November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

[IndyFish]

[ QUOTE ]
I generally dislike posts that hijack a thread and turn it into a meta-discussion of the thread itself, so I won't belabor this into an extended argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too late. Rep. Berkley has done more for internet poker than any other Congressperson with the notable exceptions of Rep. Frank and Rep. Wexler. Poker doesn't pay her bills or put food on her table. To expect her to "take the sword" for us by voting against the Safe Ports Act is, at least to me, ridiculous. She is an ally, period.

Now can we PLEASE get back to the original thread???

IndyFish

P.S. PPAdc, if you are still reading this thread , you might want to start another thread here at 2+2 to solicit questions for the panelists.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL... I have watched sections of that video and haven't seen it.. at what time does the exchange take place? I love the foes of fun saying!

[/ QUOTE ]

3:33:45 [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[following McClusky's advocacy of a total gaming prohibition in the U.S.]
Rep. Steven Cohen: Is there any fun that you’re for? [laughter in background]
Tom McClusky: Any what?
Rep. Steven Cohen: Fun.
Tom McClusky: Umm...well, we’re for this, and this seems like a lot of fun.
Rep. Steven Cohen: Hearings?
Tom McClusky: [no response...laughter in background]
Rep. Steven Cohen: Good, good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted an article to Daily Kos on this, at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/18/203357/80

[oldbookguy]

TE, nice, I do not do WIKI, but you may want to work in the following from BibleStudy.org

The last recorded case in Scripture is on Acts 1:24-26, when the apostles asked God' decision of a choice between two men to replace Judas, through the casting of lots.

"And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all [men], shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. " (Acts 1:24-26)

WHAT IS CASTING LOTS:
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/castlots.html

The conclusion from BS, It is quite OK to flip a coin or some similar method, like a draw, to determine a winner , or the like, with the understanding that the outcome is left to chance and nothing else.

However, this all said, if you search gambling, it is condemed by this same bible study course.

Ah, me oh my.

obg

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL... I have watched sections of that video and haven't seen it.. at what time does the exchange take place? I love the foes of fun saying!

[/ QUOTE ]

3:33:45 [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[following McClusky's advocacy of a total gaming prohibition in the U.S.]
Rep. Steven Cohen: Is there any fun that you’re for? [laughter in background]
Tom McClusky: Any what?
Rep. Steven Cohen: Fun.
Tom McClusky: Umm...well, we’re for this, and this seems like a lot of fun.
Rep. Steven Cohen: Hearings?
Tom McClusky: [no response...laughter in background]
Rep. Steven Cohen: Good, good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted an article to Daily Kos on this, at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/18/203357/80

[/ QUOTE ]

This was much better seeing the video than the already funny transcript.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL... I have watched sections of that video and haven't seen it.. at what time does the exchange take place? I love the foes of fun saying!

[/ QUOTE ]

3:33:45 [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[following McClusky's advocacy of a total gaming prohibition in the U.S.]
Rep. Steven Cohen: Is there any fun that you’re for? [laughter in background]
Tom McClusky: Any what?
Rep. Steven Cohen: Fun.
Tom McClusky: Umm...well, we’re for this, and this seems like a lot of fun.
Rep. Steven Cohen: Hearings?
Tom McClusky: [no response...laughter in background]
Rep. Steven Cohen: Good, good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted an article to Daily Kos on this, at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/18/203357/80

[/ QUOTE ]

This was much better seeing the video than the already funny transcript.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Nice post on my Daily Kos post.

I've been reading up on what liberals/progressives believe in detail (i.e, they actually like government regulation, etc.), to see how to appeal to them. I've gotten no negative replies to this Daily Kos entry, so I think that's working. I'd like to be able to speak the language of all potential supporters.

[Awesemo]

Just watched the video. What I thought was interesting was that the most compelling points were not about the moral implications of legalized gambling; however, that is where there was the most controversy.

The most powerful point in my opinion was the international commitment that USA is currently planning to renege. There isn't that much at stake for our country: it doesn't matter that much whether it would be legalized or not. The rejection of USA's moral argument by the WTO seems completely justified.

Most people at the hearing were speaking for their own interests and I felt there wasn't any middle ground, except the professor. There were obvious points in the hearing where this was exposed: for example, when the anti gambling proponent rejected even a study being conducted. The hearing also exposed that the UIGEA wasn't at the heart of the issue.

I would like to see more emphasis by the PPA on the international part of this issue, even though it isn't the most representative point for its interests.

[rakewell]

I was just reading through the Annie Duke chat transcript, and saw that the first question posed was this:

"Gaming? GAMING? Where I come from, playing for money -- on the Internet or elsewhere -- is called GAMBLING. And that's okay by me, but why do you insist on calling it "gaming"? How can you have an honest debate when you don't use honest language?"

Frankly, I think Annie's answer is disingenuous. Not to accept the term "gambling" for poker isn't realistic, and won't win points for honesty. To limit "gambling" to +EV situations, as she appears to do, doesn't conform to any standard definition that I know of. It also has the problem that poker would be "gambling" for some players but not for others--not a very clean or useful way of defining a word.

But my purpose in posting this note isn't primarily to bash Annie or her response. It is, instead, to educate others who might face similar questions/comments/accusations from people who have heard that "gaming" is an industry euphemism, used to avoid having to say the ugly word "gambling," and that as a result it's somehow a fundamentally deceptive or dishonest word. That just isn't so. For details, see http://pokergrump.blogspot.com/2007/...-gambling.html

[tangled]

For me:

I prefer to use gaming for two reasons: One, gaming invokes the entire experience of which gambling is only one, albeit the most important, part. Study, site and table choice, and money management are just some of the other parts which makes gaming a more accurate choice.

Second, yes gaming sounds better. But so what? As long as its accurate, which it is, then why can't I pick the word that I like? Geez!!! Let's flip the coin over, why do our opponents insist on using "gambling"? Its because they want to paint this activity in the most negative light possible. How is that any less disingenuous?

This just shows how weak the arguments are on the other side, in that they have to focus on irrelevant details to make any progress.

[oldbookguy]

First, look at what gaming is and put it in context with everything she said then compare to gambling.

GAMING: verb, 3. a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

Gambling: noun, 1. to play at any game of chance for money or other stakes.
2. to stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance: to gamble on a toss of the dice.

Since we consider poker a game of skill with a chance factor as secondary, then gaming is correct.

obg

[ QUOTE ]
I was just reading through the Annie Duke chat transcript, and saw that the first question posed was this:

"Gaming? GAMING? Where I come from, playing for money -- on the Internet or elsewhere -- is called GAMBLING. And that's okay by me, but why do you insist on calling it "gaming"? How can you have an honest debate when you don't use honest language?"

Frankly, I think Annie's answer is disingenuous. Not to accept the term "gambling" for poker isn't realistic, and won't win points for honesty. To limit "gambling" to +EV situations, as she appears to do, doesn't conform to any standard definition that I know of. It also has the problem that poker would be "gambling" for some players but not for others--not a very clean or useful way of defining a word.

But my purpose in posting this note isn't primarily to bash Annie or her response. It is, instead, to educate others who might face similar questions/comments/accusations from people who have heard that "gaming" is an industry euphemism, used to avoid having to say the ugly word "gambling," and that as a result it's somehow a fundamentally deceptive or dishonest word. That just isn't so. For details, see http://pokergrump.blogspot.com/2007/...-gambling.html

[/ QUOTE ]

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
For me:

I prefer to use gaming for two reasons: One, gaming invokes the entire experience of which gambling is only one, albeit the most important, part. Study, site and table choice, and money management are just some of the other parts which makes gaming a more accurate choice.

Second, yes gaming sounds better. But so what? As long as its accurate, which it is, then why can't I pick the word that I like? Geez!!! Let's flip the coin over, why do our opponents insist on using "gambling"? Its because they want to paint this activity in the most negative light possible. How is that any less disingenuous?

This just shows how weak the arguments are on the other side, in that they have to focus on irrelevant details to make any progress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. The word "gambling" is tained in the mind of the public. When I write to Congress, I certainly minimize its use. When I've had people who wouldn't bet on anything review some of my letters to Congress (people whom I know will give me what I need...a tough review of the letter), the most common comments center on any usage of the word "gambling". "Poker" goes over well. "Games of skill", and phrases like "unlike hoping for luck on a roulette wheel" go over well with these folks as well.