He could literally write the same exact article about the casinos.

Can't tell from a brief glance at his bio (it's too vague to see an alliance and mentions he's represented or advised online companies too), though I'd guess he's friendly with some that would prefer to see a different bill in place of Barton's pass.

Can one of you guys with knowledge cut through the mess here and just tell us who he wrote this article for? Nobody writes something like this without an agenda.

http://www.gamblingandthelaw.com/ima.../ResumeINR.pdf

I absolutely disagree.

$50,000,000 would make PokerPAC perhaps the largest PAC in the U.S. (Someone else can check this, but it IS a lot of money.)

(The continuing failure of poker players to fund the PPA, and the "what can I do about it" attitude of the PPA Board, are not going to be changed unless the PPA actively pursues player funding ...... but that doesn't seem important, yet. Going all-in this year on residual IGC money may be a +EV short-term move, but the PPA needs to move to a player-funded base for credibility.)

I've known Nelson for a few years. I happen to think that Mason's post above has a pretty good read on him. Beyond that, who knows ?

The good news is that this article doesn't matter, period.

To paraphrase a leftwing icon, avoid this obessive focus on personalities, Barton or Rose, and get back on the substantive message:

"Don't whine, organize."

Given that I do this for substantially less than I made as an engineer, I assure you I'd love for PPA to have more money. We all would.

The way this article is written, it is as if Rose is trying to say that Barton is a hypocrite. To say or infer that Barton is a hypocrite is anyone's opinion. THe way I see is that enough of our voices have definitely reached the ears of lawmakers and Mr. Barton took a stand to support our cause! In doing so, he draft a bill which works to our advantage and if we continue to get our voices heard, more lawmakers will support the cause!

I'll never understand why some people hold the owner of this site to such rigid posting and rules standards, especially when it's about something as relevant at this article.

Yea, I saw that, but it also says leading internet companies, which are or have effectively supported the Barton bill. That's why I wasn't absolutely sure and asked. I assume your response means you give more credit to his more numerous ties to land based operators than leading internet companies? I can absolutely see that as a valid explanation, but wanted to be sure because I did not know that for sure.

Get off it already, if the PPA is so terrible at doing this and there's just all this money asking to be donated, then somebody else would be starting up movements that would become more successful than the PPA sooner or later (and there have been movements started in places such as 2p2 that have NOT gained anywhere near the traction the PPA has).

PPA may not be awesome, I don't really know for sure, but I don't think you do either. Yet you blindly hate on them all over the place.

Honestly, you may be bringing more harm to the PPA by posting all this nonsense all the time, you know Rich and SKall will end up responding to every post you make, so you waste time they could be using more effectively by posting nonsense so often.

I'm not saying you don't ever bring up good points, but so often it's just blindly biased hatred towards the PPA that you post. One week it was "the PPA will probably be raided by the US gov't" then the next week the PPA met with the DOJ about player funds. Numerous examples like that make you a net losing proposition to this forum and to the fight in my personal opinion.

I don't want to call it trolling, that's too insulting given the behavior of many that are termed trolls on 2p2, but I think you're at least ignorant of the blatantly false stuff you often say that takes up so many responses from the guys that are leading the PPA on here, guys you claim you want to do a better job, yet you constantly distract with irrelevant or out of context attacks.

Relax, take a deep breath, then read for substance:

1. Someone posted to the effect that if 1,000,000+ members pitched in $50 each ,that would not amount to a meaningful bankroll for politics. That was way off-base, as $50,000,000 or $20,000,000 even would be a HUGE lobbying bankroll.

2. An organization which speaks collectively for a membership base REALLY needs to be member-funded. Doesn't matter who they are, the NRA, the AARP, trade associations, or labor unions. If someone ELSE pays the bills, that skews the message accordingly. You can argue all you want to about whether the PPA has done "good" or "awesomw", the fact is that their former funding dried up, has tainted them to some degree, and will not support them going forward.

3. Step up and donate $50 to the PPA, so they can continue what you support.

4. The PPA should hire professional fundraisers to mine the membership to raise funds needed to go forward.

NOW, Sonny, what part of any of that is "blind hate" or "nonsense" or ignorance ?

You also may be confusing me with someone else. I never posted anything about the PPA going to be raided, EVER. I never even thought they should give back ANY money, even that from FTP-related sources. .... As a matter of fact, I've grown weary of their apparent fear of acknwledging that PStars still belongs to the IGC, upon which the PPA depends for funding. There is nothing "wrong"with being supported by PStars, it just is a political tradeoff, as TE recently put it:

"No one said there are no issues in perception. I clearly said here it's a trade-off. … I have not seen any evidence that poker players are willing to fully fund any effort."

Focus on showing TE evidence that poker players WILL fund an effort to represent their interests.

I did urge the PPA all along to be MUCH more proactive with the DOJ to secure benefits for members hurt at FTP. for whatever reason, I was vilified for that suggestion. Fortunately, the PPA has since taken uop communication with the DOJ on that subject, assigning it to its "legal team". Sorry, if you have a beef with them talking to DOJ about securing FTP players' funds, but I don't follow why that is "nonsense" to you.

Donkey:

Online legalization, when and if it ever comes, will be on terms dictated by the major land-based brick and mortar operators. They are the ones paying the freight. (It's certainly not cheap poker players.) The B&Ms are the ones funneling money to the AGA and K Street lobbyists. That money eventually winds up in the campaign coffers of politicians. The voice of one Sheldon Adelson negates 250,000 zealots sending emails and twitter messages "demanding" action.

The reason is simple: Adelson backs up his words with money - lots of money. He's been a kingmaker (and a career breaker) in the GOP for decades. Politicians fear crossing Sheldon Adelson because they know he can throw a lot of money to a primary opponent and end their career. (Why do you suppose Shelly Berkley suddenly went mute after Adelson announced his opposition to legalizing internet poker? She knows where her bread is buttered.)

Shortly after Black Friday, Todd Terry appeared as a guest on the PokerCast and expressed his rather gloomy view that internet poker would "never" be legalized in the United States. Todd believes there are too many forces lined up against us and too many ways that the train can be derailed. I hope Todd turns out to be wrong, but there are many indications that Todd may be right.

I certainly understand that other people have different views as to what it will take and how it will ultimately work out, but if history is prologue we might all recall what it took to repeal prohibition of alcohol back in the 1920's. It took 13 years for our elected representatives to come to their senses and realize that trying to restrict Americans' access to alcohol was a big mistake. That's the kind of fight we're in here ... This is going to be a long hard slog.

Former DJ

Here's a recent interview with Rose that appeared on calvinayre.com where he makes similar comments about Congressman (starting at 1:00 minute):

http://calvinayre.com/2011/10/21/leg...ndustry-video/

Best wishes,
Mason

Can the PPA discussion go to another thread.

Thanks,
Mason

Done.

All: Any further PPA discussion ITT will be deleted and may result in an infraction. Thanks.

The concern is not so much this one article, but that it appears Rose is repeating this stuff in many different places, some of which are important forums of information distribution. So we question as to whose side he's actually on and why he's given such large distribution. Hence, in my opinion he is damaging to the cause of getting a good Internet poker law, and that is the concern.

Best wishes,
Mason

I wanted to respond to DQ but don't want an infraction so I started a new thread in the PPA forum. I think it's an important discussion and fear it will get lost/ignored in the PPA forum.

All,

I just deleted a few off-topic posts.

Posts that are not about the I. Nelson Rose article do not belong ITT. Thanks.

Thank you Sajeffe. Much appreciated.

All: that thread is at Player-Funded PPA Possible??

So far, he's done this at least three times. Once in the article, once on Calvin Ayre (the link you posted earlier) and on OnTilt Radio on 12/4.

This is online poker's current great hope? This is who the PPA has hitched their wagon to? jfc

I have no idea who I Nelson Rose is, or wtf the "I" in his name even means, or if it's even part of his name. But maybe it's counter productive to support strengthening the UIGEA and someone who voted for it?




Barton?

Given his voting recording, me neither.

*except for when he wasn't.

We lost the House vote 317-93 in 2006. We will obviously need to change the minds of many on Capitol Hill to pass anything.

Mason and I discussed this at length on the Monday show, at www.ustream.tv/recorded/19112747. You may find it informative.