November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

[flight2q]

Bleh. Who was it that pointed his question at the FoF creep, asking whether regulated online gambling increased addiction? And of course, FoF says it does - the Brits proved it! No one seemed to respond to that.

[CompatiblePoker]

Yeah, we're getting some good responses from Hannaway. She doesn't seem to comfortable answering the questions. Money laundering...not illegal to gamble...she was hating it.

[CompatiblePoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Bleh. Who was it that pointed his question at the FoF creep, asking whether regulated online gambling increased addiction? And of course, FoF says it does - the Brits proved it! No one seemed to respond to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I was suprised no one responded to that as well. Instead he said it increased gambling addiction at the same rate online gambling was growing...or something of that sort. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice of Catherine Hanaway to finally admit that poker sites haven't been used to launder money via chip dumping.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some quick notes from a bad copy of the audio only.

Shelly and Annie were fantastic! Personally, I loved the zero down sub-prime mortgage issue in terms of actual damage. Annie's ability to concretly argue almost any portion of "our case" and defeat all opponets by exploiting their weaknesses is a true testement to the wisdom of those leading the PPA today!

Tom McClusky, pointed out that the ABA wanted the UIGEA. IMO other than the FoF moral objection types the ABA is our worst enemy. We can defeat the moral objections in a number of ways through sheer political force if necessary.

Not addressing the ABA is a large weakness in our over all strategy, IMO. I still say we should organize an effort to attempt to melt a few servers or at least clog up a few databases with a record of blocked transactions from US on-line poker players.

Good job John with the PPA logo behind a couple of people testifying, from a few video segments I saw, I hope that makes a newspaper.

The social ills and moral argument fail from logic and consequences alone. The prohibition model is a band-aid in that “compulsive and problem” gamblers or those psychologically susceptible to such issues will find an outlet regardless of the activity used to destroy them or harm others.

Sensible regulation is the only model that provides a new revenue stream that realistically will address the problem from the treatment side helping all addictions not just gambling. As shown those likely to be come addicted will find some outlet with or without the internet or gambling.

Rep Wexler helped point out the hypocrisies in various arguments but sometimes his passion is too much for some to take, personally I love the guy on this issue.

Catherine Hanaway, in her Q&A in response helped our cause by inadvertently, more than once, pointing out moving the jurisdiction to the US on these issues would actually strengthen the governments ability to stop most all of the ills like criminal ownership, money laundering, fraud, and almost all other problems actually made worse by Congresses actions to date.

Bobby Scott’s points directly on pointed; the location and commingling of funds problems faced by the proposed regulations. Michael Calopy was very strong and needed more time! This could and should along with other issues help outline our comments on the proposed regulation.

Goodlatte and others pointed out this will ultimately become a State-by-State issue, with the PPA needing to better foster the strength of the State organizations. He also pointed out the possibility of dumping the Horse Racing issue or paying off as Rose suggested.

Joseph Weiler continues to forcefully pointed out that this issue will not go away, the weakness of withdrawing, ignoring the damage to the progress of the US’s overall efforts on trade commitments from the Uruguay Round, and the long-term damage of the Executive Branch’s actions to date.



D$D

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bleh. Who was it that pointed his question at the FoF creep, asking whether regulated online gambling increased addiction? And of course, FoF says it does - the Brits proved it! No one seemed to respond to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I was suprised no one responded to that as well. Instead he said it increased gambling addiction at the same rate online gambling was growing...or something of that sort. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe Annie did in her earlier testimony and the FoF guy was only contradicring her..She did mention the UK study that was just completed..

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Goodlatte: "What if it wasn't gambling we accidently allowed, but Cocaine, or Rocket Grenades from Columbia: How would you feel then"

[/ QUOTE ]

Weiler has been chewing them up. But from what I heard he neglected to mention here that cocaine is different because we don't have USA companies legally providing cocaine in USA (AFAIK). Great work making it clear what he was commenting on (why moral argument didn't pass muster with WTO) and getting his point across.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was the second part of his answer, when he discussed the horse racing industry in the U.S.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
The first part went okay. The second part went better. Hopefully we'll deliver the knockout punch in the final part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some quick notes from a bad copy of the audio only.

Shelly and Annie were fantastic! Annie’s ability to not only put a great face, lend a personal subjective example, and forcefully advance our cause; but to defeat almost all opponents’ arguments in exploiting there weakness, is a true testament to the thoughtful leadership of the PPA. She turned Chairman’s comment to Shelly and the unsaid position that “our” examples are unique, while attempting to disguising the subjective value of their own examples.

Personally, I loved the zero down sub-prime mortgage issue in terms of actual damage. Tom McClusky, pointed out that the ABA wanted the UIGEA. IMO other than the FoF moral objection types the ABA is our worst enemy. We can defeat the moral objections in a number of ways through sheer political force if necessary. Not addressing the ABA is a large weakness in our over all strategy, IMO. I still say we should organize an effort to attempt to melt a few servers or at least clog up a few databases with a record of blocked transactions from US on-line poker players.

Good job John with the PPA logo behind a couple of people testifying, from a few video segments I saw, I hope that makes a newspaper.

The social ills and moral argument fail from logic and consequences alone. The prohibition model is a band-aid in that “compulsive and problem” gamblers or those psychologically susceptible to such issues will find an outlet regardless of the activity used to destroy them or harm others. Sensible regulation is the only model that provides a new revenue stream that realistically will address the problem from the treatment side helping all addictions not just gambling. As shown those likely to be come addicted will find some outlet with or without the internet or gambling.

Rep Wexler helped point out the hypocrisies in various arguments but sometimes his passion is too much for some to take, personally I love the guy on this issue.

Catherine Hanaway, in her Q&A in response helped our cause by inadvertently, more than once, pointing out moving the jurisdiction to the US on these issues would actually strengthen the governments ability to stop most all of the ills like criminal ownership, money laundering, fraud, and almost all other problems actually made worse by Congresses actions to date.

Bobby Scott’s points directly on pointed out; the location and commingling of funds problems faced by the proposed regulations. Michael Calopy was very strong and needed more time!

Goodlatte and others pointed out this will ultimately become a State-by-State issue, with the PPA needing to better foster the strength of the State organizations. He also pointed out the possibility of dumping the Horse Racing issue or paying off as Rose suggested.

Joseph Weiler continues to forcefully pointed out that this issue will not go away, the weakness of withdrawing, ignoring the damage to the progress of the US’s overall efforts on trade commitments from the Uruguay Round, and the long-term damage of the Executive Branch’s actions to date.


D$D

[ahmngrn30]

wow, I cringed when I heard Duke would be on, but she's dominating.

[CompatiblePoker]

[ QUOTE ]
wow, I cringed when I heard Duke would be on, but she's dominating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definately. Loved the bash on Goodlatte about morality. Not imoral to gamble in 48 states but it's immoral to gamble online? Go Annie.

[Richas]

Is there any fun you are for? LOL