Changing your tune when faced with indisputable truth, eh? Again, I refer you to your post #5056... ...the only thing awaiting enactment of the legislation is Clinton's signature or his VETO (not likely). GO BIG RED!!!