one time

lol nice user name

mods can you add today's quotes from Reid and Kyl into the op cliffs? Pretty significant statements from both.

Saying that Delaware is the first state to regulate online intrastate gambling is a pretty terrible journalistic error IMO.

This. The IRS, your psycho-ex, the Dept. of Student Loans, and the NYC Parking Violations Bureau will be able to slurp $ out of your account at will (assuming you're allowed to have an account at all), and your employer and 39 federal agencies will have access to your account activity and hand histories.

Any inside info (from your friends that were hearing things during the last congress session)? #no irony

IF and when this does happen, it will be awful.

Inter-state, limited deposits, rake so high your nose will bleed etc etc etc...the list goes on and on.

It's time to learn that ANYTHING the Government has their hands in is NOT good. But when the people don't want to stand up and fight for whats right and they look towards and appointed official to sort out the mess...thats what your going to get.

A third party official... that's all we are waiting on.

Actions speak louder than words and although the PPA and other efforts have been GOOD....to many clueless poker players do nothing. They sit back and think someone else will do the leg work for me.

Remember kitty's 2 billion a year in tax revenue is like 50cents and a hot dog to this countries debt crisis.

Also, keep in mind how politics work. Taking a Pro-Gambling stance on a bill can crush a candidates character. It's just to dam risky at this time. Simple cost-benefit analysis.

I would marginally guess 2016 or later, would be the earliest we saw a shuffle up and deal Vegas sytle LED sign lit up on the internetz.

(p.s. don't ask what action I've taken considering i'm a losing poker player and have saved more money with my white collared job because of no online poker in the US online. I'm not against it, hell its the heroin to my sickness... i'm just not proactively fighting for it).

Nice unsubstantiated opinion, dude, and nice job actually addressing my points.

If the presentation of the bill is done right it will be the exact opposite. Congress will be voting to toughen the current online gambling landscape.....







.....but allow poker.

The poker part is just 1/10 of what is probably being drafted IMO.

Uhhh gotcha. Forgive me for tl:dr - havn't been on 2+2 for months.

So I'll just take the stance then If this does happen its going to suck so hard.

Lazy stance but then again like I said.... I spew, I don't cash out so you can see my not give a terd attitude towards this subject.

I have built many relationships online through the pokerz which I value and I will 100% be there to deposit and continue spewing when this all goes down, just ummm not an advocate of the issue. I just get fired up about how bad its going to suck though considering what past experiences we have already had and hwo those are never coming back.

RIP Sunday Majors, Super Tuesdays and Rip My Shirt Off... I Don't Even Want Money Online Thursdays. lol

It's not a "Pro-Gambling Stance."

Ask Kyl, he is not in this to help gambling. He is trying to strengthen the UIEGEA and seems to be willing to let poker be one of the exceptions as long as the online casinos/sports books have even harsher laws.

So you could easily spin it as a Repub that it is actually Anti-Gambling stance.

I'm majorly loling at everyone saying it's gonna be this way or it's gonna be that way. THERE'S NO WAY YOU COULD KNOW WHAT IT'S GONNA BE LIKE! The only way to find out is to wait and see. You can speculate all you want, but don't treat your opinions as accurate estimates about the result of legislation. There are too many factors and unknowns to make a solid read on what will or will not happen. Having fun guessing all you want but don't act like ya'll know something other people don't. Ya'll don't know **** (no offense).

Not true at all.

We know for a fact it will include prohibitions on certain sites and gambling. We know for a fact it will include taxation. And just look at the players involved. Kyl and Reid. We know for a fact Kyl is anti gaming and wants more prohibitions, and we know for a fact that Reid is funded by casinos and is looking out for them. Looking out for them, not us.

Also, it just takes simple logic to come to the conclusion that the government will raise taxes on poker before anything else. Nobody wants to cut defense spending, no one wants to cut entitlements, there's not going to be any drastic spending cuts, so more revenue is needed. Well, here we are taxing poker, a "sinful" activity, and no one's going to make a fuss if we raise taxes on it, and even if they do, we don't care because it's much less people than would be fussing over entitlement cuts, so ....

Funny how the PPA considers him to be an ally in this.

Actually that's not funny, that's sad.

why haven't they been raising taxes on online horse racing up until now?

maybe because they have lobbyists working to keep taxation on them low. i hope casino corps lobby congress. do they?

Most of us are quite content with the current regulation over sites like PokerStars and PartyPoker, if we are honest with ourselves, the only reason the majority is now in support of Federal regulation is that it is the most viable means to our true end: unrestricted/convenient access to online poker.

Alcohol consumers in the 1920's didn't support the lift of prohibition because they didn't trust the liquor being served in speakeasy's, they welcomed the the regulation because it made access to the product they wished to consume more convenient and less costly.

But prohibition wasn't lifted because an Alcohol Drinkers Association was able to alter the opinions of the moral majority who disapproved of the vice, it was lifted because enough drinkers continued to drink despite all the inconvenience the prohibition caused.

The tweets we should be sending to opposing Congressmen should make it known that we are not sitting around waiting for them to divide up the revenue pie, that we are still going to play poker even if we have to leave this great country to do it.

We might also remind them that we continue to have other alternatives, so if the tax stamp they do decide to put their government bottled poker is too high, we will continue to exercise our freedom.

But at no point should we be asking them to grant us our freedom, as our freedom was never within their dominion.

I'm not sure they haven't, and I think you're not either - info for federal taxation of online horse racing in the U.S. is kinda hard to find on the internet.

You pay tax on your winnings (after deducting your losses)

http://www.justanswer.com/tax/69q3y-...aces-home.html

Read more on BloodHorse.com: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...#ixzz20vzqmEMt

+1 Bro. + mother****ing 1.

Im so sick of sweating this ****ing bull**** and imagining the massive amounts of gold that will be flowing into my wallet.

Pass this ****ing bill or ban online poker for good until the United States crumbles into the pages of history.

Ive never unleashed mine from the holster since Black Friday....its time...

"One Time Baby!"

Incorrect....incorrect. Prohibition was lifted because the Volstead Act turned gangsters into multi-gajillionairs with such massive power and political corruption running so deep and widespread, the country almost toppled over. Cities were turned into warzones, police forces and politicians were corrupted absolutely.

Prohibition was meant to stop the social misery and sorrow booze can cause but it created even more of the latter. THATS why it was repealed. It created more suffering than it was supposed to stop.

P.S. Im having a beer.

If everyone had stopped drinking after prohibition and sat home writing angry letters to politicians, gangsters could not have become "multi-gajillionairs" and the rest of your synopsis then falls flat.

A social media campaign in support of a specific bill sight-unseen is like issuing Congress a blank check, we might as well be tweeting that we are bent over, lubed up and ready for anything they want to insert.

whoa there pal, you're saying some very dangerous things.

Think we need to get the mods over here ASAP

Reported, off topic derailment attempt.

I'm implying insert into the bill of course, I apologize for being too graphic but others complained that my analogies were too obscure.