I just want you not to do the same thing in the future. You want to save face here. Maybe we can both get what we want: I wont bother digging up proof that you are lying ITT and you don't go attention whoring to reporters next time you get some inside info.

very rapidly approaching my ignore button

lol. he's trolling obv. altho it would be cool to be cited by some sort of reporter in a news article, sadly that's never happened. i dont even know who would report on these things. unless you count... marco!!! my man, the italian stallion.

this is like the guy who contacted me and told me i was going to get sued for libel because i said full tilt poker was screwing players in april of last year.

Quick note about trolling/insulting post reports. If you think a post crosses the line, feel free to report it. Do not respond to it if you wish it deleted.

Once a troll post receives a couple responses, odds of it getting taken down and poster infracted are greatly diminished. What may happen if a line gets really stupid with mass poo slinging is a mass deletion and temp of the original troll and everyone that fed the troll. This is faster and easier than individual post deletion/infracting and mods are lazy. I like the easy approach.

I just want to add that the next mass post reporting of trolling/insulting is probably just going to get this thread shut down. There's a reason why, in general, topics like politics and religion aren't allowed in NVG - they are highly contentious and belong in their contained environments.

So either the nonsense stops or the thread gets shut down. Up to you guys.

The first 100 posts ITT were a healthy discussion. I'd hate to see this get shut down. Especially given how important this stuff is to online poker.

Again I just encourage everyone to hold back on politically charged posts that only stir up broader, divisive arguments. It's not the reason I made this thread. Also, put that ignore button to use if you can't have constraint when facing lunacy...whatever you define that to be.


Can we just declare this sweat/update thread for those who are interested in the progress of a poker bill and only debates that fall within the context of the that be considered?


Above all else I just want non-political people to understand what is happening to online poker legislatively in the U.S.

+1, Esp. the bold.

The key update since the OP is that the Senate Majority Leader has apparently came out and said this bill needs GOP support, implying (to me) his approval of applying any pressure we can in that direction.

Harry Reid says he can’t get Republican support for online poker bill

Personally, I want to see the bill before "sweating" it - let alone asking for anyone else to support it - but I withdraw my objection in regards to publicly supporting it for surreptitious purposes.

I got a letter in the mail from Dean Heller (Republican Senator from Nevada) which said he supports regulated online poker. So there's +1. And +1 vote for him in his election I might add.

Actually, I just reread the letter, and Dean Heller said, "I fully support an individual's right to participate in gaming," but did not specifically say he supports online poker. Later he says he understands my strong support for permitting online poker and mentions H.R. 2366, which would allow it in states. But then he says, "Please rest assured that I will keep your perspective in mind should H.R. 2366 or any legislation related to online gaming be considered in the Senate." So he didn't actually say he would support it but sure gave me the impression he did in my first read of the letter.

Basically he left himself total wiggle room but gave me the impression he was a strong supporter of online poker. I'm actually impressed by how totally he convinced me he supported online poker by saying he understood my view and mentioning his strong support for a related issue (gaming in general).

Maybe Dean Heller actually does support online poker rights, but his letter didn't specifically say so, and Shelly Berkley is back in the running for my vote.

Heller is working alongside Harry Reid on a bill:

The 2012 election will not affect support from Nevada's Senators for a lame duck bill.

Rest assured, Heller has NO wiggle room. This is Nevada. He WILL support the industry-favored, Governor-favored bill.

That said, I just can't vote for him after that god-awful, awe-shucks advertisement with him in blue jeans talking about how he used to work a paper route .......... I used to like the guy.

A vote for Berkley is a safe vote for online poker, if it goes to 2013.

.... well, you do have 47,000 + posts on 2+2.

Could maybe the PPA or 2+2 create a list of politicians that support poker, DON'T support, and those on the fence
We could use that list to better target our efforts and track progress

Compliments of poster We_the_People last May. Some of these might be outdated.

The following one fo' sho':

Last seen on Twitter wearing not alot of clothing. Gone (although he is apparently considering a comeback since he is sitting on $4.5M worth of campaign contributions).

Thanks for the list. NY>>>TX. Consider this my official lobby to legally play NY Hold'em.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz – Florida - is against this Bill? WOW... thats surprising to me. I always like you a ton Deb, guess your just another follower. My future vote for you? R.I.P.

OMFG dude, someone please tell me that Anthony "Show My Weiner" Weiner isnt against this bill....please tell me. Lmao!

and to finally answer the TOUGH QUESTIONS surrounding his resignation, such as

were you fully aroused in those pictures?!

will you maintain your hot physique and smooth sexy chest?!

are you more than 7 inches?!

Thanks Slugger. Should I concentrate on the maybes and the no's in my state. Texas?

The discussion is not about legality of online poker; it's about the legality of offering online poker . State laws make that illegal w/o a license and that obviously triggers fed laws like UIGEA.

UIGEA did not create our problems; see above.

We simply need states to continue to expand gambling licenses; will they move faster/slower with a fed poker site act? I think a low/no cost, simple fed bill would help speed state expansion slighty in the near future; maybe it helps more long-term. If we see a fed power and money grab instead, I would think many players will be against its passage.

UIGEA has some exclusions pointing to state legal activity. Since online poker under a fed bill also would need state legality, nothing would trigger UIGEA and that business would be safe. What exactly do you mean by a "carve-out" and why is it needed under a new fed bill?

Maybe you are saying that UIGEA II will declare that there is no longer state legal IG businesses...a site gets/buys a fed exemption for its legality? If so, how does that pass?

Not so. The letters and grassroots effort have real impact.

Many lawmakers have deeply held preconceived notions about where Americans stand on our issue. Many conflate casino gaming issues with ours. Many also believe in a "silent majority" opposed to our issue.

Our efforts show lawmakers that many Americans oppose efforts to ban online poker. They also show lawmakers that we are energized, enthused, and involved, while also showing that our opponents are not.

This benefits us in many ways. For one, it is essential in poker lobbyists' efforts to show public support for our position. It is also great for showing anti-gaming lawmakers that they can expect a lot of opposition if they seek to expand the scope of the Wire Act to include poker.

These efforts have also increased the probability of passing legislation. Interests that would not spend money on this if the chances of passing anything were low are spending money lobbying now that the chances of passage are higher.

Online poker doesn't work that way. We need lots of players, ease of deposit for recreational players, player protections, and stuff like that. Besides, settling for a small, under-the-radar site as if that's all we deserve would be conceding defeat.

I'm glad we're not settling for that. I know I'm very happy that we did sit back and allow the busybodies to take our rights from us without fighting back.

Yes, it would have helped. HR 4411 passed the House in a well-publicized fashion that summer. The more support it had from the public, the worse it would have been. It could have even managed to pass the Senate in its original, tougher form, rather than getting watered down in the Senate backrooms prior to being attached to the SAFE Ports Act.

No. If a 317-93 House vote to ban the game didn't convince poker players of the era to take a stand (rather than assuming gov't couldn't stop the game or, worse, believing licensing would be worse than a ban), advocacy from faith and family groups wouldn't have either.

Yea...if people did that, you are correct, it "falls flat"....and if I can get Kim Kardashian knocked up tomarrow night I wont have to pay my electric bill anymore.

Fwiw (obv) TE is on the money here.

But people have quit playing poker, at least that must be the impression anyone who receives some of the pre-filled PPA "please mr/mrs government won't you give us back our 'right' to play poker?" tweets.

Inalienable rights can not be granted nor repealed.