I read the article in the original post. One of the most ignorant things I've seen written. He starts by stating that playing poker on line is illegal activity, yet I have not seen one law that makes it so. I have not heard of one person arrest for playing poker online.

Then this: This written by a Focus on the Family guy. An evangalical organization thet preys on the elderly, taking their money. Sheesh!

Casino in every home is not a logical argument, its a catch phrase. I doubt you'll convince the other side to stop using it. Its about the strongest point they could ever hope to make for their case, whether its reality or not is another matter.

Still not as funny as the atheist offering pet insurance for those christians expecting the "rapture". Apparently god will not only leave most people behind but all of their pets too. Nice guy.

The guy selling the insurance said - they have been disapointed twice today, first they have not had their rapture and second, I don't do refunds.

Freedom in every home

Yeah. The atheist thing was pretty funny.

It takes generations to turn these cult types around. So, don't waste too much of your effort when there are more normal people that can be reasoned with...

Fight the Power!

This guys hopeless. You guys remember that Focus on the Family's founder was on the right-wing National Gambling Impact Study Commission in 1999 that recommended stopping the expansion of gambling and completely prohibiting internet gambling.

I'm pretty sure all federal legislation since has referenced the study, like the UIGEA for example:

Also, his interpretation of a Ben Franklin quote is amazing.

Found another gem in his replies to comments:

I think he might be on to something here. I talked with a few B&M regulars and they were against online casinos because they feared they would access them too much. For these types, Stars and Tilt had offered self-imposed deposit limits (which you won't find at most casinos) and self-banning options. It is possible that online may be better for the degenerate, as he or she can play for lower stakes (with poker) with a deposit limit (any game) instead of blowing his or her rent at the casino.

Did anyone ask him what specific law clearly states that it is legal for him to eat, drink and breath?

Maybe he should quit doing those activities.

Why do people even bother arguing with this guy? It's obvious he's a nut-job and he's never going to change his opinion on poker.

I read a bit of his post and his response to the first comment and immediately went back to this thread to post about what a jackass this guy is, but I can't put it any better than you did. +1

I wish that there were only excerpts in this thread instead of a link, because it kills me to think that this thread is driving traffic to his horrible blog.

Yes, he is clearly a lost cause and arguing with him is only adding fuel to the fire and giving him opportunities to share his idiotic and backwards views.

I'm bracing myself for the hate so bring it haters ...

Chad Hills has a point. He's obviously ignorant on many subjects, but here's one thing he has damn right: Professional poker players should have seen this coming.

Forget the legal quagmire about whether online poker is actually legal. What people knew, or should have known, was that the federal government was proceeding as if it were illegal. When UIGEA passed, PartyPoker's stock plummeted - that is, whether or not online poker is actually illegal, most people assumed it was and reacted accordingly. When Neteller was raided, it unequivocally sent a signal that the federal government was actively seeking and destroying these banking links between citizens and sites.

Does it really matter that online poker is (or is not) ACTUALLY legal? Not to the point that Chad Hills should have made: supporting your family off of a living which is actively being targeted by a federal investigation is not a good idea. Even if you win in court, the federal government is going to seize first and make you fight to get it back. Suspicion, not proof, of illegal activity is what it takes for the government to take away things. Furthermore, in a warning to the PPA and online poker advocates, let me point out that complaining about getting busted for something the government has maintained was illegal for years is a horrible use of the limited PR that online poker is going to get.

Poker players can yell and scream until their faces turn blue about how online poker is totally legal, but guess what, it really doesn't matter, because the DOJ is going to keep playing whack-a-mole with the payment processors until (a) someone hands them a document which unambiguously states that online poker is legal (e.g., Congress, SCOTUS) or (b) they have killed off so much fishy money that the volume of money falls off the radar.

Did anyone honestly think that poker sites were on the up-and-up about their charges? Certainly nobody who had paid attention - at the risk of divulging information people don't want me to, sometime in 2010 a longtime poster in one of these forums relayed an amusing story - he had been convinced to deposit $600 onto a poker site one day, and the next morning he woke up to find an alert from his bank pointing to a questionable $599 charge to a "furniture store" in the Middle East. Groggy, he immediately reported it as a fraudulent charge before realizing - OH **** - it was his online poker charge. Come on, people ... we all knew this was going down. What did we think, that the government was going to scratch their heads and wonder why Arab furniture sales were up by 12000% this quarter?

Poker players are barking up the wrong tree by focusing on professionals. The fact that people are able to earn livings off of online poker only stands to highlight the fact that other people are losing equivalent amounts of money. People are much more likely going to pass a legalization bill that makes online poker look like a harmless recreational activity. And we (as poker players) should know that given the large number of rules excluding unraked/penny play from existing legislation or barring high-stakes play.

This guy is such a dick duffel

^^^While I dislike much of your post, I agree that harmless penny stakes recreation is a much better narrative for our cause.

http://www.citizenlink.com/2011/06/2...gambling-ring/

He's at it again.

While I agree that engaging FoF in a logical debate will not get us anywhere, I think taunting them on their site or FB is +EV when viewed as personal entertainment.