|
|
#291
11-16-2007, 07:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ 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. 
|
|
#292
11-16-2007, 07:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ 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 ] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb1pzayqPaI
|
|
#293
11-16-2007, 07:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 ] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb1pzayqPaI [/ QUOTE ] I never get tired of watching this!!!! She rocks
|
|
#294
11-16-2007, 08:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ QUOTE ]
IMO, the WTO will either grant Antiqua its requested IP sanctions which will cause the Democrats in Congress to force compliance with WTO on the Bush Administration and the states or the WTO will not grant Antiqua its requested IP sanctions in that event the WTO will become as worthless as the UN, most medium to small members will leave the WTO or ignore it and even the large members will ignore it. If the latter occurs the international trade system might break down. The last time that happened the world suffered a Great Depression and Adolf Hitler rose to power. Now the economies of most nations are much more interdependent than in the 1920's. But that might make a resolution much quicker and less costly. I hope that the WTO chooses to enforce its rulings unlike the worthless UN. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 3bn to Antigua and Japan and Australia will say [censored] you to the USTR. Its a magic number that determines what we get. [/ QUOTE ] I think the important thing is in the last quote above from the previous post of yours, i.e. the exact number. There is a spectrum between nothing and very substantial with the sanctions number, especially as you note because the more substantial the more potential for other nations to claim large compensation, and the less substantial the greater the likelihood of the WTO being seen as a toothless entity with the possible serious trade results. My concern is that the number or exact nature of negotiated concessions if that comes about at this late date, will be of a middling variety that only takes care of Antigua enough to get them off their market access demand, while not being serious enough for us to leverage our own cause. If the number is not set fairly large, much closer to Antigua's estimates than that of the U.S., then a small number will more likely be paid by the US, which will then claim it has taken care of the matter and has no further commitments, and just moves on and pretends it never happened. Also there is the question, which I have seen asked of Jay Cohen a couple times, and which he answered, but which answers I'm not sure I understood 100%. That question is whether Antigua would be willing to be compensated in other ways than market access as part of a negotiated settlement, even if such compensation were ongoing and not one time. If Antigua could be so satisfied, then the whole issue wouldn't benefit our cause.
|
|
#295
11-16-2007, 09:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
Bluffthis, you're confusing the Antiqua sanctions in compensation for US failure to comply with the WTO decision with the compensation cases of all the requested nations for US withdrawal of its gambling services commitments to the WTO. They are two different matters. The latter will take well into next year to be decided. The former should be decided by the end of the year and will have a more immediate impact. The confusion is that Antiqua has demanded $3.4 billion for both compensations.
Jay has repeatedly stated that he cannot think of any compensation method for Antiqua other than IP santions because they do not export anything other than online gambling services (and a lot less of that) to US.
|
|
#296
11-16-2007, 10:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ 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.
|
|
#297
11-17-2007, 06:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ 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?
|
|
#298
11-17-2007, 06:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ 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 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 ] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb1pzayqPaI [/ QUOTE ] I never get tired of watching this!!!! She rocks [/ QUOTE ] I might agree, if she had actually voted against the bill. Then her actions would match her rhetoric. As it is, she said all the right things, but did the wrong thing. If saying the right thing while doing the wrong thing is what you deem to make somebody "rock," well, so be it. I simply disagree. Actions speak far louder than words. She voted for the UIGEA when the final version was up for a vote. Period. Given that unarguable fact, it's awfully hard for me to consider her on the right side of the issue.
|
|
#299
11-17-2007, 06:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread
[ 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.
|
|
#300
11-17-2007, 07:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 ] You're either leveling us or amazingly naive.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
