Posted on 02/16/2012 7:51:49 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
....Asked about the legalization of online gambling, Santorum responds:
"I’m someone who takes the opinion that gaming is not something that is beneficial, particularly having that access on the Internet. Just as we’ve seen from a lot of other things that are vices on the Internet, they end to grow exponentially as a result of that. It’s one thing to come to Las Vegas and do gaming and participate in the shows and that kind of thing as entertainment, it’s another thing to sit in your home and have access to that it. I think it would be dangerous to our country to have that type of access to gaming on the Internet.
Freedom’s not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations. You might want to say the same thing about a whole variety of other things that are on the Internet — “let everybody have it, let everybody do it.” No. There are certain things that actually do cost people a lot of money, cost them their lives, cost them their fortunes that we shouldn’t have and make available, to make it that easy to do. That’s why we regulate gambling. You have a big commission here that regulates gambling, for a reason.
I opposed gaming in Pennsylvania . . . A lot of people obviously don’t responsibly gamble and lose a lot and end up in not so great economic straits as a result of that. I believe there should be limitations."
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
“A lot of people obviously don’t responsibly gamble and lose a lot and end up in not so great economic straits as a result of that. I believe there should be limitations.”
You could just as easily apply this same reasoning to the real estate or stock market nearly any business venture.
Government knows best.../s
It does have that “slippery slope” feeling.
You blow $40.00 at a casino -- not $50,000 or more!
Incidentally, with some practice I hear one can make the odds for craps -- of all games -- in your favor INFO HERE.
Casinos don't believe such a system can be done so they won't kick you off the table so easily.
Why not just get government out of the gambling business, and let individuals decide for themselves?
I thought Adelson is opposed to online gambling because it competes with his gig in Vegas. Wouldn’t that mean that he and Santorum are allies on this issue.
They should stay out of what you pack for your kid's lunch too!
Yep.
How many business ventures have gone under because chance and luck were just not on their side.
This is the trouble with a potential Santorum nomination. Rather than talking about the economy and making sure the election is a referendum on Obama’s utter failure, we would be gifted with Rick’s moralizing on the hazards of gambling, birth control, etc. I expect a priest, minister, parent, etc, to spend time on those things, not a President. It’s a trap Santorum can’t escape from either because he WANTS to talk about those things. Every moment we are talking about contraception or the evils of gambling, is a wasted moment and will lead to our defeat.
I think throwing money away on gambling is dumb.
I don’t do it.
Millions of people do.
People voted it in, in their states for crying out loud.
It’s common as an old shoe...go to a 7-Eleven and it’s lotto this and lotto that ad nauseum.
I’m “agin’ it.
But I, and people like me, were outvoted.
Santorum is against ALL of it and believes it’s wrong to allow it.
But if the people vote for it...
Where does that leave Santorum?
Why can’t I have a casino ?
There is little question that with Santorum we risk setting the focus on social issues when we are at grave risk of spending ourselves into oblivion and falling for Marxist “solutions” to our economic problems. Rick’s signature issue is abortion. An important issue no doubt, but getting the economy back on track by removing the huge number of Obama sponsored disincentives to progress on that front has to be Job One.
Food for thought.
What the eff country are we in again??
Ain't "freedom" grand???
People shouldn't smoke so much, eat so much, drink so much, watch so much TV, etc, etc. Who are you to decide that?
I don't want to hear Santorum or any other politician blather about those sorts of issues. Just govern the country and leave the sermonizing to the church, parents, etc.
Umm......Reverend Ricky, there are plenty of “limitations” on people who gamble. They eventually run out of money. They either learn, or they lose everything. And it is their own fault for their poor choices. But this is typical Santorum, to legislate morality. His Senate record, also proves his sanctimonious level of self elevated, moral superiority.
I don't know Adelson's views on this. ??
Also, "sources" are saying that Adelson really wants Mitt, so he's backing Newt! Odd that. But I still haven't gotten any names for those comments....
What struck me was Santorum's comment about setting "limitations" because people don't always make good choices. That leads me to the question, "Who should make those choices?"
Exactly!
We want to roll back regulations and shrink government!
Truth be known, Santorum is opposed to gambling, period.
It’s wrong.
People throw their money down a rat hole. They can’t handle it. They become addicted. It hurts families, etc.
Those are his views.
The online or not issue is but a single incarnation of the gambling question.
I don’t know if he would make an exception for Catholic bingo...
This guy is a Casino Mogul. I don’t think opposition to On -Line Gaming is going against him as on-line hurts his business. I don’t think he is against Santorum. What I hear is he is just adamantly against Obama and will support any nominee.
Santorum = Just another Nanny Stater.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.