[Beanie]

I am not against legalization. New opportunity is more often than not good for me.

I think we need to be clear about what everyone wants:

The current rooms want to have the laws repealed so they don't have as many problems with checks and so forth. Any change in the law likely isn't going to favor any of the current rooms.

The buy them out theory-if there is a relaxation of what is legal federally it still needs to get by the states, which won't be an easy task. Even still, if MGM or Harrah's or anybody took the unusual step to go this far they won't need Party Poker. Louisiana and Mississippi are good examples of this. Louisiana taxes like crazy and therefore there is really only one casino in the New Orleans area. Contrast that with Mississippi which has a ton of casino action because of smaller taxes and you can see why casino's aren't overly anxious to get in the state's business. Though some would do it. Realistically though would you rather play Harrah's Indiana Sunday tournament with 500 people or PokerStars with a gazillion people.

The real answer is repealing the law and taxing deposits. I know this was part of Barney's proposal initially and it is the best way to go. The US gets the money and more importantly the money could be a federal tax, leaving the states out of the question.

If a state wanted to open an online casino and pokerroom today there is nothing federally stopping them from doing so.

It is all very murky, that is why repealing the law and taxing deposits makes a ton of sense. Of course, that likely means it won't happen because things that make sense never seem to happen politically.