November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

[rakewell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 .

[/ QUOTE ]

The "must-pass" excuse is just BS. There is no such thing as a "must-pass" bill, in my view. Suppose that instead of a gambling provision Frist had attached, say, a bill repealing the 19th amendment (which gave women the right to vote). Would any senator or representative have said, "Well, we have to pass the port security stuff, so I guess we'll just have to hope that women don't notice this other little provision"? Of course not. They first would have prevented Frist from attaching that amendment in conference committee, or, failing that, they would have denounced it from the hilltops, voted against it, then quickly pushed the port security bill back through committees and to a floor vote, this time unencumbered by the anti-suffrage bits.

So why didn't they have the fortitude to do the same when the unrelated amendment was about gambling? Because they either actually liked the measure, or at least decided that few of their constituents would care deeply enough about it for it to hurt them at the next election. To be blunt, even those who might have thought the bill to be bad public policy put their fingers to the wind and decided that they could be more hurt by political opponents saying "He/she voted against making our ports secure" than "He/she voted to make it really difficult to put money into one's online poker account."

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The "must-pass" excuse is just BS. There is no such thing as a "must-pass" bill, in my view. Suppose that instead of a gambling provision Frist had attached, say, a bill repealing the 19th amendment (which gave women the right to vote). Would any senator or representative have said, "Well, we have to pass the port security stuff, so I guess we'll just have to hope that women don't notice this other little provision"? Of course not. They first would have prevented Frist from attaching that amendment in conference committee, or, failing that, they would have denounced it from the hilltops, voted against it, then quickly pushed the port security bill back through committees and to a floor vote, this time unencumbered by the anti-suffrage bits.

So why didn't they have the fortitude to do the same when the unrelated amendment was about gambling? Because they either actually liked the measure, or at least decided that few of their constituents would care deeply enough about it for it to hurt them at the next election. To be blunt, even those who might have thought the bill to be bad public policy put their fingers to the wind and decided that they could be more hurt by political opponents saying "He/she voted against making our ports secure" than "He/she voted to make it really difficult to put money into one's online poker account."

[/ QUOTE ]

You're adding no value to this discussion.

[rakewell]

[ 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 ]

Beanie: I share some of your concerns, especially about those who so casually ask the feds to "regulate and tax" online poker (or online gambling generally). It's the proverbial camel's nose in the tent. See http://pokergrump.blogspot.com/2007/...cal-wimps.html

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The "must-pass" excuse is just BS. There is no such thing as a "must-pass" bill, in my view. Suppose that instead of a gambling provision Frist had attached, say, a bill repealing the 19th amendment (which gave women the right to vote). Would any senator or representative have said, "Well, we have to pass the port security stuff, so I guess we'll just have to hope that women don't notice this other little provision"? Of course not. They first would have prevented Frist from attaching that amendment in conference committee, or, failing that, they would have denounced it from the hilltops, voted against it, then quickly pushed the port security bill back through committees and to a floor vote, this time unencumbered by the anti-suffrage bits.

So why didn't they have the fortitude to do the same when the unrelated amendment was about gambling? Because they either actually liked the measure, or at least decided that few of their constituents would care deeply enough about it for it to hurt them at the next election. To be blunt, even those who might have thought the bill to be bad public policy put their fingers to the wind and decided that they could be more hurt by political opponents saying "He/she voted against making our ports secure" than "He/she voted to make it really difficult to put money into one's online poker account."

[/ QUOTE ]

The Safe Ports act passed 409-2. Your advice to us is to sit around pissed off at the world and to refuse to work with our allies, because "you won't let them off so easily"? Yeah...that's some useful advice you have for us. Thanks so much for sharing. Now GTFO. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[rakewell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The "must-pass" excuse is just BS. There is no such thing as a "must-pass" bill, in my view. Suppose that instead of a gambling provision Frist had attached, say, a bill repealing the 19th amendment (which gave women the right to vote). Would any senator or representative have said, "Well, we have to pass the port security stuff, so I guess we'll just have to hope that women don't notice this other little provision"? Of course not. They first would have prevented Frist from attaching that amendment in conference committee, or, failing that, they would have denounced it from the hilltops, voted against it, then quickly pushed the port security bill back through committees and to a floor vote, this time unencumbered by the anti-suffrage bits.

So why didn't they have the fortitude to do the same when the unrelated amendment was about gambling? Because they either actually liked the measure, or at least decided that few of their constituents would care deeply enough about it for it to hurt them at the next election. To be blunt, even those who might have thought the bill to be bad public policy put their fingers to the wind and decided that they could be more hurt by political opponents saying "He/she voted against making our ports secure" than "He/she voted to make it really difficult to put money into one's online poker account."

[/ QUOTE ]

You're adding no value to this discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation: I disagree with you, but can't substantively refute what you're saying, so I really just wish you'd shut up.

If you disagree with my assessment, please explain exactly how and why you think I'm wrong.

[TheEngineer]

I disagree with the whole thing. I read your rant at http://pokergrump.blogspot.com/2007/...cal-wimps.html . Your plan seems to be to just sit around and be angry (while our opponents take our rights away. Your only actionable step is to vote for Ron Paul or Bill Richardson. You think that's enough?

Do you have a plan of attack for us? If so, we'd all love to hear it.

[wufwugy]

Aaaaah, stupid people. Can't enlighten them, don't wanna enlighten them.

[rakewell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The "must-pass" excuse is just BS. There is no such thing as a "must-pass" bill, in my view. Suppose that instead of a gambling provision Frist had attached, say, a bill repealing the 19th amendment (which gave women the right to vote). Would any senator or representative have said, "Well, we have to pass the port security stuff, so I guess we'll just have to hope that women don't notice this other little provision"? Of course not. They first would have prevented Frist from attaching that amendment in conference committee, or, failing that, they would have denounced it from the hilltops, voted against it, then quickly pushed the port security bill back through committees and to a floor vote, this time unencumbered by the anti-suffrage bits.

So why didn't they have the fortitude to do the same when the unrelated amendment was about gambling? Because they either actually liked the measure, or at least decided that few of their constituents would care deeply enough about it for it to hurt them at the next election. To be blunt, even those who might have thought the bill to be bad public policy put their fingers to the wind and decided that they could be more hurt by political opponents saying "He/she voted against making our ports secure" than "He/she voted to make it really difficult to put money into one's online poker account."

[/ QUOTE ]

The Safe Ports act passed 409-2. Your advice to us is to sit around pissed off at the world and to refuse to work with our allies, because "you won't let them off so easily"? Yeah...that's some useful advice you have for us. Thanks so much for sharing. Now GTFO. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Please feel free to point to the exact point at which I said anything even remotely resembling advice to "sit around pissed off at the world and to refuse to work with our allies."

A good starting point would be to identify who actually is or isn't an "ally."

If a guy hits his wife, then explains that he "had" to do it, then proposes reconciliation that consists of studying the issue, I don't think I'd be convinced that he is his wife's "ally." His case would be more believable if he at minimum started with an apology, an ackowledgement that he had done something wrong.

Has Rep. Berkeley ever openly acknowledged that her final vote on the UIGEA was wrong, that she regrets it, that she wishes she had voted against it instead of for it? Not to my knowledge, but if she has, and I missed it, I'd welcome the news. It would be a good way for me to start seeing her as a genuine ally.

[schwza]

i'm trying to watch the video that's on the website right now. the sound is ok, but the video is terrible. it looks like somebody is filming from outside and there's rain all over the window. is that what it looks like for everybody else?

[Skallagrim]

"All too frequently, the enemy of the good is the perfect."

I forget who first said that, others can google it.

And that pretty much sums up the problem with rakewell's point. Berkely is clearly on our side, her vote on the port bill notwithstanding. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by giving her a hard time about it.

The quote also has some applicability to beanie. Beanie, truly, you as poker player and business owner can support the Wexler bill 100% right now as written. Its also a bill that has a little momentum (because it makes sense, and because other than WTO pressure, its only us poker players demnding the law change). Get behind it and urge your readers to get behind it, please.

Frank's bill, as I said, needs work before it gets a 100% support rating from me. But TE makes the excellent point (as usual) that supporting moving the Frank bill forward is momentum in the right direction and keeps our enemies on the defensive. There is nothing bad about supporting the Frank bill "in general" while saying that it still needs work on the finer points to become truly good legislation. I am sure the PPA will lobby for corrections to those finer points before it comes to a real vote. Also, Barney Frank was the first, and for a while the only, congressperson to stick up for our right to play as a matter of personal freedom. He deserves our support for that, if not our 100% agreement with his legislation.

Skallagrim