November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Rakewell. please drop it - you have made your point, yes any pollitician who really thought saving online poker was more important than personal politicai survival and was willing to express this commitment despite knowledge of certain failure in ultimately changing things, would have voted against the port security bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

And also likey forever lost as a potential ally in the "cause" in the future.

[ QUOTE ]
SB was not one of those. However, everything TE has otherwise said about her is true. So you still have no answer to the statement that there is no pont in calling her on it, yes? Otherwise you would have posted one I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

SB has shown to be a very effective voice, and a firm suporter of our cause. I have been very impressed with her work on the issue. I can not even hold her party affiliation against her. Shelley Berkley is a smart politican and one with a good record of sticking to a position. There is no need for any rational person to attempt throw any "baby out with the bath water", let alone a very effective passionate suporter of our "cause".

[ QUOTE ]
And D$D, recently, in another thread (OBWan....) you pretty much accused me of the same thing. I see your point here, but I am not so sure you see the other side. Quite frankly, I have, and will probably continue to, make sarcastic responses to posters who come on here, have no more than a quick look around, and post their personal opinion on something like its the word from on high, obviously having ignored all of the discussion us regulars have previously devoted to the subject. Making fun of someone who does that is pretty much a 2+2 tradition, though at least I (we) try not to cross the line into useless name-calling. But sarcasm is a time honored debating technique and often appropriate. But you are also right it is not always appropriate, and once in awhile counter productive. Making the call when to use sarcasm and when not to is a judgement call. And while I appreciate that you can call that judgment into question and suggest it was the wrong decision - it is really INAPPROPRIATE to include in that suggestion personal issues and to imply improper personal motivations to them. This is the first time in your now lengthy back and forth with TE that I have had reason to call you on this, but I do now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.

In this forum the debate of ideas and the need to defend them in this imperfect 2 deminisional communications medium where much of communications "true" intent is often lost, is what it is.

2+2 is sucessful in part because of this rigiorus "testing". It is what makes the open exchange provided here very valuable. A suggestion, idea, premise, or theory deserves such examination and scrunity.

However, I feel in this single case we are discussing a very different matter.

I fully understand that the use of this forum, because of the above mentioned past give and take between TE and I, colors and even mutes my real intent in the preception of all of us to some degree. Again it is what it is. We can hope for the ideal, but must accept that it is an unachieveable goal.

TE isn't the issue, but a symptom IMO.

The PPA's goal, at this point, should be, as TE so visibily points out so clearly in the legislative arena, to garner as much suport and not burn any possible bridge in the process.

Why is it so hard to understand that at this point of the PPA's organizational efforts, when "we" are admittedly weaker than we would all like, should any organization, in such a position, not strive to do better?

This is not some personality clash issue for me. My personality and method of communications is indeed partly resonsibile for the "issue" with TE, and if had been a single instance, or only a matter of my own personal inability to effectively communicate with the PPA I would tend to think it was solely my issue.

From talking to a number of people both from this forum and in the broader both on-line and live poker community, I suggest I am not the sole cause. It is my firm opinion that the PPA as a whole suffers and is ultimately responsible.

I can speculate on the causes and reasons for this self-evident problem and in doing so perhaps better solve the matter but only in the long run and perhaps with more short term disruption that is ultimately valuable. So, I hesitate every time I feel another piece of "evidence" is presented to even point it out.

[ QUOTE ]
D$D maybe you are right to say TE could have had more patience with a poster who had a point but was obviously either unaware of so many counter points or purposely ignored them. I dont think so; I dont think its wrong to tell new posters that its important to either do your homework or not present yourself as an authority on a subject. When exactly one approach is better than the other is hard to define and good to debate But stop the armchair psychology, its a bad road to go down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again fair enough. My only and last point is both from a personal perspective and from "attracting" anyone with a similar perspective, I like the opinions I seem to have attracted, am about done with the current PPA. Why should I have to "beat my head on the keyboard until it is a bloody stump" in attempting to "help" "our" "cause"?

Sorry I do not depend on on-line poker for much more than an easy outlet for my growing passion for the game. If it wasn't totally evident from my tax questions in antoher thread, and meaningless overall, I don't have to do anything I don't care to do. I have the luxury to follow my passions and determination of my responsibilities to "service" and giving back to society as I feel fit to do. That, IMO, gives me a much different perspective than many. So in the vien of another thread, it is evident I don't need the PPA at all, and it is highly questionable how much the PPA needs even my volunteer efforts.

On-line as many have pointed out much wiser than me, provides a fantastic was to play a lot of hand in a short time to gain a ton of experience for little or no investment other than time.

For a number of factors the UIGEA included many people perhaps half of the poker community see little or no worth to on-line play. There are many trends that in my opinion if not addressed point to the impending doom of on-line poker as we know it. I had hoped to be a very small part of perhaps addressing some of those concerns and perhaps affecting a change in the current legislative tide.

As someone with a little knowledge of the process and sucess in working the system, I am just sick and tired of watching the PPA and some of its people breakdown walls when even the door was unlocked. I doubt I have all of the keys, but being told to shut up, or F off, when pointing out unlocked door let alone suggesting different paths is just too much.

To butcher Will Rodgers I think it was; perhaps I souldn't be part of any organization that would have me as a member.

[ QUOTE ]
How about we get back to talking about the best way to follow up on the obvious success that was this recent hearing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me think about that.


D$D

[JPFisher55]

The question is are the offshore online gambling sites illegal? Case law says yes for sports betting and no for other types, but that was before the WTO decision. Also, does this excise tax apply to offshore companies? No other nation taxes foreign online gambling sites not operating within it borders.
Moreover, would this remain the tax if online gambling was regulated and taxed? If so, then I agree that all the offshore online gambling sites would gladly pay it for legality.

[LeapFrog]

Saw this article regarding the recent hearing on google news, first in the sci/tech section. Hopefully we will continue to get more press.

Life, liberty and the right to play online poker

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Done. Still waiting for you to share with us how you'd go about fighting this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

TE,

So were not strong enough to have any animosity towards the entire House (-2) that voted for the must pass I fully agree with. However, how in the heck are we strong enough to pick a fight with some one who is a poker player and is passionate, though a little politically dense?

Political organizations’ perform a number of general functions agreed by all that the better they perform all of them, the more successful the "cause" will be. You cannot excel at some and hope to compensate for failing at others and expect success.

Organizational, providing an organization for a group to coalesce, Informational, educating and motivating similarly thinking people to help educate ever more, Ideological providing a “rallying point” of like thinking, and Oppositional (more in parliamentary systems) are the four legs of the stable political party or organization's table.

The higher and stronger each of the legs the better the political organization. But like sawing off parts of legs of a three legged stool, the table is only as stable is each leg is strong and somewhat level.

I in no way want to start another "your role as a Board member vs. your personal posting rights thread." My only point, other than the one on the top of my head, is IMO you could and HAVE to be a better Ambassador for Poker. So each of your approaches is politically soundly rooted from the political functions model, but insufficient for individual success.

Let us use myself as a case in point. Because of my communication problems, let us assume for now they are all self inflicted, what few ideas all or some may agree that were worthwhile considering more fully, do not seem to be have been fully considered in a timely manner. In the opinion of some that has hurt the overall cause.

Therefore, when I see potential "resources" for the PPA, in the way, all even non-F Congress people you see as having potential for legislative action, I see the same value of in individuals. Heck look at how valuable even Catherine Hanaway was in helping wite a few fun press releases.

Your manner has sometimes been called "my way or the highway." IMO it is a personal blind spot of the organization and of yours personally. You (seem) to feel the need to over defend your own actions and recently those of the PPA beyond what is necessary (IMO).

Usually, and I do not have any figures on this for this forum, but many more people read (lurke) than get involved in the posting. Some of this is even more evident here in 2+2 forums, as this is a tough place to post even to begin with. What your polls miss is the feelings of those others, in part, because they feel some of thier point of view express in the forum or the forum waters are too deep, never consider posting. I myself lurked for quite a bit before daring to jump into the 2+2 deep end!

Go ahead, get pissed off at me, and cry to John that I am tweaking you again, or blast me publicly or privately in this forum because you take offense with the way I have communicated this thought to you. After you get over it, you'll know exactly how the OP feels. Skall's recent post was much more likely to attract people than your approach.




D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, but thanks for sharing your opinion.

By the way, I never complained to John or anyone else privately or publicly about how you communicate with me. Your issues with John are just that.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]

I disagree, but thanks for sharing your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.

But answer me a single question then, please.

Why make it harder for people to get involved in "our" cause?

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, I never complained to John or anyone else privately or publicly about how you communicate with me. Your issues with John are just that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have never or will never?

I'll accept will never and leave it at that.



D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Why make it harder for people to get involved in "our" cause?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is 2+2. People can't come here out of the blue and troll without getting called on it. Rockwell posted five posts...FIVE POSTS...to tell us (not to ask us) to turn on Rep. Berkley, while speaking harshly to posters who responded to him. IMO, he was looking to start [censored], so he shouldn't have been surpised in the least when he found it. Sorry, but the reason people lurk here is that they know opinions posted are debated. That's what we do here.

Additionally, this forum isn't an extension of PPA. I'm pretty sure Mason would concur. If Rockwell wishes to post there, he'll get a different reception, I imagine.

It seems your new goal is to try to figure out everything you think is wrong with me to discredit me. Did you notice half of your posts mention me somewhere? Isn't that strange? I think it is. By the way, your problems with getting hired into PPA aren't my fault, so stop blaming me for it.

[ QUOTE ]
Have never or will never?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have been. I don't know if I will never. I'm not a fortune teller.

[TheEngineer]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I have. See http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news...le.php?DID=237

Rep. Berkey voted against HR 4411 (the bill that became UIGEA). She proposed an amendment to that bill to eliminate the horse racing and other carveouts (a poison pill amendment). She sponsored a Study bill. She cosponsored the Wexler bill. She cosponsored IGREA. She came to the PPA Fly-In reception to assure us of her support for our position. She supported us at the 11/14 hearing. Uhh...sounds like an ally to me.

I'm encouraged that someone out there thinks we're so strong that we should complain about this type of support, but I also think someone who makes numerous posts suggesting that we should oppose her over voting for "must pass" legislation cannot be serious.

We have plenty of opponents. It's a target-rich environment. I suggest you start with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you please define "must-pass" legislation?

Could you please address my hypothetical about whether the ports bill still would have been "must-pass" if, instead of the UIGEA, something even bigger had been attached to it?

If the ports bill was so crucial, then opposing the package would have done no harm, because even if the combined measure failed, a clean ports bill could/would have been quickly re-introduced and passed, right?

Can you document any horrendous political fallout for the two representatives who voted "no" on the combined bill?

What dreadful consequences do you believe would have befallen Rep. Berkeley had she voted "no" on the final bill, such that it was mandatory for her to support it?

I wrote above, "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."" Can you put forward a plausible argument that I am wrong in that assessment of things? That is, do you agree or disagree that the primary motivating factor in Rep. Berkeley's vote in favor of the UIGEA was fear over what would be said of her if she went the other way? (She couldn't seriously have feared the bill not passing, when she was looking at a nearly unanimous vote, so I assume you won't bother arguing that she was actually concerned that the ports measure would fail.)

If you agree with my assessment, do you think it admirable or deplorable for legislators to vote a particular way based on fear of what will be said of them, rather than based on their convictions about what is right or wrong?

Finally, suppose that a straight, clean, simple, one-sentence repeal of the UIGEA provisions (leaving intact the ports security provisions) were introduced. Are you 100% certain that Rep. Berkeley would endorse it? I'm not. If you are, what, if anything, prevents her from introducing exactly such a bill anytime she wants to?

[/ QUOTE ]

I get that you don't like the fact that all of Congress voted for the Safe Port Act. We all do. I did ask where you'd like to go from there. Any ideas?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Unreal

FoF I am thinking.

Or a shill for some offshore site that has no chance if the US passes Wexler's bill.

Tuff

Or possibly he really is politically as stupid as the proverbial stone..

[/ QUOTE ]

You ever get pulled over by a cop for speeding and have a buddy sitting next to you who proceeds to tell the officer how he can't pull you over because you weren't doing anything and that he must be trying to get more tickets to meet his quota? Neither have I [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] , but Rakewell reminds me of that guy. He doesn't play online, so it seems he thinks we're weak for trying to craft a political solution when he'd prefer that we simply tell Congress what they can do with their Safe Ports Act vote.

[oldbookguy]

That is the bill submitted by the Rep. from Washington, a deposit excise tax for online gambling, 2% of all deposits, not the normal .25% of bets.

Your question / point of legal is the point, which excise tax applies to poker, and really does any.

Perhaps Russ Fox, if he reads this, could weigh in here.

Do 'SKILL' gaming sites pay any excise tax, I do not know. They claim to be not gambling since skill is a predominate factor.

Countries do tax companies from other countries, simply look at a U. S. tax form.
There is a deduction for taxes paid on income made in and paid to a foreign country, so I would guess this applies to gambling companies. So, I would say this excise tax applies to Offshore companies.

Someone will need to look, I do not have it, but I think this is one of the charges against Kaplan in the BoS case as well, not paying the excise tax. If not his, then one of the cases, that is why I looked it up, I saw it as a charge someplace a while back.

obg

[ QUOTE ]
The question is are the offshore online gambling sites illegal? Case law says yes for sports betting and no for other types, but that was before the WTO decision. Also, does this excise tax apply to offshore companies? No other nation taxes foreign online gambling sites not operating within it borders.
Moreover, would this remain the tax if online gambling was regulated and taxed? If so, then I agree that all the offshore online gambling sites would gladly pay it for legality.

[/ QUOTE ]

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, this forum isn't an extension of PPA. I'm pretty sure Mason would concur. If Rockwell wishes to post there, he'll get a different reception, I imagine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure if he posted there he would get ignored as all of us did and then came here.

You don't seem to understand Mason's point at all. Not to put word in his mouth, as I don't speak for anyone but myself, but I imagine part of the problem is the PPA freeloading their viable fourm need here.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems your new goal is to try to figure out everything you think is wrong with me to discredit me. Did you notice half of your posts mention me somewhere? Isn't that strange? I think it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't done a count but I really doubt that.

You really need to develop as you've been advised by quite a few posters to "get a thicker skin".

I would also suggest you further evaluate as I have a few times roles and responsibilities as a PPA board member.

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, your problems with getting hired into PPA aren't my fault, so stop blaming me for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not know if you are quite that obtuse.

As I have tried to explain in eye bleeding detail, I do not care if I get hired one bit. I think I have more experience to offer than John is likely to get from hiring at the level he is willing to pay. Nevertheless, as I told John, "I do not care in terms of my willingness to volunteer whom he hired." I have stated this position often enough both here and with John that IMO it should be at least considered a genuine offer.

So once again, you bring out this old red herring. I've openly admitted any fault of mine caused by offering to help in ANY WAY, and also "applying" for openly advertised positions I felt I was qualified.

Perhaps it is as simple as some people can not seem to carry two seemingly opposing thoughts in their head. This in my opinion is evidenced in your seeming inability to accept criticism of past, current, or future plans without identifying that person as an enemy. You are politically blind IMO or unable to understand the art of turning frustration and passion into productive help.

I told you when we met, that I hoped that my "twisting your tail" in this forum, would not interfere in our common goal for the best possible outcome for poker. I stated that my give in and take in the 2+2 tradition, was in large part to voice the concerns of many people that were not yet but should be involved in our cause, as I thought it important not to ignore a significant segment or point of view I had heard all too often.

Again you seem willing to expect to be able to utilize this forum as bluntly as you wish as is tradition, but expect to be held above because of your positon or past works.

You made a few posts saying you were leaving, based on your frustration at the time, but did not. A correct decision IMO.

This poster expressed a frustration with a seemingly two-faced position by SB and pols in general.

IMO you had no need to jump into that fray the way you did. As an individual poster, you of course have the right. It was clear the poster had a passion for the issue of poker, and was worked up enough that it was possible he had some legs in terms of long-term potential.

IMO a little education, and proper "care and feeding" of this potential "new recruit", MIGHT have lead to a different result.

Again, I do not care one bit who does the job of identifying and better "rounding up potential" resources both human and other, but as someone who has done it successfully in these causes, I know for a FACT there are much more effective and simpler ways.

You seem to demand that this forum take your posts in the best possible light, but at the same time insist that any such "right" extend to no-one else.

Sorry but that doesn't smell like ice cream......

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have never or will never?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have been. I don't know if I will never. I'm not a fortune teller.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, cute. Guess you need someone else to tell you your own mind. Besides, "have been", is simply a lie. I know of at least three occasions, from speaking to you personally and from direct personal interaction with others.

I gave you an out and you had to push it.

You are a dedicated young man. You are a valuable resource to the PPA. But you need to toughen up, and grow up damn quickly. IMO if you keep going as you have, you are going to get eaten alive and become a determent to the over all cause.

Holding your self or the PPA above criticism, and both you and others to getting "pissed off" by hearing honestly offered criticism from diehard supporters will only make the collective job of the PPA much harder. Any fool can gather the low hanging fruit. It happens all the time in politics. When a group in its early actions doesn't position itself to gather the most die-hard supporters or takes positions in doing so unnecessarily; like many pols in primary elections, you loose the ability to easily make the "switch" to be able to then build on that win in any viable manner and win the general thus having to work much harder.

Save yourself the cutsie reply, I know you disagree.

If you can't see that my motives are only to attempt to help the "cause" perhaps you are that obtuse after all.

D$D