Rudy Edwards

I received an email from Full Tilt Poker today, that began "You should be outraged that the U.S. government is infringing on your personal rights and telling you how to use your hard-earned money." It went on to say that they feel the UIGEA doesn't legally affect poker, but there should have been a specific exemption for poker in the act. There was mention of a bonus for signing up for the PPA, which has announced that it's goal for this year is to get poker a skill exemption from the UIGEA.

I'm not sure I know where to begin here, so I'll just start right smack dab in the middle. Our rhetoric in defense of our rights has been terrible. The UIGEA, and the seizing of our Neteller funds in transit, have been brutal attacks on our rights by our own government. Every time someone makes the argument that poker should be exempt from the UIGEA because it is a skill game, is hurting our cause. It is a skill game, and you could make fine argument that the justifications stated for the UIGEA shouldn't apply to poker, but that's selling out. You only get it one way, you can defend our rights to "use our hard earned money" or you can claim that Poker should be excepted from this bill because it's different from gambling. It's not OK to make both arguments, because if you believe in the first principle, then you are saying that you are willing to sell out those who are being oppressed for the games they enjoy that are of lesser skill?

Lobbying for a "Poker Exemption" to the UIGEA is ceding that our government has the right to impose it's religious based restrictions on our liberties, but that our game shouldn't qualify as one to be attacked. So if there is a carve out for Poker from the UIGEA, we're going to let our government stop Americans from sportsbetting online? Are you just trying to selfishly save the thing that matters to you, or are you actually standing up for a principle that matters? The skill involved in poker has nothing to do with whether or not it's ok for a government to impose it's will on the liberties of it's citizens.

I'm not a member of the PPA. They don't speak for me. As a matter of fact, they clearly speak with a voice that I disagree with, and now that I am being offered a profitable bonus by Full Tilt to join the PPA, I feel that my lack of membership in the PPA is a more clear statement of that.

Since when has the proper response to a tyrant or bully been to politely ask that they oppress someone else more deserving?