Businesses complain about gambling law

Business owners whose livelihood depends in part on video gambling machines say they may sue the state over a crackdown on the devices that they say is unconstitutional. Read more
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Dude

Sterling Heights, MI

#65 Jul 17, 2007
fred1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it would be impossible to track and tax gambling if every bar and convenience store has it. Because it would be impossible to make sure that customers are not being cheated.
The government has a department of weights and measures that performs this function to make sure things like gas pumps are dispensing the amount on the display, etc... There are private companies that do these inspections for grocery store scales and many other types of machines. This would just need to expand a little to account for these machines. It would be no big deal.
Lance

Carmel, IN

#66 Jul 17, 2007
Wasted Vote wrote:
<quoted text>
Most people want their vote to count. If you're going to vote Libertarian, you might as well just save your gas and not vote at all.
That is terribly ignorant. If all the people would quit buying into the wasted vote propaganda and actually start voting then those "wasted votes" will start to add up. But here we sit at the polls like sheep voting republican or democrat just like they want. Change has to start somewhere. Do you really think there is a difference between a Rep and a Dem in the grand scheme of things??? They are the ones that put that wasted vote crap into your head.
Jon

Indianapolis, IN

#67 Jan 14, 2008
Gee whiz, let's see.

The state can participate in gambling, by having things like the "Hoosier Lottery".

But, since it's a profitable, and powerful way of making quick amounts of revenue, for people of all intelligences, well, they can't have that.

I am not impressed with this law, and it's a load of bull.

www.frankfortpost.org
They Report They Decide

Covington, KY

#68 Jan 14, 2008
fred1 wrote:
What is next, they cannot make it without prostitution, and illegal drugs?
What right does government have to prohibit consensual acts between consenting adults?
They Report They Decide

Covington, KY

#69 Jan 14, 2008
fred1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it would be impossible to track and tax gambling if every bar and convenience store has it. Because it would be impossible to make sure that customers are not being cheated.
Nonsense. Nevada has no problem.
They Report They Decide

Covington, KY

#70 Jan 14, 2008
fred1 wrote:
We have seen what happens when gambling is unregulated.
Nobody's fault or business but the gambler's.

Since: Mar 07

Sun Prairie, WI

#71 Jan 14, 2008
Lance wrote:
<quoted text>
That is terribly ignorant. If all the people would quit buying into the wasted vote propaganda and actually start voting then those "wasted votes" will start to add up. But here we sit at the polls like sheep voting republican or democrat just like they want. Change has to start somewhere. Do you really think there is a difference between a Rep and a Dem in the grand scheme of things??? They are the ones that put that wasted vote crap into your head.
Yeah, they might get like 6%. If the libertarians dropped certain things from their platform like legalizing drugs and prostitution, they could actually gain more votes.

Since: Mar 07

Sun Prairie, WI

#72 Jan 14, 2008
They Report They Decide wrote:
<quoted text>
What right does government have to prohibit consensual acts between consenting adults?
And people wonder why libertarians are not elected to office.

Since: Mar 07

Sun Prairie, WI

#73 Jan 14, 2008
They Report They Decide wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense. Nevada has no problem.
Want to make a bet? There are a lot of issues in Nevada, from crooked machines, to under reporting of sales to minors gambling.

Since: Mar 07

Sun Prairie, WI

#74 Jan 14, 2008
They Report They Decide wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody's fault or business but the gambler's.
and the family whose life savings he wastes, the stores and homes he robs, the job that he abandons and on and on. There is no such thing as a victimless addiction.
All Equal

Lexington, KY

#75 Jan 27, 2008
They Report They Decide wrote:
<quoted text>
What right does government have to prohibit consensual acts between consenting adults?

Your answer was:
And people wonder why libertarians are not elected to office.

You spewed an opinion from your mouth now back it up. Why should the government prohibit consensual acts?
The United States has more people incarcerated than any other country. The majority of those people are in jail for committing a consensual act, that is one that would have no consequence to anyone else other than theirself.

Since: Mar 07

Sun Prairie, WI

#76 Jan 27, 2008
All Equal wrote:
They Report They Decide wrote:
<quoted text>
What right does government have to prohibit consensual acts between consenting adults?
Your answer was:
And people wonder why libertarians are not elected to office.
You spewed an opinion from your mouth now back it up. Why should the government prohibit consensual acts?
The United States has more people incarcerated than any other country. The majority of those people are in jail for committing a consensual act, that is one that would have no consequence to anyone else other than theirself.
Look one post up for your answer. Show me a victimless addiction. By definition, addiction is something so severe that it has horrible side effects. Many of those side effect also affect those around them.

Since: Feb 07

Lebanon,IN

#77 Jan 27, 2008
fred1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Look one post up for your answer. Show me a victimless addiction. By definition, addiction is something so severe that it has horrible side effects. Many of those side effect also affect those around them.
If you cleared the fecal matter out a libertatians skull all you'd have is an empty skull. They just don't get it fred1. No man is an island.
Dude

Sterling Heights, MI

#78 Jan 28, 2008
fred1 wrote:
Yeah, they might get like 6%. If the libertarians dropped certain things from their platform like legalizing drugs and prostitution, they could actually gain more votes.
So you're saying if the Libertarians decided to ignore their principles (the same ones the founding fathers held and outlined in the Constitution) and just pander to voters they would do better in elections? No kidding... but that would make them the same as all the other politicians that don't give a rats rump about this country and are doing nothing more than seeking power.

Since: Mar 07

Sun Prairie, WI

#79 Jan 28, 2008
Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying if the Libertarians decided to ignore their principles (the same ones the founding fathers held and outlined in the Constitution) and just pander to voters they would do better in elections? No kidding... but that would make them the same as all the other politicians that don't give a rats rump about this country and are doing nothing more than seeking power.
So the founding fathers were ok with absolute personal liberty? So prostitution was legal in the early US? How about adultery? How about drunkeness and sexual debauchery? If you showed an ankle or a wrist, you risked being thrown in jail. How is that for early American personal freedom? You have a lot to learn about our founding fathers. There were a lot of restrictions on early Americans. I know of no founding father who gave free and unlimited reign to personal liberty. They understood that limits were necessary. Limits much stricter than our own for better or worse.

As far as your moral principles, you can hold fast to everyone and remain nothing more than a 2% third party. Or you can compromise and become more of a force. Even our founding fathers did that. The country does not want, and for good reason, unlimited sexual escapades, pervasive drug use and the like. That is typically what trips up the libertarians every time. If your only principle is legalize drugs and prostitution, then you have lost before you started. If your principles are for limited government and more personal responsibility, you still will have trouble breaking the dems welfare state, but it will be an easier thing.
Dude

Sterling Heights, MI

#80 Jan 28, 2008
fred1 wrote:
So the founding fathers were ok with absolute personal liberty?
If you read the documents this country was founded on, you'd see that they did as long as your actions didn't violate the rights of another.
fred1 wrote:
So prostitution was legal in the early US? How about adultery? How about drunkeness and sexual debauchery? If you showed an ankle or a wrist, you risked being thrown in jail. How is that for early American personal freedom?
Just like today, you should blame these encroachments of freedom on the legislators that ignored their constitutionally defined limits of power instead of blaming the men who wrote the founding documents.
fred1 wrote:
As far as your moral principles, you can hold fast to everyone and remain nothing more than a 2% third party. Or you can compromise and become more of a force.
No thanks. I can't believe how many people think the way you do. "Abandon your principles and you can have power!" Sad... really sad.
fred1 wrote:
If your only principle is legalize drugs and prostitution, then you have lost before you started.
I agree. But those aren't even examples of principles. A principle is the underlying theme. In this case, the principle is that the government shouldn't stick its nose into the affairs of a citizen who isn't violating the rights of another. I'm not advocating prostitution. I'm advocating liberty.

Will some people make unwise choices given the freedom to do so? Of course. Will people choose to do things you would never do? Of course. Freedom doesn't just mean you can make your own choices. It also means that you have to allow others to make choices (whether you agree with them or not) as long as they don't violate your rights. Sorry, but if two adults exchange money for "favors" your rights aren't violated and it doesn't concern you or government.

Since: Mar 07

Sun Prairie, WI

#81 Jan 28, 2008
Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If you read the documents this country was founded on, you'd see that they did as long as your actions didn't violate the rights of another.
<quoted text>
Just like today, you should blame these encroachments of freedom on the legislators that ignored their constitutionally defined limits of power instead of blaming the men who wrote the founding documents.
<quoted text>
No thanks. I can't believe how many people think the way you do. "Abandon your principles and you can have power!" Sad... really sad.
<quoted text>
I agree. But those aren't even examples of principles. A principle is the underlying theme. In this case, the principle is that the government shouldn't stick its nose into the affairs of a citizen who isn't violating the rights of another. I'm not advocating prostitution. I'm advocating liberty.
Will some people make unwise choices given the freedom to do so? Of course. Will people choose to do things you would never do? Of course. Freedom doesn't just mean you can make your own choices. It also means that you have to allow others to make choices (whether you agree with them or not) as long as they don't violate your rights. Sorry, but if two adults exchange money for "favors" your rights aren't violated and it doesn't concern you or government.
Strange since the men who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were many of the same men who passed those laws. Do you think Jefferson or Franklin would have agreed that nudity should be legal, drunkeness was not a crime? You truly are a lost soul if you believe any of those men would have supported that.

It is not abandoning your principles. It is called compromise. Again, from the founding fathers through today, it is a well understood and respected way of governing.

As far as again, the so called "victimless crimes" prostitution is far from it. Same with gambling, same with drinking etc... Go spend some time with groups that work with prostitutes and ex prostitutes and look at what you call victimless. See the toll on families, on lives and on society. But again, the radical libertarians believe that it is ok. Sad but true. Let them be victimized, let their families and the families of the johns be destroyed, it is ok, because it is their choice.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Michigantown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Clinton County Libertarian Party 4 hr James 4
Where can a guy get a good haircut... Clubhouse... 6 hr Long hair - Does ... 1
nhk in Murfreesboro, tn, Indiana your new plant... 13 hr Jim Hunter 4
paul james laflen Mar 24 well well 1
Dr Bill Clinton Mar 24 Richelle M Lutz 8
"aunt ruth" to run for mayor Mar 24 higher standards 132
Roundup is glyphosate and causes cancer and kid... Mar 22 infowars 67
Michigantown Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Michigantown People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]