Riverboat Gambling

[Macfistowannabe]

I'm in favor.

 

[BVS]

I gambled my riverboat away once...

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I agree that the greed behind it for certain people has ruined lives. However, with strong law enforcement to prevent crime, I think it's a good thing to offer a way to create government funding and giving citizens more economic freedom at the same time.

Taxes can be lower for sole propriators, partnerships, and small businesses as a result. It will create more job openings when we can give money back to employers, and can create a level playing field for the mom and pop stores to have cleaner stores or much needed employees.

 

[verte76]

I support this as well. It's a just way to raise revenues in states that have riverboat towns like Louisiana.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I support this as well. It's a just way to raise revenues in states that have riverboat towns like Louisiana.

For some reason, the vast majority of people who call themselves conservatives don't. I would think they're standing on the principles of economic freedom if more of them supported it.

 

[BVS]

For some reason, the vast majority of people who call themselves conservatives don't. I would think they're standing on the principles of economic freedom if more of them supported it.

But you have remember the mindset of these folks, they think it's a sin. Sin should be outlawed.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

But you have remember the mindset of these folks, they think it's a sin. Sin should be outlawed.

Not necessarily.

 

[adrball]

What is 'Riverboat Gambling'? I fear the obvious answer is gambling on a boat. But why is this different for any other form of gambling?

 

[BVS]

Not necessarily.

How many oppose it for other reasons, and what would those be?

 

[yolland]

What is 'Riverboat Gambling'? I fear the obvious answer is gambling on a boat. But why is this different for any other form of gambling?

In many states, the fact that it's on a waterway means that the usual taxes (or rules limiting days and hours of operation, etc.) don't apply.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

How many oppose it for other reasons, and what would those be?

You made the point that it's sinful. Well, yes, in its extremity, it is.

But what about smoking bans? I've seen more on the left advocate against smoking than on the right.

Or alcohol. It causes reckless behavior in its extremity but those you point the finger to are mostly not opposed to it.

There is also a concern that it will result in more crime.

 

[adrball]

tks yolland.

In that case I can't see why gambling should be taxed/not taxed any differently within the same legal jurisdiction.

Is gambling on a bridge over water become a grey area?

 

[BVS]

You made the point that it's sinful. Well, yes, in its extremity, it is.

No, I made the point that they think it's sinful.

But what about smoking bans? I've seen more on the left advocate against smoking than on the right.

What about them? I don't believe in full out bans, but partial bans do help in the reduction of 2nd hand smoke. So it's health reasons.

Or alcohol. It causes reckless behavior in its extremity but those you point the finger to are mostly not opposed to it.

That's because many of them partake in it.

There is also a concern that it will result in more crime.

Because they think it's sinful and it attracts other sinners. Now we're back to my original point.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

No, I made the point that they think it's sinful.

Fair enough.

That's because many of them partake in it.

At the bar, or at communion?

Moderation is key.

Because they think it's sinful and it attracts other sinners. Now we're back to my original point.

"Sin" could be in every topic we discuss, so not really.

 

[BVS]

At the bar, or at communion?

Moderation is key.

Doesn't matter, you're missing my point. You were perplexed as to why so many conservatives don't agree with it. I'm telling you why. Conservatives will ban the "sins" they don't partake in. Gambling is easy to be against, where as drinking isn't, for many will partake in drinking. Gay marriage is easy to ban, but divorce isn't.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Doesn't matter, you're missing my point. You were perplexed as to why so many conservatives don't agree with it. I'm telling you why. Conservatives will ban the "sins" they don't partake in. Gambling is easy to be against, where as drinking isn't, for many will partake in drinking. Gay marriage is easy to ban, but divorce isn't.

They ban some of them when there is logic behind it. I used "the bar vs. communion" because you obviously referred to the more religious conservatives, and gave you a specific example of why prohibition of alcohol is a bad idea to them because of communion. So they see gambling as morally corrupt. I see it morally corrupt if it leads to greed and violence. But the good outweighs the bad. Money isn't the root of all evil, the love of money is.

But what about the fiscal conservatives who may not raise their hair on social issues?

Why would they oppose riverboat gambling?

 

[BVS]

They ban some of them when there is logic behind it.

I find this laughable, but that's an entirely different thread.

I used "the bar vs. communion" because you obviously referred to the more religious conservatives, and gave you a specific example of why prohibition of alcohol is a bad idea to them because of communion.

Communion has nothing to do with it. Some demoniations don't even use real wine, and those that do use communion wine, which has a lower alcohol content, could easily be still legal under banning content levels. Which some places already do.

But what about the fiscal conservatives who may not raise their hair on social issues?

Why would they oppose riverboat gambling?

They shouldn't.

 

[yolland]

In that case I can't see why gambling should be taxed/not taxed any differently within the same legal jurisdiction.

Is gambling on a bridge over water become a grey area?

lol, well now you're giving me nightmare Amerikitsch visions of some entrepreneur attempting to recreate, say, the Ponte Vecchio in Florence, only with a casino lining it instead of assorted small merchants. But no, my understanding is that the casino "building" must literally be in the water in order for any exemptions to apply. I'm not sure why the laws work this way; it's probably an exploitation of some loophole originally intended to clarify the particulars of interstate commerce via waterways as opposed to roads or by air.



Macfisto, what are your speculations as to why some conservatives oppose riverboat gambling? Do you think they object to it more than other forms of gambling? Isn't a state lottery basically a form of gambling?

 

[AEON]

Gambling is hurtful to a society because of its addictive nature to the "poorest" amongst us - hoping for a quick turnaround in their life.

It is a very destructive force that usually only benefits a few people, but hurts a great many.

As far as making it illegal - I don't know if I would go that far. But I will raise my son and daughter to believe that gambling is wrong, and taking money from those that gamble is even worse.

 

[adrball]

Gambling shouldn't be denied to the many just because the few cannot control themselves. If gambling was outlawed then where the hell would you stop.

I love Casinos and regularly lose, but it's cheaper than many alternative nights out.

The 24hour rule in the UK works well as a protection for the easily led - you have to register at a casino 24 hours in advance. Stops the gambling-on-impulse.

 

[verte76]

Some opponents of a statewide lottery do indeed oppose it on the grounds that it's a form of gambling, and they oppose gambling. This is understandable although I personally disagreee. I wish we had a lottery in Alabama. When a Democratic governor tried to set up a lottery here it went to a plebicite and it lost big time.

 

[Bluer White]

Doesn't matter, you're missing my point. You were perplexed as to why so many conservatives don't agree with it. I'm telling you why. Conservatives will ban the "sins" they don't partake in.

I think you're confusing conservatives with the Evangelist-types. Or do you equate the two?

 

[deep]

All of these arguments

"for and against gambling"

"legal on the river, not on land"

btw, Calif they used to have them a few miles off shore, gambling boats


Macfistowannabe

why not apply your same arguments to "prostitution" ?

 

[BVS]

I think you're confusing conservatives with the Evangelist-types. Or do you equate the two?

Read my post again, I'm talking only about the ban happy conservatives.

 

[melon]

Gambling is hurtful to a society because of its addictive nature to the "poorest" amongst us - hoping for a quick turnaround in their life.

It is a very destructive force that usually only benefits a few people, but hurts a great many.

As far as making it illegal - I don't know if I would go that far. But I will raise my son and daughter to believe that gambling is wrong, and taking money from those that gamble is even worse.

Interestingly, this is also something we agree upon.

Melon

 

[maycocksean]

Gambling is hurtful to a society because of its addictive nature to the "poorest" amongst us - hoping for a quick turnaround in their life.

It is a very destructive force that usually only benefits a few people, but hurts a great many.

As far as making it illegal - I don't know if I would go that far. But I will raise my son and daughter to believe that gambling is wrong, and taking money from those that gamble is even worse.

I agree as well. We have video poker rooms here in Saipan and they are ubiquitous. There are literally at least a half a dozen of them in the 1/4 stretch between my house and the school. And there are constantly stories in the paper about crime connected with them.

I also would not go so far as to support a "ban" on gambling, but I would probably oppose any efforts to introduce new gambling to my community. And really, I would support a ban on the video poker rooms (though I suppose I'd leave our lottery alone) because these places are primarily frequented by addicts. They're not very appealing places to be in, just a bunch of hunched-over people feeding quarters mechanically into video machines. Not exactly the good time at Vegas, casino vibe. It's pretty sad.

 

[AEON]

Interestingly, this is also something we agree upon.

Melon

Wow - first it was shoegazing and now it's gambing - this is something to build upon

 

[Macfistowannabe]

They shouldn't.

Yes, but that doesn't explain why they oppose it.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Macfisto, what are your speculations as to why some conservatives oppose riverboat gambling? Do you think they object to it more than other forms of gambling? Isn't a state lottery basically a form of gambling?

Good question. The conservatives are generally true to their principles on economic freedom, and as far as other types of gambling, I don't think they support any of them. What I find is that some believe it is morally wrong to permit gambling, although I would disagree. Some believe it will raise the crime rate, but I believe that you can permit gambling as long as you have a strong and reliable law enforcement system. And state lottery, what a great example. I would say yes, it is.

Here is what the Constitution Party - an alternative to the Republican Party - has to offer on their take of gambling:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Gambling
Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.

Somehow I see myself as more of a fiscal libertarian than a fiscal conservative, although they are basically the same with few exceptions such as gambling. I still remain a staunch social conservative, although I don't agree with them on this issue.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Macfistowannabe

why not apply your same arguments to "prostitution" ?

Because I abhor the idea of pushing sexual degeneracy.