November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

[JPFisher55]

Ok, the PPA can support the IGREA, but please don't say that it complies with with the WTO. If Congress gets the idea that the IGREA complies with the WTO, then how do we get a better bill?

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

And thanks for that TE, I hadnt realized I'd crossed into "old hand" status until your post. Makes me feel even older than my recent birthday did [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] . But anything for the cause ....

Skallagrim

PS to JP: I hope I never said Frank's IGREA, as currently written, would make the US WTO compliant, I thought I said it needed work to get there, which it clearly does. If I did say anywhere its compliant, it was a typo.

[TheEngineer]

[ 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.

[coachkf]

[ 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 ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing naive. Rakewell's posts are typical of someone jumping in on the discussion a year after UIGEA.

All it takes is watching the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb1pzayqPaI )the night the UIGEA was slipped into the bill to understand why everyone for online poker is a big fan of Berkley. Well everyone with a lick of sense...

I was chewing my nails that night, and it was nice to see someone stand up and speak out against this junk.

I make my entire living from the online poker industry and I would have probably voted the same way she did that night. Online poker is important to me, but there are other things that trump it.

Anyone who points to the Port Security vote as the record of note for "who is against us and who is for us" is a complete idiot....or is just very very naive.

[TheEngineer]

[ 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.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing naive. Rakewell's posts are typical of someone jumping in on the discussion a year after UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you guessed right. It's hard to see how someone could see a vote go 409-2 in the House and 100-0 in the Senate and think to himself that he's not going to "let them off the hook that easily". His blog is at http://pokergrump.blogspot.com/2007/...cal-wimps.html . Apparently he put a lot of thought into why he's upset, but very little into what anyone should do about it.

[JPFisher55]

Skall, I am sure that you have never made the mistake of thinking that the IGREA complies with the WTO. I wish I had a nickel for every reporter that has made this mistake. I am not sure if the PPA has actually made this mistake, but they have linked to articles in which it is reported.
I agree that the bill could be rewritten to comply with the WTO decision, but IMO it would be easier to start over at least from a drafting prospective; maybe not politically.

[rakewell]

[ 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?

[JPFisher55]

Look, the no one wanted to vote against the Ports Safe Bill because any such politician would have been branded as very soft on terrorism and national security. It was passed on literally the last hour of the previous COngress, so no one had time to amend it.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ 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