Posted on 02/16/2012 7:51:49 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Amen.
Who knows where we'd be right now if there hadn't been so many "conservatives" moralizing against, and fighting to take down, Sarah Palin over the past two years.
I see a lot of them now joining folks like me in supporting Newt, but I can't help but look at them sideways because IMO, a big part of the reason we have a candidate with so many "he's unelectable!" flaws as Newt, is because so many "conservatives" fought so bitterly to nip in the bud any prospective candidacy of Sarah Palin. And many tried to justify it on the grounds that her perceived flaws made her unelectable. It's just one of those ironies I'm observing on FR.
GODSPEED NEWT GINGRICH.
Rick opposed Fast Eddie Rendell’s gambling scam, and good for him!
Casinos have brought nothing but crime and trouble.
Has not cut my taxes by one dime.
>>“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.<<
Both securities and real estate are sold by people licensed to do business and who are required to do a certain amount of due diligence when selling their products to individuals. They also have a fiduciary responsibility to those same individuals.
The only due diligence a gambling house does, is to determine that you have enough money left to place the bet, or can borrow against your house to do so, if necessary, or steal it to avoid a kneecapping in some of the shadier games.
Allowing people to sit home and gamble away their family’s future, given that gambling has been shown to be an addictive behavior, is a ridiculous public policy. We need a place to live, and we need places to invest our funds, and the government shouldn’t be in our houses breaking up private poker parties, nor should it necessarily shut down Las Vegas casinos, but on-line gambling should remain illegal.
Government does have some responsibility to protect people from themselves. We saw what happened when we opened the doors to the facilities for the mentally ill in the late 60’s. We cruelly put homeless people out on the streets to fend for themselves. We could lower the drinking age to 10, or strike it altogether. Does that make sense? How about no speed limits? Just let everyone decide on their own how fast to drive and trust each person’s judgment, but keep the government out of it. Hey, let anyone who wants run a house of prostitution in your neighborhood. What bad could come of that? Why should the government get involved?
Too many people already destroy their own lives and their family as well by gambling uncontrollably. It’s not outrageous to oppose making it easier for even more people to do the same.
Hello? Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of people to assemble ARE absolute, unalienable rights.
THANK YOU, Marguerite! I couldn't believe my eyes when I read that Santorum had actually said such a misguided thing.
The more I find out about Santorum, the leerier I get. And sadly, it's disillusioned me with regard to The Great One Mark Levin and also Rush -- they are so enthusiastic about minimum-wage-loving Santorum (though both have railed against the minimum wage), and I have to wonder, if they're that misinformed or that willing to overlook some pretty profound flaws, what does it say for the rest of their credibility? It's really sad to watch.
Yeah, we could do worse than Santorum. But I URGE folks to go to Santorum's website and read all of his policy positions and proposals, and then go to Newt Gingrich's website and read all of his policy positions and proposals.
We could do worse than Santorum. But we could do a LOT BETTER than Santorum.
Godspeed Newt Gingrich.
Thank you for your opinion Mr.Santorum.
Spot on.
I really hope Republicans in remaining primary states start reading the handwriting on the wall.
GODSPEED NEWT GINGRICH.
Oh BTW.
So, I want to take my money and just throw it out the window, then I need the ‘government’ to stop me?
As for ‘gambling’ addicts, how about alcoholics?
“Allowing people to sit home and DRINKING away their family’s future, given that DRINKING has been shown to be an addictive behavior, is a ridiculous public policy.”
Maybe the government should just close all the bars and liquor stores too... to ‘protect’ them. /s
I'm for FREEDOM.
I sure miss those ten dollar poker games I used to play in on-line that lasted between one and two hours each; especially now that I have more time to play. (My profit from these games was nice too.)
ML/NJ
And you shouldn't either. Black Jack is the only casino game that theoretically can be beaten and if you appear to be trying you will not be looked upon favorably by casino management. (I'm excluding Poker as it is a special case where winnings, if any, come from other players and not from the casino. Poker players effectively pay a fixed fee to the casino to play at the casino's poker tables.)
ML/NJ
Huh?
I support Newt now that Perry is out.
Did you mean your diatribe for cripplecreek?
How about this -
vote for Santorum and you vote for another ‘obama knows best’
“Every moment we are talking about contraception or the evils of gambling, is a wasted moment and will lead to our defeat.”
I agree. Whoever the Republican nominee is, he should pick a couple of the most important things that need fixing now and focus on them.
Wow, so he thinks gov’s ‘public policy’ should/would change people’s behavior?
Does he have a clue of human nature? If public policy can get a person to live life as the gov sees fit, we will have a country of robots! or a country of rick santorum? Yike, how awful!
Any sort of societal ills has their cause. No amount of gov regulation, no matter how well-intended, will ease these ills. Start with the family - raise the children to be responsible, self-sufficient beings, help the schools to educate them (instead of leaving it all to the schools) and all will fall in place.
St Rick is such a ‘family man’. Why doesn’t he focus on nurturing a culture of family values, let the families do their jobs instead of using gov regulations to regulate human behavior?
Freedom of speach is not absolute, rather it is limited. The speaker does not have the right to force anyone to listen. The right is limited by the rights of private property. The union / abortionist / muslim or other group does not have the right to come into your house and make you hear their propaganda.
Freedom of assembly is not absolute, rather it is limited. Even the Constitution places the limit of “peaceable”. People do not have the right to form a mob and go around rioting.
The right of the people to be secure in the their papers ....(etc) is limited by the use of the warrent.
I'd rather...
... just get government out of the HEALTH business, and let individuals decide for themselves!
Let me know when Santorum starts advocating the shut down of all gov’t run lotteries. Until then, I’ll just chalk up this talk about gambling being a problem to the ‘Do as I Say Not as I Do’ mode of governing that most politicians are extraordinarily comfortable with today.
Warning: Evil Gambling Site - Don't Click If You Are Easily Seduced Into Throwing Your Money Away
The President has precious little to do with gambling regulations which are not an important issue to most people.
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.