On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:05:52 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:55:03 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:39:16 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:30:16 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:42:55 -0700, Rich Grise
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:28:39 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

Some control is reasonable.

Once again, who decides what level of control? Who decides whom and what
should be "controlled"? And maybe most importantly, who should do the
controlling?

Barack Obama? Rush Limbaugh? Al Gore?

You?

I'm allocated one vote, just as you are.

Ah. The Mobocracy. "Let's vote on what everybody's favorite color is!"

The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with intent to protect us
from this form of tyranny as well.


How is preventing people from harming other people tyranny? That's
been a prime function of government since there has been government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_...Welfare_Clause

I don't know what you think a discussion on taxation has to do with
your proposed and 'wished for' solution to make gambling illegal.

The issue is whether the federal government can "provide for the
general welfare", which the referenced clause relates to. Gambling
certainly contributes to government revenues, but I don't thing it
improves the general welfare. It used to be illegal in most states.

John