Gambling?Sheldon Adelson, romney backer and Nevada Gambling magnate
has done very well with the gaming business.
How many people have been killed in the name of Religion over the decades
compared to how many have been killed over Gambling? I think Gambling is safer.
Too many religious types have an aversion to anything that might be seen as fun.
Has gambling replaced porn as the rant of the week? And hey, in freedom loving
utah if we can see negatives and therefore effectively ban gambling, how about a
little gun control and banking regulation? If there are negative effects of not
having health insurance shouldn't everyone be required to have health
insurance? Do adults in our society have the ability and agency to make choices
for themselves or not? How on earth do we worry about social costs of gambling
on one hand when cigarettes are available everywhere? By the way, in spite of
whatever efforts casinos in vegas have in place to disconnect gamblers from
responsibility it is impossible for me to overlook the fact that those are real
bills, my money, that I'm using for my entertainment and for that I am
solely responsible. As for the tax money I take out of state, if they don't
want it sorry about their luck. In the end, I suspect that the motivator to keep
gambling out of the state has nothing to do with social costs anyway.
Make sure that swing state Nevada hears what Romney's mandatory future
Wyoming. Idaho, Nevada and Arizona support the DN editoral position 100-percent
Gambling comes with significant downsides to the affected communities. Ignoring
that is ignoring reality.Further, if my observations are correct (at
gas stations and food stores in my area) gambling is mostly a tax on the poor.
Liberal Larry:I know this editorial seems to be at odds with what
you expect from an ultra right wing conservative newspaper editorial board but
there is an explanation for it. . . .(Now I start talking really
quiet)(Here is a little secret, don't tell anyone. The reason that
the Deseret News editorial board is for controlling gambling is because . . .
this is the secret part, . . . they are (I look both way to see if anyone is
watching and then I whisper) . . . liberal. They don't look like other
liberals, because they are liberal without being dogmatic. That means they are
about combating poverty, respect for civil rights, human dignity, etc. but
without really caring if is done by a government program or not. They care
about the result and not the means. There used to be a lot of liberals like
that before the depression. So this will be our little secret so don't
It's odd that every time the government intervenes to protect the public
from predatory corporations, like payday lenders, or polluting mining
operations, the conservatives cry foul. They moan about the "Nanny
State", and whimper about "burdensome regulations", that are
crippling free enterprise, but when it comes to controlling smoking, drinking,
or gambling, there is no restrictive law that the editorial page of the DNews
doesn't embrace. Isn't the idea that people need to be protected from
themselves in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to conservative ideology? So which is
it, do we want to let people make their own choices, or do we want the
"Nanny State" to protect us from ourselves?
This is not really all that relevant. Most in Utah agree. A lottery has been
discussed from time to time, but that isn't really casino gambling.