|
I'm wondering which way to go on this myself.
I don't think this is like the last time where ONE company is allowed to put casinos in. I do not gamble, but don't have anything against those that do. The way I'm looking at it is this: if we don't let the state suck up money from this, they'll just raise taxes. Maybe this will stall the advancement of communism for a while. |
|
Let's see, let private individuals use their own hard-earned money to build a casino of their choosing at their own risk, then let
other private individuals use their own hard-earned money to patronize same OR have the heavy hand of government forbid them from doing so. I'm trying to figure out why anybody would vote no, unless I'm missing something. |
|
I'm for it. On a personal level, I think gambling is stupid and boring. I can take one look at a 250 million dollar structure, and its pretty obvious who wins most of the time.
I happen to enjoy spending money on guns Some people spend lots of money on cars Some people spend money on scrapbooking Some people spend money gambing. As long as its done responsibly, then have fun. |
|
Quoted: Let's see, let private individuals use their own hard-earned money to build a casino of their choosing at their own risk, then let other private individuals use their own hard-earned money to patronize same OR have the heavy hand of government forbid them from doing so. I'm trying to figure out why anybody would vote no, unless I'm missing something. I agree with this, but I need to make sure this bill doesn't have a bunch of political BS like the last bill did. |
|
I'm voting NO and urge everyone to vote NO as well.
1. This is a constitutional amendment that grants four exclusive licenses. If this constitutional amendment merely legalized casino gambling and stopped there I'd put a sign in my yard supporting it! 2. If I read the fine print correctly this constitutional amendment will make charitable gambling illegal. In fact I'm voting NO on Issues 1, 2, and 3. Constitutional amendments should not be so specific as to lock us into things like this. –– Chuck |
|
Quoted: I'm voting NO and urge everyone to vote NO as well. 1. This is a constitutional amendment that grants four exclusive licenses. If this constitutional amendment merely legalized casino gambling and stopped there I'd put a sign in my yard supporting it! 2. If I read the fine print correctly this constitutional amendment will make charitable gambling illegal. In fact I'm voting NO on Issues 1, 2, and 3. Constitutional amendments should not be so specific as to lock us into things like this. –– Chuck This. Plus we already have a crooked gambling system in Ohio that doesn't work why do we need another one. |
|
I was on the fence. I've done very limited gambling in my life and feel that casinos tend to interrupt the character of most areas they enter. Despite this, I felt these were inadequate reasons to dislike the idea. Now, I feel like anything that will create jobs and keep money in-state is a good thing. It certainly won't solve everyone's problems, but the net effect will be positive, however small. So I guess I'm going yes, here at least. I do appreciate what was said above, though, so I'll take a closer look at it, particularly relating to how it could affect charitable events. |
|
Quoted: I'm voting NO and urge everyone to vote NO as well. 1. This is a constitutional amendment that grants four exclusive licenses. If this constitutional amendment merely legalized casino gambling and stopped there I'd put a sign in my yard supporting it! 2. If I read the fine print correctly this constitutional amendment will make charitable gambling illegal. In fact I'm voting NO on Issues 1, 2, and 3. Constitutional amendments should not be so specific as to lock us into things like this. –– Chuck +1 |
|
It's just punishment for our legislature, who should have put this through long ago. The business leaders are going to use a constitutional amendment because the legislature can't just change it on a whim. That's a smart business decision, given that they have to invest millions and millions on the election, the law, the appeals, and the actual casinos.
I have voted no for years, but the legislature has had time enough, and they failed. I believe strongly in consequences for bad behavior. This consequence comes with poker, beer and cocktail waitresses very close to where I work. Best kind of consequence I can think of. |
|
The FOP is for it, because more cops will be needed, and (at least they hope), increased taxes mean city budgets won't be as tight, and hopefully cities everywhere will stop cutting police budgets.
Also, is there a reason you guys are against a constitutional amendment? I'm pretty sure the Ohio Constitution doesn't allow gambling, so an amendment is the only way to get it passed. |
|
Quoted:
The FOP is for it, because more cops will be needed, and (at least they hope), increased taxes mean city budgets won't be as tight, and hopefully cities everywhere will stop cutting police budgets. Also, is there a reason you guys are against a constitutional amendment? I'm pretty sure the Ohio Constitution doesn't allow gambling, so an amendment is the only way to get it passed. It just prohibits lotteries, gambling would be ok, in my read. I am NOT familiar with the caselaw on that issue though. |
|
when the lotteries were created it was supposed to help the schools for one, an ever year arround here the schools are needing more money to opperate. this is a very coorked state ( just one of many ). i don't like how the governer has changed his stance on this, makes me wonder about his character an what else he'll flip-flop on us. i don't see how this will help our state except a select few.
my vote is a big NO |
|
I think if it fails this time we're not likely to see another attempt for quite a while.
I'd like to see all those gambling dollars stay in the state. Right now, Southwest Ohio is supporting Southeast Indiana with all the money that leaves Ohio for Indiana. It's similar to the lottery in my opinion, a voluntary tax paid by those silly enough to participate. Any tax I can choose not to pay that others will gladly pay in droves is fine by me. I'm surprised at the opposition on here, makes me think it won't pass, which means Ohio won't have any casino gambling for another ten years or more. That means even higher taxes in Ohio, more businesses leaving, more people leaving, more crime, more liberals elected by the population that remains, which leads to more spending, even higher taxes. See Detroit for the final result. Or Washington D.C. Issue 3 won't stop the spiral, but it may slow it down. I'd like to see the law changed to allow casino gambling anywhere in Ohio, but that hasn't had much chance. |
|
I have some problems with the wording, especially the part that limits each city to one casino.
What does it matter if more than one opens in a city, so long as they meet the other requirements? Ohio should be so lucky as to have one of these cities turn into a "little Vegas". The state sure could use the money. I'm not a big gambler, but it doesn't take a genius to see that state could use ANY business that will add to the state's tax revenue and building $250M casinos will help the local economy too. I'm going to do some more reading, but I'll likely support it, despite things I consider to be flawed in the amendment. Ohio needs jobs and money and this is one way to get some of both. Why let potential revenue be spent just over the Ohio, in Michigan, or in Canada? |
| I am not for it at all. Just what we need, a small dimly lit tacky addition scabbed on to the side of every gas station, with a few unsavory people playing slots. It is an ugly blight that doesn't need to get started here. Take your hard earned money and go throw it away somewhere else. |
|
Quoted:
I'm voting NO and urge everyone to vote NO as well. 1. This is a constitutional amendment that grants four exclusive licenses. If this constitutional amendment merely legalized casino gambling and stopped there I'd put a sign in my yard supporting it! 2. If I read the fine print correctly this constitutional amendment will make charitable gambling illegal. In fact I'm voting NO on Issues 1, 2, and 3. Constitutional amendments should not be so specific as to lock us into things like this. –– Chuck +1 |
|
Quoted:
Unions, four licenses, constitutional ammendment.... I'm voting NO. Quoted:
Im going to vote against it. If the unions are for it, Im not. You guys care to explain why you are so against the unions? Quoted:
I'm voting NO and urge everyone to vote NO as well. 1. This is a constitutional amendment that grants four exclusive licenses. If this constitutional amendment merely legalized casino gambling and stopped there I'd put a sign in my yard supporting it! 2. If I read the fine print correctly this constitutional amendment will make charitable gambling illegal. Constitutional amendments should not be so specific as to lock us into things like this. –– Chuck This is the reasoning that has me on the NO side of the fence as well. I would love to see the increased revenue for the state and all the new jobs, but I just don't like the way this Issue is written. |
|
Quoted:
I am not for it at all. Just what we need, a small dimly lit tacky addition scabbed on to the side of every gas station, with a few unsavory people playing slots. It is an ugly blight that doesn't need to get started here. Take your hard earned money and go throw it away somewhere else. You couldn't be more wrong. This is for only FOUR casinoes in the entire state. Each will be a multi-million dollar resort style casino. All that aside, what business is it of yours what somebody else does with their own money? We have too many people in this country that want to tell other people what they can and can't do. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unions, four licenses, constitutional ammendment.... I'm voting NO. Quoted:
Im going to vote against it. If the unions are for it, Im not. You guys care to explain why you are so against the unions? style='font-weight: bold;'[/span]
I can't speak for those guys, but as this is a gun board and therefore has more than it's fair share of freedom-loving, Constitution-supporting, capitalists, I'm sure most people on here are against Socialism. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unions, four licenses, constitutional ammendment.... I'm voting NO. Quoted:
Im going to vote against it. If the unions are for it, Im not. You guys care to explain why you are so against the unions? Quoted:
I'm voting NO and urge everyone to vote NO as well. 1. This is a constitutional amendment that grants four exclusive licenses. If this constitutional amendment merely legalized casino gambling and stopped there I'd put a sign in my yard supporting it! 2. If I read the fine print correctly this constitutional amendment will make charitable gambling illegal. Constitutional amendments should not be so specific as to lock us into things like this. –– Chuck This is the reasoning that has me on the NO side of the fence as well. I would love to see the increased revenue for the state and all the new jobs, but I just don't like the way this Issue is written. 1) Because the employees will be union. 2) Because unions are nothing more than blood suckers is this century. There are plenty of employee protections today w/o them. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am not for it at all. Just what we need, a small dimly lit tacky addition scabbed on to the side of every gas station, with a few unsavory people playing slots. It is an ugly blight that doesn't need to get started here. Take your hard earned money and go throw it away somewhere else. You couldn't be more wrong. This is for only FOUR casinoes in the entire state. Each will be a multi-million dollar resort style casino. All that aside, what business is it of yours what somebody else does with their own money? I don't care what you do with your money, please show me where i said anything different. I very well might care WHERE you do certain things. We have too many people in this country that want to tell other people what they can and can't do. Let's face it without laws this would be an ugly place. As far as there only being FOUR casino's, perhaps in the beginning. Give an inch and they take a mile, bla bla bla. If you want to gamble there plenty of places to do it, I see no reason to open pandoras box here. Plane fare to Vegas is cheap. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am not for it at all. Just what we need, a small dimly lit tacky addition scabbed on to the side of every gas station, with a few unsavory people playing slots. It is an ugly blight that doesn't need to get started here. Take your hard earned money and go throw it away somewhere else. You couldn't be more wrong. This is for only FOUR casinoes in the entire state. Each will be a multi-million dollar resort style casino. All that aside, what business is it of yours what somebody else does with their own money? I don't care what you do with your money, please show me where i said anything different. I very well might care WHERE you do certain things. We have too many people in this country that want to tell other people what they can and can't do. Let's face it without laws this would be an ugly place. As far as there only being FOUR casino's, perhaps in the beginning. Give an inch and they take a mile, bla bla bla. If you want to gamble there plenty of places to do it, I see no reason to open pandoras box here. Plane fare to Vegas is cheap. If you can't see how you're telling other people what they can and can't do with their own money I don't think I can show you. I can try, but you probably won't see it. You don't want any gambling in Ohio. So, if a guy wants to build a casino, you're telling him he can't do that in Ohio. If a guy wants to gamble in Ohio, you're telling him he can't do that. Trying to justify it by saying they can go to Vegas doesn't change the fact that you are still telling people what they can do with their own private property. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am not for it at all. Just what we need, a small dimly lit tacky addition scabbed on to the side of every gas station, with a few unsavory people playing slots. It is an ugly blight that doesn't need to get started here. Take your hard earned money and go throw it away somewhere else. You couldn't be more wrong. This is for only FOUR casinoes in the entire state. Each will be a multi-million dollar resort style casino. All that aside, what business is it of yours what somebody else does with their own money? I don't care what you do with your money, please show me where i said anything different. I very well might care WHERE you do certain things. We have too many people in this country that want to tell other people what they can and can't do. Let's face it without laws this would be an ugly place. As far as there only being FOUR casino's, perhaps in the beginning. Give an inch and they take a mile, bla bla bla. If you want to gamble there plenty of places to do it, I see no reason to open pandoras box here. Plane fare to Vegas is cheap. If you can't see how you're telling other people what they can and can't do with their own money I don't think I can show you. I can try, but you probably won't see it. You don't want any gambling in Ohio. So, if a guy wants to build a casino, you're telling him he can't do that in Ohio. If a guy wants to gamble in Ohio, you're telling him he can't do that. Trying to justify it by saying they can go to Vegas doesn't change the fact that you are still telling people what they can do with their own private property. so if some rich guy decides to build a multi-million dollar pig farm right next to your house it is a great idea because he wants it there? i guess our votes will cancel each other out, oh well... if it passes so be it. |
i would like to see all the lieing adds removed from tv. one says this an the other says the other . they all are a bunch of liers. an you can bet your ass if it does or dosen't pass are taxes are still going up. to many corupt people in office an i dont see that ever changing, not with this messed up human race
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am not for it at all. Just what we need, a small dimly lit tacky addition scabbed on to the side of every gas station, with a few unsavory people playing slots. It is an ugly blight that doesn't need to get started here. Take your hard earned money and go throw it away somewhere else. You couldn't be more wrong. This is for only FOUR casinoes in the entire state. Each will be a multi-million dollar resort style casino. All that aside, what business is it of yours what somebody else does with their own money? I don't care what you do with your money, please show me where i said anything different. I very well might care WHERE you do certain things. We have too many people in this country that want to tell other people what they can and can't do. Let's face it without laws this would be an ugly place. As far as there only being FOUR casino's, perhaps in the beginning. Give an inch and they take a mile, bla bla bla. If you want to gamble there plenty of places to do it, I see no reason to open pandoras box here. Plane fare to Vegas is cheap. If you can't see how you're telling other people what they can and can't do with their own money I don't think I can show you. I can try, but you probably won't see it. You don't want any gambling in Ohio. So, if a guy wants to build a casino, you're telling him he can't do that in Ohio. If a guy wants to gamble in Ohio, you're telling him he can't do that. Trying to justify it by saying they can go to Vegas doesn't change the fact that you are still telling people what they can do with their own private property. so if some rich guy decides to build a multi-million dollar pig farm right next to your house it is a great idea because he wants it there? i guess our votes will cancel each other out, oh well... if it passes so be it. If I don't like the pig farm next to me, I can move. It's his property, he can do with it what he wants.h Neither I nor anyone else has any right to tell him what to do with his private property. Somewhere along the line we've lost the respect for private property rights, and that is the beginning of the end of liberty. |
|
Quoted:
I can't speak for those guys, but as this is a gun board and therefore has more than it's fair share of freedom-loving, Constitution-supporting, capitalists, I'm sure most people on here are against Socialism. The definition of a labor union: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/labor+union The definition of socialism: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism I fail to see where labor unions = socialism. Quoted:
1) Because the employees will be union. 2) Because unions are nothing more than blood suckers is this century. There are plenty of employee protections today w/o them. I would agree with your (implied) statement that a "casino employees' union" is ridiculous. I can also agree that there are a number of laws and organizations that have been formed to protect employees and some of the reasoning for a union may be "obsolete." Beyond that, I would love for you to explain/reason/prove how every single member, of every single local, of every single union is a "blood sucker." I have seen non-union boilermakers do a damn fine job and I have seen a bunch of guys that cannot even speak english pulling cable and landing wires. Not every non-union worker sucks, just like not all (not the majority in actuality) union workers are not lazy blood suckers. Anyways, to keep this on topic.... Voting for or against this issue based on a union's stance is fairly ridiculous in my opinion. There are a number of other reasons, several of which have already been discussed, why you should or should not vote for this issue that are far more important. Also, I apologize for getting the thread off track. I just like to discuss the subject to some extent when it comes up because I a)grew up the son of a union electrician and would never have considered us poor, but was far from being well off, like some "blood sucker" might be and b)work around both union and non-union tradesmen and have seen the ups and downs of both. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I can't speak for those guys, but as this is a gun board and therefore has more than it's fair share of freedom-loving, Constitution-supporting, capitalists, I'm sure most people on here are against Socialism. The definition of a labor union: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/labor+union The definition of socialism: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism I fail to see where labor unions = socialism. . Better read your own link then. According to definition number one in your link: " any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" Unions are, by your own definition, Socialist. The collective administration of the means of production, the collective ownership of the means of production, these are precisely the goals of labor unions. Unions certainly aren't advocates of Capitalism! Unions are about as anti-Capitalist as you can get. I think even a die-hard union man would acknowledge that. Unions are the biggest force behind Socialism in America today, they finance the Socialist movement almost single-handedly. Remove labor unions' money and Socialism in America would be dead. It's ok to support unions if you want, but the role of unions is most definitely Socialist in nature. Unions=Socialism You don't have to like it, but it is the truth. |
|
Quoted:
What does it matter if more than one opens in a city, so long as they meet the other requirements? Ohio should be so lucky as to have one of these cities turn into a "little Vegas". The state sure could use the money. Sandusky/Islands area would be the logical choice if they really wanted to have our own version of Vegas. A lot of infrastructure is already there. There's a reason Cedar Point has grabbed up stuff throughout the years. Now put a casino somewhere out there..... Game on. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
What does it matter if more than one opens in a city, so long as they meet the other requirements? Ohio should be so lucky as to have one of these cities turn into a "little Vegas". The state sure could use the money. Sandusky/Islands area would be the logical choice if they really wanted to have our own version of Vegas. A lot of infrastructure is already there. There's a reason Cedar Point has grabbed up stuff throughout the years. Now put a casino somewhere out there..... Game on. Put in Bay would be great for it. The funny thing about the gambling issue last time is the map after the vote... the county (can't remember which one off the top of my head) and immediately surrounding counties were for the casino and all others were against it. I'll be voting for it (again), and I bet it won't pass (again). |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What does it matter if more than one opens in a city, so long as they meet the other requirements? Ohio should be so lucky as to have one of these cities turn into a "little Vegas". The state sure could use the money. Sandusky/Islands area would be the logical choice if they really wanted to have our own version of Vegas. A lot of infrastructure is already there. There's a reason Cedar Point has grabbed up stuff throughout the years. Now put a casino somewhere out there..... Game on. Put in Bay would be great for it. The funny thing about the gambling issue last time is the map after the vote... the county (can't remember which one off the top of my head) and immediately surrounding counties were for the casino and all others were against it. I'll be voting for it (again), and I bet it won't pass (again). Actually, I think that would be a terrible spot. They have enough human and vehicular traffic as it is in the summer––especially on the weekends, and in the winter it gets to be inaccessible. If this flawed issue passes (which I think it will this time), they need to put the casinos in Ohio's dumps and let them reap the limited rewards. Youngstown comes to mind. Toledo. Cleveland, of course. The propaganda for this issue is strong. 34k jobs? Yeah, right. Just today I got a taxpayer-funded flier promoting issue 3. Can't remember the last time I had one of those. It was full of bullshit about how it was going to raise kabillions of dollars for the schools and would pave the roads with kevlar, put everybody to work, cure cancer, save the children, end murder, make mean old people smile and so on. Bullshit. At the end of the day, the school system will just inflate with more unused buses, more overpaid administrators, the roads will have potholes, people will die of cancer, crime will be crime, and mean old people will still mutter "fuck-you's" from their tight lips. |
|
Quoted:
i would like to see all the lieing adds removed from tv. one says this an the other says the other . they all are a bunch of liers. an you can bet your ass if it does or dosen't pass are taxes are still going up. to many corupt people in office an i dont see that ever changing, not with this messed up human race I have a feeling that you are right, even if this issue passes they will still raise taxes, I remember the Lottery was supposed to dump all this money into our school system, it didn't do shit. The places around here that hold Bingo and Casino nights for charity have said that if this issue passes that they will be stopped from having these things, I don't know enough about it to know for sure but I do know that when this "Bingo" issue is brought up, no one disputes it so I tend to believe that this "Other Stuff" will be stopped? Why can't they let these Bingo Nights or Casino Nights continue even if Issue 3 is voted in? If they limit 1 Casino to each city, doesn't that take competition out of the equation ? isn't competition good to prevent a monopoly? I am on the fence right now, our local paper runs a "Pros and Cons" on each issue and runs pages explaining whatever is on the Ballot so I will read these all before I make up my mind. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
i would like to see all the lieing adds removed from tv. one says this an the other says the other . they all are a bunch of liers. an you can bet your ass if it does or dosen't pass are taxes are still going up. to many corupt people in office an i dont see that ever changing, not with this messed up human race I have a feeling that you are right, even if this issue passes they will still raise taxes, I remember the Lottery was supposed to dump all this money into our school system, it didn't do shit. The places around here that hold Bingo and Casino nights for charity have said that if this issue passes that they will be stopped from having these things, I don't know enough about it to know for sure but I do know that when this "Bingo" issue is brought up, no one disputes it so I tend to believe that this "Other Stuff" will be stopped? Why can't they let these Bingo Nights or Casino Nights continue even if Issue 3 is voted in? If they limit 1 Casino to each city, doesn't that take competition out of the equation ? isn't competition good to prevent a monopoly? I am on the fence right now, our local paper runs a "Pros and Cons" on each issue and runs pages explaining whatever is on the Ballot so I will read these all before I make up my mind. The schools do get a lot of money from the lottery. They just use that to grow bigger, which makes them want more money. |