how come this thread isn't blowing up after this latest comment by harrah reid? seems like huge news to me

We've been there too many times. I'll see it when I see it.

I think most people expected him to be working behind the scenes already.

yep i agree it is just really nice to here him come out and say it.

It's cause it's buried on page 32

you know there is a way to get 100 posts per page vs 10? go to my 2p2 which is located next to faq. could you show me this post you speak of on "page 32" thanks

Yeah, guess mine is set differently. What I meant, and I'm sure you understood, is that it is very far into the thread.....

This isn't surprising news at all IMO if anyone has been paying close enough attention.

Oh yeah - I forgot to include the NV developments in the timeline:

Dec 2010: Reid tries to make deal with Kyl for i-poker bill attachment, floating several drafts, but effort fails to reach fruition.

Jan 2011 (best guess): Kyl changes stance on his web site from opposed to will consider it.

Jun 10, 2011: Nevada governor signs AB 258 into law for the licensing and regulation of i-poker.

Jun 2011: Ceasars & MGM fund FairPlayUSA, an astroturf to push a compromise UIGEA-Strengthening/i-Poker Licensing federal bill.

Jul 1, 2011: FairPlayUSA goes live.

Jul 14, 2011: Reid and Kyl send joint letter to DOJ asking for clarification of DOJ stance on online gambling

Sep 20, 2011: DOJ AAG writes an opinion letter that Wire Act applies only to sports wagering, reversing the long-standing stance of the DOJ that it applies to all Internet wagering. Letter is not yet released.

Oct 25, 2011: House holds a hearing on Internet gambling legislation.

Nov 17, 2011: Senate holds a hearing on Internet gambling legislation.

Nov 18, 2011: House holds a second hearing on Internet Gambling legislation.

Dec 22, 2011: NV approves their i-poker regulations.

Dec 23, 2011: DOJ releases an opinion letter and a response to the Reid/Kyl letter reversing their long-standing stance that all Internet gambling is illegal in the US under the Wire Act.

Jan 16, 2012: Reid confirms that he is negotiating with Kyl for federal i-gaming legislation.

Thanks bud

I must admit I know very little about SOPA/PIPA. Just that a lot of people are up in arms about them, they they give the DOJ the power to shut down any website it deems guilty of copyright infringement, and Wikipedia and other sites are planning a blackout to protest. Am I wrong in my thinking that if they're going to pass anyway, ipoker might as well be attached? We need it attached somewhere, and it would sort of be payback for the seemingly innocent sounding Port Safety Bill that stripped us of online poker in the first place. My only fear would be that whatever passed could get overturned and we'd lose ipoker with it and be back to where we started. Is this last part a possibility? If not, and it passes, I definitely hope ipoker is attached.

This will take a long time to sort out if the states begin going it on there own before any federal legislation passes.

Personally I don't like any pipa or sopa attachment. It would be another wire act or uigea jigsaw puzzle trying to understand what was meant for what.

Not if the ipoker attachment explicitly detailed its provisions, which I tend think would be the case if they go through the effort of attaching it.

In the political arena, what is gained by attachment? Is Reid gonna block PIPA if i-poker doesn't get attached? If not Reid, who?

WSJ is reporting that the Internet piracy bills are hitting serious resistance.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ch_LEFTTopNews

I don't think I'd support PIPA even IF online poker gets attached to it, which is very very sad.

Yeah, I'm absolutely against any bill restricting the internet in any way, shape or form. Of course, an online poker bill technically pushes the ball for that sort of thing a little further, but that's about as far as I can go in supporting stuff that messes with the internet. **** SOPA and PIPA. ****em

once you start censoring the internet, it's game over. i want ipoker but i like my internet way more. i don't want ipoker bill anywhere near pipa.

Would gladly take Ipoker attached assuming it was a watered down version of SOPA or PIPA. Although not in their current form.

Attaching ipoker to SOPA or PIPA is lose lose IMO. Both ( especially SOPA at the moment) are rightfully getting a lot of heat, and any ipoker association could taint the effort. I am happy to wait for a stand alone bill or an attachment to a more neutral bill. Also add me to the list who would rather have those bills not pass than to have an ipoker bill.

+1000

I would rather never play online poker again than have either of those bills pass.

I would assume either Reid or Barton would attach it in conference committee or after it's clear it's going to pass.

You weren't kidding.

SOPA and PIPA are controversial (to say the least). Online Poker is also controversial.

It is not a common tactic to attach one piece of controversial legislation to another. It is, as fnord_too said above, "lose-lose."

Reid will ultimately file his own legislation or (more likely given his power and his past approach) attach Online Poker legislation to the least controversial other bit of legislation available to him.

Skallagrim

exactly! e.g. UIGEA-->slam dunk Safe Port Act