Greg Raymer and I at the final table. :-)

None of that explains your earlier statement:

I don't know if you're PUI or just engaging in your typical non sequitur trolling, but you still haven't explained how a ban on online gambling could possibly lead to internet taxes.

Unfortunate beat, for sure.

This has been somewhat problematic, as some libertarians do oppose us on these grounds. It not our biggest threat, but it does exist.

Michelle Minton at the party:



Grover Norquist paid a visit as well:

The end was pretty sick. Greg and I were heads-up. I made it into the final two without any lucky breaks, but then found myself all-in with KJ vs. KK. The flop was a blank, but the turn and river went J-J! I had Greg covered, so I took it down.

Ron Paul at CPAC:

i was about to say a bunch of PPA employees and associates at the final table looks good for the skill game argument, but then...

Is there any lobbying going on to get the DOJ's online gambling enforcement budget eliminated in the Republican's proposed spending cuts?

Maybe it would be politically easier and more palatable to de-fund the Treasury Department's enforcement of the UIGEA against banks, since that can be spun as elimination of needless red tape/bureaucracy.

Maybe we should try to attack the UIGEA in the same way the Republican's have vowed to dismantle the health care bill. Just make sure no one has the money to actually implement what the law says. This seems much more amenable to effective lobbying/backroom deals than trying to get an actual pro-poker bill through Congress.

OMG, proof that the site is rigged ......... Congratulations.

Social conservatives won't allow this. Neither will the true nanny-state liberals. And yes, I know that supposedly the social conservatives don't have a lot of power. I would suggest though that most of the tea partiers are social conservatives, that just isn't their focus ATM.

There's some rumors that is happening inside the DOJ

We can expect some "Internet tax fears" opposition to Federal regulation of online poker. Regardless of whether or not you or I may think the fears are rational, I've tried to explain its historic effect in fights against prior attempts to ban online poker. Three steps seems too complicated to follow perhaps, so consider it this way:

Historically, folks who face/oppose possible federal sales taxes or taxes in Internet sales specifically fear that a federal government ban would have created a greater risk of taxation of a HUGE amount of retail sales not currently subject to sales tax.

If that is still not clear, then just take TE's word for the fact of expected opposition on that "federal Internet taxes" basis:

"This has been somewhat problematic, as some libertarians do oppose us on these grounds. It not our biggest threat, but it does exist."

(Understand that just because you personally disagree with or cannot follow someone else's analysis, that doesn't mean it does not exist as a motivating factor influencing votes on the Hill.)

i've never talked to one liberal in my life who was a "nanny stater", in fact the only nanny staters i've talked to have been conservatives.

also, the social conservatives have a LOT of power

B&M poker is rigged!!!

Thanks! It was a lot of fun.

Breitbart's support >>>> Breitbart's opposition

Regulating a heretofore free market presents a slippery slope for any libertarians.

I'd expect all libertarians to oppose legislation which would enact a express ban on internet activity, even if "temporary".

Some libertarians will trade principle for taxed, regulated poker, but regulatory protectionism is a tougher judgment call to accept for free market advocates.

You don't see the difference between your two statements?

The Pappas/Kindt debate will start shortly.

i dont suppose theres any way to watch it online?

Anti-poker activist John Kindt:

No, but I believe we'll post it later.

Kindt whined about all gaming. Pappas is up now:

whats the attendance looking like for this debate?