#301
|
|||
|
|||
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Shelley Berkley is so awesome that I think I could convince my wife that a divorce would be a good idea so I could marry the esteemed Congresswoman. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, she's so awesome that she voted FOR the UIGEA. See http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll516.xml. Now she wants to "study" whether it should be revisited. Oh yeah, that's political courage, all right. [/ QUOTE ] She voted against HR 4411, the bill that became UIGEA. [/ QUOTE ] That's nice. It allows her to say that she voted both ways on the same thing, depending on who she's talking to, which so many politicians love. Wouldn't it be better if she had actually had some integrity and voted against it in its final version, instead of helping to pass it into law? Voting against it once and for it once isn't exactly a model of consistency, integrity, or principle. [/ QUOTE ] Dude, you are one seriously disturbed tune. The Safe Ports bill was must pass legislation. She had to vote for it. If Shelley Berkely is not one of our friends, then we are indeed alone in this world with zero hope of any relief. You obviously have an eight-years-old mindset, able only to see the world in the simplest shades of black and white. Or maybe you are some kind of celebrity stalker type, obsessed with Shelley Berkely, with pictures of her hanging all over the walls of your studio and illuminated by never extinguished candle flame. Please get some help . |
#302
|
|||
|
|||
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
Uh, since when do Representatives vote for bills in the Senate?
oops |
#303
|
|||
|
|||
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
Some UK business coverage I missed closer to the event
Business Guardian Article PPA Lobby It would seem that the PPA have even managed to brief UK journalists well enough for them to actually get the story straight for a change. Well Done! |
#304
|
|||
|
|||
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Shelley Berkley is so awesome that I think I could convince my wife that a divorce would be a good idea so I could marry the esteemed Congresswoman. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, she's so awesome that she voted FOR the UIGEA. See http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll516.xml. Now she wants to "study" whether it should be revisited. Oh yeah, that's political courage, all right. [/ QUOTE ] She was one of the few who publicly opposed the UIGEA and gave a pretty impassioned speech on it. She voted for the Safe Port Act if anything not the UIGEA. [/ QUOTE ] It was not possible to vote for the ports act and not the UIGEA when the combined bill came back from the conference committee. She voted in favor of it. You can spin that any way you like, but the simple fact is that she had a choice, and helped vote it into law. If you feel inclined to overlook that or forgive her for it or find some excuse for it, that's your business. But let's not ignore the plain facts of the historical record. She voted for it. You're not seriously denying that point, are you? [/ QUOTE ] Please don't troll our forum. |
#305
|
|||
|
|||
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
I wrote a blog on what is confusing me about the proposed legislation I am interested to get the PPA reps views on my opinion.
http://alwaysbluff.com/poker/blogs/b...ls-no-answers/ |
#306
|
|||
|
|||
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ QUOTE ]
Uh, since when do Representatives vote for bills in the Senate? oops [/ QUOTE ] ????? |
#307
|
|||
|
|||
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ QUOTE ]
I wrote a blog on what is confusing me about the proposed legislation I am interested to get the PPA reps views on my opinion. http://alwaysbluff.com/poker/blogs/b...ls-no-answers/ [/ QUOTE ] I think the fallacy here is assuming that the government will just ignore poker and online gambling. Many of us assumed this would be the case until last year, when UIGEA showed us differently. If we hadn't stepped up this year, there would be worse legislation out there now. Last year, after UIGEA passed, Goodlatte promised he'd finish what UIGEA started. Our strength has stopped that. That's why we fight. I think idea of the "status quo" as something stable is a fallacy, in that it cannot exist ten years from now. The U.S. simply won't just allow offshore companies to offer Internet gaming to U.S. residents without responding. This is evidenced by UIGEA and other federal actions against us. There will either be enabling legislation of some sort, limited legalization, or an outright ban. So, comparisons between what we have today and what Frank is offering is a false choice, IMO. I believe the best way to get the best deal is by a strong demonstration of our strength, so I hope we'll all do that. Thanks. |
#308
|
|||
|
|||
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ QUOTE ]
I wrote a blog on what is confusing me about the proposed legislation I am interested to get the PPA reps views on my opinion. http://alwaysbluff.com/poker/blogs/b...ls-no-answers/ [/ QUOTE ] Alright, beanie, I read your blog. I like your attitude, but you dont really have a full grasp of the legislation out there. I will try and fill in some details for you. Altough it is true that PLAYING online poker is only illegal in a few states per state law, whats about to get even more difficult than it is now is the ability to move money to and from the sites - this was the intent of the UIGEA, and unless we change the law, getting your poker money moving through the financial system is going to become difficult or extremely difiicult. Obviously, in this day and age, savvy players will find a way. But the poker economy depends on average players finding a way - that is likely to disappear unless there is a change. Your blog post seems to confuse the differences between the Wexler "skill games protection act" and the Frank "IGREA." There are a lot of open issues with the Frank bill, which applies to ALL internet gambling, taxes being one (but there are no specified taxes int he Frank bill, those get determined later, do I dont know where your 5% figure comes from), licensing being another, state opt outs being a third. The Wexler bill, on the other hand, applies only to skill games and specifically includes poker as a game of skill. It allows anyone to offer poker over the internet (provided the sites also have age verification and a few other "safety" protections). Not only does this mean all reputable foreign sites become or remain legal in the US, it also means the US could have its own sites. Taxes do not change under Wexler (a US site would pay US corp taxes, foreign sites pay their own country's taxes, players pay their income taxes). No state can opt out (though it would be an interesting legal states right test as to whether states like WA that already make playing illegal could continue to do so). The Wexler bill does not make the US WTO compliant - but it does not increase our being out of compliance either. The Wexler Bill is the poker player's perfect legislation. You should support it completely. The Frank bill has potential, it needs a lot of work to become a WTO compliant bill, and a bill that wont have negative economic impacts on the game. This may well occur as the Frank bill progresses through congress, especially if the WTO orders huge sanctions against the US and congress is forced to act, but we can only wait and see what develops. But Wexler deserves your full support right now. Skallagrim |
#309
|
|||
|
|||
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
Very nice post.
[ QUOTE ] The Wexler Bill is the poker player's perfect legislation. You should support it completely. [/ QUOTE ] QFT. Also, congrats on your 1,000th post. Now you're an "old hand". I hope you'll get a custom title soon. |
#310
|
|||
|
|||
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I wrote a blog on what is confusing me about the proposed legislation I am interested to get the PPA reps views on my opinion. http://alwaysbluff.com/poker/blogs/b...ls-no-answers/ [/ QUOTE ] Alright, beanie, I read your blog. I like your attitude, but you dont really have a full grasp of the legislation out there. I will try and fill in some details for you. Altough it is true that PLAYING online poker is only illegal in a few states per state law, whats about to get even more difficult than it is now is the ability to move money to and from the sites - this was the intent of the UIGEA, and unless we change the law, getting your poker money moving through the financial system is going to become difficult or extremely difiicult. Obviously, in this day and age, savvy players will find a way. But the poker economy depends on average players finding a way - that is likely to disappear unless there is a change. Your blog post seems to confuse the differences between the Wexler "skill games protection act" and the Frank "IGREA." There are a lot of open issues with the Frank bill, which applies to ALL internet gambling, taxes being one (but there are no specified taxes int he Frank bill, those get determined later, do I dont know where your 5% figure comes from), licensing being another, state opt outs being a third. The Wexler bill, on the other hand, applies only to skill games and specifically includes poker as a game of skill. It allows anyone to offer poker over the internet (provided the sites also have age verification and a few other "safety" protections). Not only does this mean all reputable foreign sites become or remain legal in the US, it also means the US could have its own sites. Taxes do not change under Wexler (a US site would pay US corp taxes, foreign sites pay their own country's taxes, players pay their income taxes). No state can opt out (though it would be an interesting legal states right test as to whether states like WA that already make playing illegal could continue to do so). The Wexler bill does not make the US WTO compliant - but it does not increase our being out of compliance either. The Wexler Bill is the poker player's perfect legislation. You should support it completely. The Frank bill has potential, it needs a lot of work to become a WTO compliant bill, and a bill that wont have negative economic impacts on the game. This may well occur as the Frank bill progresses through congress, especially if the WTO orders huge sanctions against the US and congress is forced to act, but we can only wait and see what develops. But Wexler deserves your full support right now. Skallagrim [/ QUOTE ] First, I want to thank you. That was great response and exactly what I needed to hear. As a player and business owner I just don't want to blindly support something because it sounds almost right. Your points about the movement of money are well taken and that is a great argument. I am still not sure how good enforcement can be on this particular issue though. Granted it may become more difficult but is that cost and effort going to be worse than the alternative, I think that is hard to say unless we know how the states will react. I am on your side and I am 98% with you now that you have explained things clearly. It does disturb me a bit that Annie was very much for the Frank bill. I don't agree with many of your opinions, I think Goodlatte did stump her on the states rights issue. Clearly though we had more people on our side than against so it really wasn't a fair fight. Think what you want about Goodlatte (I am not a fan) he had his moments. Either way I think I am back on team PPA but I think there needs to be more understanding and open dialogue about the various issues. I am about as tuned in as someone can be and I am a bit lost. That should tell you that the message isn't clear. Which is what I was trying to accomplish. You did a good job explaining your side. TYVM |
|
|