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.
"Freedom’s not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom."
Hello?
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of people to assemble ARE absolute, unalienable rights.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I don’t know Adelson’s views on online, either.
But in my mind it’s Rick’s views that count...let’s say Adelson does oppose it online, for business reasons.
But Rick is opposed to gambling, period, for moral and societal reasons.
I, too, am opposed to gambling but I have been outvoted. That’s something I can’t overcome, can I?
Rick would overcome it, if he had the ability.
Online or anywhere.
On another post I asked if he might make an exception for Catholic bingo...
:o)
Yes enough with the lecture on morals all the time. I don’t need my president imposing his morals on me. You’re against abortion, yay we get it. You have 8 kids, yay we get it. You’re old-fashioned, yay we get it. Focus on the big picture. Jeesh.
“People shouldn’t gamble so much. There are two standard deviation points between the casino and the person gambling — but that is enough!
You blow $40.00 at a casino — not $50,000 or more!”
People can do whatever they PLEASE with their money.
That’s what a free country is for.
I’m sick and tired of Santorum&consorts telling people what they should or shouldn’t do. It will be much better if Santorum postulated for a preacher’s office, rather than for POTUS.
To me one is as bad as the other and they both can just shut up!
It’s all about WHO Rick is, and if society were like Rick, all would be well.
That’s what you are noticing.
It raises red flags and leaves him open to attack.
Concern for those who gamble could place gambling into a health care issue of addiction, neglect, abuse, housing (not enough food for the children, beating up your wife/husband, losing your home). It’s the Left’s playground — control.
Santorum can say gambling causes problems (it does) but he should not state it should be limited.
Another PLUS in Santorum’s column, IMHO.
“There are limitations.” - Yes Ricky, there are Constitutional limits on government’s power, not Constitutional limits on freedom. Of course the Santorum fans will be here to accuse everyone of being doped up anarchists, but it’s really about a mindset more than anything. How is Rick’s belief that government should decide what hobbies are good for you better than Michelle Obama’s belief that government should decide what food is good for you?
What “plus” would that be?
No. This guy reminds me of the annoying busybody neighbor down the block who always had a stupid comment- like telling us kids not to ride our bikes without hands b/c we might fall and get hurt. And then he would tell our parents on us. I don’t need, or want that in a president.
Alcohol causes problems. Tobacco causes problems. Fatty foods cause problems. Out of wedlock sex causes problems. Actually, with a 70% divorce rate, marriage causes more problems than all those others combined. Government regulations on everything, surely someone in Washington can figure out what's good for us and tell us what to do.
Sadly trading Barry for Rick is just changing one govt knows best for another. People are confusing social conservatism with small government. Rick Santorum is not a small government guy.
...or running for the presidency. These men are gambling millions of dollars on the chance they can strike it rich and become president of the United States. I'd call that gambling.
Going flat broke in the space of a day -- some fun!
If a majority vote for it, either with their wallets or their ballots, it is what it is.
I have an opinion on it, but that’s all I have.
If I were to call for the people’s will on the question to be “limited” by some greater force, given the American system we are blessed to have, that would be worrisome.
That’s why I don’t.
Rick won’t let go, but worse, these types of issues and questions are really a huge portion of what he likes to focus on.
It let’s people know who he, Rick Santorum, is.
It let’s people know how he thinks our society should function.
Strange...I thought we were seeking a leader to rally the nation in a time of political and economic crisis and palpable fear for the future. A Reagan like figure such as in the Carter days of hostages and malaise.
If not Rick Perry, then who but Newt...of those who are running?
This seems to be a primary problem with Santorum.
Has anyone attributed that reported sentiment to a real name yet?
Funny, I didn’t know Adelson was running for office but I as a social conservative will be sure not to vote for him on my ballot.
But as a social conservative, I am also still an American, and America is built on freedom.
Not a government nanny state on social issues or economic issues or health issues or...you name it.
Abortion is different.
Because the Constitution says right to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Stupid people do stupid things with their money. That does not mean we legislate their behavior. Look how well prohibition turned out. It almost doubled down on the behavior is was supposed to stop.
Newt is the choice.
“When they go bankrupt, be sure to quote H. L Mencken about those worrying about people having too much fun. That will make them feel so much better and solve the problem /s
Going flat broke in the space of a day — some fun!”
How is that Santorum’s, yours or my business?
It’s NOT.
Rick’s preaching remind me of Lenin, who just KNEW what make people happy and imposed that on them, cynically calling that “the dictatorship of the proletarians”.
I don’t want no stinking politician to tell me what I must and must not do in my private life or with MY money.
It happens that I never gambled in my life, but if one day I want to do it, I wouldn’t give a flying f..k about what that pompous bore PRick thinks.
The odds are against you in a casino. I would think the internet would be worse. One can't hold the dice on the internet.
I think that big gambling is immoral and destroys families. I don’t like lotteries which were sold to the people as a way to avoid school taxes. Has anyone seen their school taxes actually go down?
I’m glad to see Santorum on the same side that I am on. It doesn’t surprise me; it’s part of a welcome pattern.
Think about how immoral it is for government to sponsor a “game” to which people get addicted that often leads to divorce, non-support of children, and bankruptcy.
But look at the boomtimes created by casinos in Detroit. LOL
The issue of abortion, regardless of the side you are on, has been settled. It is written in stone and is so far removed as an election changing issue, that it is no longer listed as a voter concern. Unless you are a radical right to lifer who is determined to wipe it from the Law Books. Then you are doomed in the political world.
But go ahead, keep rambling on with that abortion babble, if that is what makes you feel good. This country is about to go down the tubes permanently in regards to the economy and International Security. Your Morally pure but fiscally corrupt pastor for President, does not have any clear plan or foggiest idea on how to fix it.
Just a short while ago, you posted on another thread calling for all youngsters to have be educated on how to use birth control.
People can do whatever they please with their own children.
Hypocrite much? Perhaps in all of you “hate Rick” zeal you could practice a little of what you preach.
Your hate is over the top and will not bolster Romney, or whatever lib you pump up around here.
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.