New York State Referendum Ballot re: Casino Gambling

[canceled.2021.1]

Well, no. No you don't. You happen to be against casinos. When they were going to run by 'Indians' only, so was I. Now there is a referendum that will allow the state to reap all the rewards, as opposed to getting a pittance based on revenues that nobody would be able to review.

How am I doing so far, moron?

So you claim there is some sort of regressive tax. You've yet to provide proof of same.

Are you still with me, shithead?

So vote against casinos. I'm voting for them. Not because I believe they will hold up their promises, but because the region is so depressed, we have virtually no choice.

Now, why not show us how informed you are, dickhead?

Oh, you want proof that it is a regressive tax?

Here you go

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=5904

So spare me your feigned indignation about wanting to help the poor. The data is clear that lotteries, smoking and drinking disparately impact the poor. Oddly enough those are the things lefties want to tax more and increase. So yeah, tell me how much you want to help the poor.

BTW, I really appreciate your efforts to improve board civility in calling people "dickhead" and "shithead". At least you didn't use the dreaded C**T word

 

[Taft2016]

Well, no. No you don't. You happen to be against casinos. When they were going to run by 'Indians' only, so was I. Now there is a referendum that will allow the state to reap all the rewards, as opposed to getting a pittance based on revenues that nobody would be able to review.

How am I doing so far, moron?

Since you asked, not too well. Moron.

I never said I was against casinos. I never said I was for them. There's two sides the issue, which is why I made this thread. The referendum itself advocates for casinos which I, and many liberals in New York, think is wrong. The referendum presents only one side of the issue. This matter has been taken to court, with bi-partisan support, and it is being defended as well with bi-partisan support. Both mayoral candidates for NYC support it.

So you claim there is some sort of regressive tax. You've yet to provide proof of same.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/opinion/new-yorks-bad-casino-bet.html?_r=0

"More broadly, casinos are nothing more than a regressive tax that extracts wealth from the very citizens who can least afford it."

Are you still with me, shithead?

All the way dopey.

So vote against casinos. I'm voting for them. Not because I believe they will hold up their promises, but because the region is so depressed, we have virtually no choice.

Now, why not show us how informed you are, dickhead?

It's kind of hard to argue with you. You're not even able to comprehend the issue of this thread itself, much less the broader issue of casinos.

Personally, I enjoy casinos as a recreational activity. The problem comes in when people in desperate financial situations try to use them to alter their life's station, often with disastrous results.

The notions that casinos are win-win or lose-lose are too simplistic. But simplistic appears to be your forte, so stick with it.

 

[Lorca]

Heh, the not-so-hidden embarrassment that we Democrats must fight....that people cannot be responsible for themselves, for their own actions.

The assumption that "Open a door and stupid, poor, fat, desperate etc people will walk thru it. So WE must LOCK it to protect them!"

It's an insult to ALL poor or <fill in the blank> people. The more personal responsibility that you take away from people, the less they will ever seek it themselves.

 

[evince]

what the fuck does any of that mean?


Your defending CHEATING legal American voters out of their votes for WHAT REASON??????

 

[evince]

They are legal voters you lying sack of bile.

making them JUMP through Hoops so you can CULL some of them off the voting roles is DISHONEST as fucking hell.

what does your stupid evil ass do?

defend it

 

[evince]

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-co...-in-voting-rights-consent-decree-2564238.html


your party is so dishonest even the right wing scotus had to deny you







US Supreme Court on Monday turned aside a petition from the Republican National Committee to lift a 30-year-old consent decree. The decree requires the RNC to refrain from tactics that could suppress voting rights.

By Warren Richey - Christian Science Monitor

The US Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up a request by the Republican National Committee to lift a 30-year-old consent decree that restricts the political party’s ability to enforce pre-election ballot security programs that critics say would result in minority voter suppression.

The high court, without comment, turned aside the Republican Party’s petition

 

[Taft2016]

Heh, the not-so-hidden embarrassment that we Democrats must fight....that people cannot be responsible for themselves, for their own actions.

The assumption that "Open a door and stupid, poor, fat, desperate etc people will walk thru it. So WE must LOCK it to protect them!"

It's an insult to ALL poor or <fill in the blank> people. The more personal responsibility that you take away from people, the less they will ever seek it themselves.

Wow. Irony abounds.

 

[Taft2016]

Evince, you were fun for a while. But your repetitious thread high-jackings over and over on one subject have grown wearisome.

Alas, to the ignore bin you've been exiled.

I wish you well.... or at least that you get well.

 

[evince]

Im not here for you fucking entertainment dick master

 

[evince]

Im here because your a lying sack of turds and your trying to kill this country with your idiot historically failed ideas.

You will NOT be allowed to do so

 

[Lorca]

Wow. Irony abounds.

Care to elaborate?

I know it's almost unheard of in this forum to admit your party or philosophy isnt perfect, so you might be in shock.

Let me know when you find your words.

 

[evince]

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-co...-in-voting-rights-consent-decree-2564238.html


your party is so dishonest even the right wing scotus had to deny you







US Supreme Court on Monday turned aside a petition from the Republican National Committee to lift a 30-year-old consent decree. The decree requires the RNC to refrain from tactics that could suppress voting rights.

By Warren Richey - Christian Science Monitor

The US Supreme Court declined on Monday to take up a request by the Republican National Committee to lift a 30-year-old consent decree that restricts the political party’s ability to enforce pre-election ballot security programs that critics say would result in minority voter suppression.

The high court, without comment, turned aside the Republican Party’s petition

and NOT one will come anywhere near the cold hard court documented facts.

 

[Althea]

Since you asked, not too well. I'm a Moron.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

I never said I was against casinos. I never said I was for them. There's two sides the issue, which is why I made this thread.

Yea, sure. And you proposed nonsensical language that supports your anti casino opinion about some phantom tax. Linking someone else's opinion from a NYT article doesn't make your flawed claim valid. It just shows that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. There are already a number of electronic gaming facilities that take entire paychecks from the mindless fools you reference. Do you think that adding gaming tables will make the situation worse?

The referendum itself advocates for casinos which I, and many liberals in New York, think is wrong. The referendum presents only one side of the issue. This matter has been taken to court, with bi-partisan support, and it is being defended as well with bi-partisan support. Both mayoral candidates for NYC support it.

I thought you claimed not to take a position? Your 'regressive tax' bullshit clearly illustrates your position.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/opinion/new-yorks-bad-casino-bet.html?_r=0

Gee...you agree with someone else's opinion. Now link us to an opinion that makes the case for job creation.

Whereas casinos definitely herd visitors in, and give them no reason to venture out to local businesses, the argument has been made that the thousands of employees who will live in the area, most definitely will. It also depends on the nature of the economy in the given region. Those with absolutely no other avenues, will welcome casinos. Those with a thriving economy, will block the casinos. The referendum is about bringing casinos to the state, that will not filter revenue through Indians' coffers.. Vote against it, if you feel your local economy is doing just fine.

Meanwhile, polling suggests that people aren't as stupid as you think. They know the pros and cons.

It's kind of hard to argue with you

. When your position is as flawed as you illustrate, what do you expect, dopey?

Personally, I enjoy casinos as a recreational activity. The problem comes in when people in desperate financial situations try to use them to alter their life's station, often with disastrous results.

I see. So you're concerned about those who don't have the brains to create a budget? Those people are in the electronic gaming sites now, as well as in the gas stations, purchasing scratch off tickets.

Your position is as stupid as NY's position re. UFC. Sure...let neighboring states enjoy the massive revenue it generates....we'll just sit back and count our losses, while we do nothing to stop the actual events from happening.

The notions that casinos are win-win or lose-lose are too simplistic. But simplistic appears to be my forte, so I'll stick with it.

Well, then, that explains your position, doesn't it?

 

[evince]

yeah his name should be Daft

 

[Taft2016]

Yea, sure. And you proposed nonsensical language that supports your anti casino opinion about some phantom tax.

The point being, that there's two sides to the issue and the referendum inappropriately advocates for one side.

Linking someone else's opinion from a NYT article doesn't make your flawed claim valid.

I didn't say it does, but it's quite a common opinion on the both sides the political spectrum. Which is why I made this thread; the referendum advocating for one side of the issue is inappropriate.

I thought you claimed not to take a position? Your 'regressive tax' bullshit clearly illustrates your position.

My "regressive tax bullshit" was to show both sides of the issue, which as I said numerous times, the referendum does not by advocating for one side of the issue.

Gee...you agree with someone else's opinion. Now link us to an opinion that makes the case for job creation.

I don't have to. The referendum itself expresses the opinion that it will lead to job creation. Which, as I said, is an inappropriate place to advocate for a position.

Is any of this starting to sink in yet?

 

[Althea]

The point being, that there's two sides to the issue and the referendum inappropriately advocates for one side.




I didn't say it does, but it's quite a common opinion on the both sides the political spectrum. Which is why I made this thread; the referendum advocating for one side of the issue is inappropriate.



My "regressive tax bullshit" was to show both sides of the issue, which as I said numerous times, the referendum does not by advocating for one side of the issue.



I don't have to. The referendum itself expresses the opinion that it will lead to job creation. Which, as I said, is an inappropriate place to advocate for a position.

Is any of this starting to sink in yet?

So you would word the referendum to convince voters that the small number of morons who can't budget their money, far outweighs the fact that jobs/ property tax relief will be available to the surrounding area?

Why would you attempt to skew public opinion, while railing about language that skews public opinion? Your position isn't one that argues against casinos. It argues against gambling, which is already going on in the state, on quite on a large scale. Casinos attract several times more of the demographic with disposable income, than those who spend rent money at the tables.

And, Vegas realized years ago that the vast majority of visitors DO NOT GAMBLE. So they stopped giving away meals/shows to everyone, and save those perks for the gamblers. So now they're making money on thousands who don't even gamble.

http://againstthenumber.com/2013/07/09/the-vegas-strip-is-for-tourists-not-necessarily-gamblers

 

[Taft2016]

So you would word the referendum to convince voters that the small number of morons who can't budget their money, far outweighs the fact that jobs/ property tax relief will be available to the surrounding area?

No. I would use neutral language.

Why would you attempt to skew public opinion, while railing about language that skews public opinion? Your position isn't one that argues against casinos.

I didn't express an opinion or a position. I merely suggested how the referendum would have looked if it was written from the opposite perspective.

I would use neutral language.

That was my point from the first post. I think most people understood that.

 

[Althea]

No. I would use neutral language.



I didn't express an opinion or a position. I merely suggested how the referendum would have looked if it was written from the opposite perspective.

I would use neutral language.

That was my point from the first post. I think most people understood that.

So why didn't you include your proposed neutral language in your OP?