Taken out of context?? That's a bit confusing to say the least. Please put them back into a fuller context that allows both of your assertions (paraphrased below) to be true:

1. You very recently dabbled in online poker and it did not go well.

2. If licensing and regulation occurs you might have to get a job (assuming your state opts-out) as a significant portion of your income (online poker) would be lost.

I am very interested to see you put these back into the fuller context that allows these opposing statements (lies) to both be true.

Also, one more quick favor. Could you not ignore my other question please. Why do you care so much about this issue? In your attempt at explaining away your lies, you went with Story #1 which means you are anything but an avid poker player. Why so concerned about this issue?

Do you really expect anyone to believe that (as a non-poker player), you just happen to be exceedingly interested in this legislation without any further agenda?

In short, stop being a liar and be open and honest about why you are here. It is easy, and quite cheap, to throw stones at the PPA and its proud members and representatives, while hiding in the shadows about why you are here.

I look forward to your complete response as it would be quite ironic if you "cherry-picked" only those questions which are convenient for you to 'answer'.

None of us missed it. We did miss your response though .... oh, wait, there wasn't one.

I have to admit the only thing I find interesting about you, Former DJ, is your complete willingness to ignore both facts and your personal lack of credibility but still plow forward with your agenda. If was a Platoon leader and needed a volunteer to rush the enemy machine gun nests, you are the guy.

It is true no one knows how many states will opt-out. Still, the forces favoring "opt-out" have been in decline. Theocrats and other fellow nanny-staters have lost a lot of influence lately and, IMHO, will generally continue to do so. Unfortunately there are some places (like, coincidentally, Foamer DJ's alleged home state of Alabama) where those forces do still hold sway (3-5 deep south states, Utah, and maybe Hawaii).

In the vast majority of opt-out scenarios, it is the instate gambling interests that are supposed to use their influence to make this happen. This influence I think most of you are overestimating. IMHO, only California is a real problem in this area. CA is a large enough market to subject to French style law and at least theoretically get away with it. FL also presents an issue, but I think PX can handle Florida ( ) and I also think the instate interests in FL can be moved to our side.

Most of the "instate interests force an opt out" scenarios are centered on the idea that instate gambling interests have not paid attention to what has happened over the last 10 years. The idea that they will reflexively try and stop internet competition (which, of course, they can't - they can only slow its growth) assumes that they do not know that the internet is the key to their future long-term success. Admittedly, some don't. I think most of you will be surprised, though, at just how many do think differently.

I think this is especially true if the final bill is poker-only. Poker is fundamentally different from the other casino games. State lotteries might well be interested in having some sort of exclusive right to local online patrons of games of chance against the house. That is not really very different from running a lottery.

But running a successful online poker room is something else entirely. If you think the vast majority of folks in the gaming business, either private or state, fail to understand that, you are wrong. Thus if the final bill is poker-only they will not really see it as competition because they never really wanted to compete there in the first place. And when they realize the benefits of "skins" and local affiliates, I believe they will actually come to support a federal licensing scheme for online poker.

Its all kind of moot, however. No bill will pass anytime in the foreseeable future that does not include (at least) state opt-outs. If we can't accept that fact and decide therefore not to support any bill that includes opt-outs, we become meaningless to the process and whatever ultimately happens will be without our influence.

That's a great plan for success right? That has always worked before, why the history books are full of small groups of people who refused to compromise and were still handed what they wanted on a silver platter (sarcasm, of course).

And none of the other interests in this process would ever put their own interests above the interests of the players, right? (sarcasm again)

We will have state opt-outs and licensing, or we will have the crackdown that will essentially kill recreational online poker in the US. So we have already begun the process of helping to ensure most states opt-in. Our fight will ultimately move there, or it will have failed overall.

And one last thing. The way all of the current federal bills are constructed, the DOJ gains NOTHING in its fight against internet gambling. The harm that will come to those who live in opt-out states is easily described: you will not be able to play on the licensed site because the SITES will block you. Other than that, your status quo hardly changes (the only other new point is the 50% tax, and if that is amended to not apply to players or only apply to players in "opt-in" states, then truly all such a player loses is access to future licensed sites) (and yes I know some of you will figure out a way to get around that too ).

Skallagrim

That's funny, coming from the guy who routinely makes plenty of accusations with no evidence at all.

I hope you're not expecting us all to get weepy-eyed over someone calling you out on your own statements. Why are you even here?

No TE, I don't get "weepy-eyed" when three PPA wimps and a tool "call me out" over what I post. You guys are the ones who get discombobulated and foam in the mouth when you're forced to defend your positions and answer not-so-simple questions - including the actual text of these bills you're supporting and defending. You're very sensitive (and loath) to admit the negatives in these bills while not hesitating for one second to attack those who might question the PPA's agenda. The PPA Position - as expressed by you guys - appears to be: We're right, the rest of you folks salute and fall into line, and no dissent or questioning allowed. After all, we are fighting for your rights! (Thank goodness I went back and removed the quotation marks from the PPA Position sentence. After all, I wouldn't want you "calling me out" for writing something that is "unsubstantiated" - now would I?) The PPA sounds and acts more like a dictatorship than a (supposed) "grass roots" organization.

Concerning your question: "Why are you here?" I didn't know this forum was open only to people who fawn over you guys believing the sun rises (and sets) in your pants. I'm not one of your cheerleaders - and I'm proud of that fact.

Former DJ

Your opinion is irrelevant. You don't play.

You're expected to follow the rules of the Poker Legislation forum.

TE:

Not that this makes any difference in your mind, but it is an error to assume that I don't play (or rarely play) poker. There are venues, (other than the internet), where one can play poker. In fact, if these bills the PPA is supporting actually become law, a lot of your members, (even possibly including yourself), may wind up having to play in "other venues" if your state decides to opt-out. Good old Kentucky (along with my state of Alabama) are two of the "more likely than not" states to opt-out. How ironic it will be if you and I both wind up in the same predicament - although it will be infinitely more ironic for you since you haved worked so hard, (excuse me, "volunteered"), to enact the very law that winds up taking away your ability to play online poker.

Former DJ

I didn't say you don't play poker. I said you don't play online poker. As we're discussing online poker legislation, that's the relevant game to this conversation.

If you think the status quo is good forever, then you're right. We ought not fight in Congress. If, OTOH, Congress won't just ignore online poker, then we'd better fight back hard.

I believe the status quo is doomed the minute we stop fighting back, so I think Kentucky poker is far better off with our fight than without.

As you don't play online, this is a freeroll to you. It seems you figure we ought to go for all for nothing. If we win it all, congrats to us. If we lose, then it's simply a case where our opponents won. You lose nothing. The rest of us, OTOH, lose something we play every day.

This isn't exactly the first time this has come up. Check out Why Should Poker Players Support Federal Online Poker Legislation? and The UIGEA and Federal Licensing Bills FAQ for more.

Nothing was "cherry-picked taken-out-of-context", they are your words, contain links to the full posts, and are in chronological order.

In your third post quoted above you state you've been deprived of part of your livelihood ("...since I've just been deprived of a good portion of my livelihood...If worse comes to worse, I may even have to go back to work in a regular job...), but in a followup you stated you've never made anything from online poker:

The following comes to mind: "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."

when is the senat expected to vote on bill?

There is no companion bill in the Senate at the moment, though there is a poker-only bill. The full House still has to vote on the bill as well. We still have a long way to go.

i have a question about the deadline.

in the OP it says the deadline for the bill becoming law, this means that it has to be signed by the president by the end of this year or it starts over right?

You seem to have about as difficult time answering questions directly as you do telling the truth.

You told us one of the infinite reasons you are nothere (to be a cheerleader for the PPA). I assume you're also not here looking for used cars or for Christmas gifts for your fictitious foster mom.

How about you simply state why you are here? I am quite certain honesty and straightforwardness are not your strong suits, but give it a shot. It can be quite liberating.

So should we be marking Sep. 10 down on our calenders? That's the day congress resumes I believe.

Just explain to me why part of the compromising you are talking about can't be related to the opt-out clause? Why can it not be jury-rigged to make it awfully hard to either opt out or crackdown on Stars/FTP/Cake/Cereus/other scorned networks? From what we can see now the DoJ and Treasury have what they need to crackdown on poker, except a political go ahead and focus. Fine, go ahead and embrace easy guaranteed opt outs. The demographics of state legislators make Tom Tancredo and Jim DeMint seem rational and mainstream. If you won't try to tie access to OTB interstate betting or powerball/moneyball to the opt-out, then go another route. Use the pretense of exempting poker from UIGEA, Wire Act, Illegal Gambling Business Act as necessary to for the bill to go forward. That doesn't expressly make it "legalized", but it does make it near impossible for the Feds to strangle the existing providers. Or a line inserted that opting out must also comply with existing trade agreements. Innocuous **** no one will catch till after. There are dozens of "compromises" on opt outs that wont eviscerate the existing access of almost everyone until states can see other states getting paid, and see that online poker is growing , even in their own backyards. And you can save face with the 2% of the population that will howl for a month after this passes by saying you didnt "force legalization on the states". Invite the states to just go ahead and try to prosecute foreign operators with a straight face.

It's well within your rights to believe this, but you still haven't answered the question of why you are here. The more you dodge it, the more credibility you lose (if you even have any left with the other posters).

It has to be passed by the House or Reps and the Senate by the end of the year. The time for the president's signature (or just letting the deadline pass without a veto) can extend into the new year.

You've not asked any questions. Rather, you've lobbed unfounded, unsubstantiated, and untrue accustions, only to get offended when people reply to your posts.

Why are you so afraid to answer this? You clearly have an agenda, so why not tell us about it? What do you have to hide?

+1

My congressman is a big dummy



opposed regulation because it allowed young people the possibility of playing poker for real money, and because it could possibly be used for money laundering. even though both concerns are accounted for in the bill, he persists.
and the last response he gave me from a ppa letter included a bunch of fear-mongering nonsense implying that if we regulate online poker terrorists will use it to finance attacks.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky, through a contingency law firm, is currently suing Full Tilt and Party. Our dear Governor somehow or another manages to keep a straight face. His staff response to my interview request on the issue was "The Governor's Office does not comment on pending litigation".

Does everyone opposing poker in Congress use the same response template provided by the FoF?

This legislation is intended to specifically address those concerns through regulation.

Former DJ arrested, accused of scamming listeners of $25,000

LOL...No wonder he hasn't played iPoker in over a year.

Nice one!

I wonder if the Poker DJ who (unfortunately) recently started posting here can PROVE he isn't the Poker DJ in the story. After all, if he can't prove he didn't do it, then it's him. As a confirmed liar, he'll have his hands full proving he didn't do it.

Perhaps this explains why we came here and lied about online play. He needed to explain where he got the $25K.

if he vetos it and it goes back to the senate for another vote, will that 2nd vote have to happen this year or can it be moved to next year also?