Skip to comments.Why Is Newt’s Biggest Donor So Opposed to Santorum? (Santorum's views on gambling)
Posted on 02/16/2012 7:51:49 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
click here to read article
Other than that, the Feds should butt out.
The only sort of gambling that I did somewhat okay at is when I bought gold at $405.00 and ounce and sold it back at double the amount.
Even then, I did not do as well as I could have, but the gold went to help pay for expensive assessments on my condo so it did come in handy.
Oh, cc, you were doing so well with your quote from the article stating from a Sheldon Adelson mindreader that Adelson wants to hurt Santorum in order to help Romney, with absolutely no evidence, but still it made for riveting copy on FR.
Even though there was nothing to it, it had more pizzazz, more “umph” to it than THIS latest effort...
Right.....And look at how big a slum Las Vegas and Reno have become.......
Conservatism fails not because of politicians but because “conservatives” don’t have moral courage.
I just want to know which amendment to the constitution gives the fed to power to regulate gaming? As I recall, any power not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved by the states and the people respecitvely...
It is good to see members of my tribe who are not neo Communists or substituting cynical Bismarck welfare state nonsense for Judaism.
That was my understanding too.
All Santorum has to do is to not fall for the trap. When media schmos try to query him into giving Obama sound bites for his ads, Santo has to turn it around, and laugh and mock if appropriate.
“But we aren’t talking about banning birth control here, George. No one is. Birth control is available anywhere, including at the pharmacy two blocks from here.. We are talking about supporting American families who are trying to stay ahead of the taxman...”
“No, Diane, we are not talking about hurting women here. We are talking about supporting women, and their families or partners, in being able to support whatever lifestyle they choose, including the choice to bear children...”
“Chris, all legal lifestyles are possible in this country. Every man who’s been elected President has had his own lifestyle — [chuckle] and we have seen ALL kinds — and we do not expect the President to push his own lifestyle on every American person! [chuckle] We all have the right to choose our own way of life, Chris, even me. [big smile]”
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 dont 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.
I really hope Republicans in remaining primary states start reading the handwriting on the wall.
GODSPEED NEWT GINGRICH.
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 familys 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.)
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.)
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.
... 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.
The President has precious little to do with gambling regulations which are not an important issue to most people.
Yeah, Rick’s a humorless, big government statist.
>> I opposed gaming in Pennsylvania . .
Any comments on how Sands is doing over there in ol’ steel country?
I agree with him on the on-line aspect. The internet is addicting enough without adding gambling in the mix. I could see this totally ruining the lives of the college and bored senior set.
Santorum is NOT a small government fiscal conservative, pure and simple. He’s a big government compassionate conservative with a social conservative bent. You don’t have to look for nepharious reasons for folks to not back Santorum, his record, not his rhetoric, give plenty of fodder to why he isn’t backed by this person or that person.
My biggest opposition to him, is I saw him get completely distroyed first hand in 06, and have no confidence the exact same template used against him then by the left, with great success won’t be used again to equal success. I’m already seeing it start to bubble in the press, and believe like it or not, he will wind up with the same result.
I will vote for the Republican canidate no matter who it is, but I saw how santorum was completely painted as too radical in 06 for the electorate, very successfully and him not able to respond or diffuse it at all, and I see the same thing happening if he is the nominee this year.
Your fears are real and sit in the back of the minds of many voters. It is not how a winning election goes forward. We need a confident leader.
Rick’s reminds me of Strother Martin in CoolHandLuke. He wants to everyone to “get their mind right.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y28pFJqDkkU&feature=channel
>>Any sort of societal ills has their cause. No amount of gov regulation, no matter how well-intended, will ease these ills.<<
Given the grammar in your comment, I’m inclined to wonder if I’m arguing with a 5th grader, or a high school dropout, but taking you seriously, what you’re saying is patent nonsense.
You’re arguing for virtual anarchy. Houses of prostitution on every block? Why not? Every manner of drug usage legalized? Sure, go for it. Marriages? Why bother? Just drop all the laws on marriage. You want three wives, a man, a teenage girl and a 10-year old boy for your partners, all living happily in a house next to mine? Great idea.
Child abuse is, how do you put it, one of those “societal ills.” You don’t want a law prohibiting it? A law that puts the abusers away, or somehow keeps them from committing further abuse? How about spousal abuse? Rape? That’s a societal ill. Think removing all government regulations regarding rape wouldn’t have any negative effect at all? None? Or are you a supporter of NAMBLA, perhaps? If so, please let me know, so I quit wasting my time responding to you.
You honestly think you can sit on your little moral island, raise your kids to do the “right thing” and win in that environment? Good luck. “All will fall in place,” you say. Right.
And drop the “Saint” Rick, please. Remember, first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, they you win. You’ve fallen into the trap of thinking you’re winning, but you’re only at step two, and you look ridiculous spouting “St. Rick”, as does everyone else doing it. It just demonstrates lack of a rational argument, and in the end, rational argument prevails, because it’s predictive of what is likely to happen.
This is why liberals, and libertarians too, always lose in the end. What their opponents say will happen if you get your way does, in fact, eventually happen, and saner people either regain control, or the country falls apart and those same liberals and libertarians find themselves ruled by a despot, sometimes even one they voted into power. Eventually, a populist ruler promises to fix the mess, and the people succumb, desperate for someone to finally lead. At that point, poor choices usually result.
Wow, no need to be so angry. (Now I sound like Rromney talking to Santorum!)
No one says gov shouldn’t have laws and enforce them. Surely gov can punish criminals and keep them out of the way to protect law-abiding citizens. However, punishment by gov does not change human behavior. Human behavior is learned from birth. Family upbringing shapes the child. When the children are brought up to be responsible citizens, there will be less need for the gov-imposed punishment or assistance or ‘preaching’.
I agree with Santorum that family is the most important. Going back to the good old traditional family units will do wonder. With more and more broken families, ‘societal ills’ multiply. The ‘compassionate’ government steps in to help, or punish or ‘teach’ people by imposing what the politicians think is the best for them. Is that the best way to influence human behavior or to restore law and order?
I am simply saying it starts with the family. Big gov can’t help. Some big gov politician should really stop trying to regulate human behavior by imposing their own ideas of what is good or bad.
“Let me know when Santorum starts advocating the shut down of all gov’t run lotteries. Until then...”
It’s fodder, it’s grist for the mill.
It along with many, many other things of a social nature he has opined on is fair game for political use.
I don’t happen to think that’s a good thing for our ultimate goal of victory over Obama, Pelosi and Reid, to save America from utter political and economic ruin.
I personally agree with several, though not all, of his social commentary points.
But that is BESIDE the point.