In article ,
says...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:49:36 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

In article ,
says...

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

Still stuck on that "others" thing.
That's not the issue, you were yapping on about protecting people from
themselves, BIG difference.

I was talking about protecting people from gigabuck casino operators.

We outlaw dangerous drugs and dangerous products. Do you object to
that too?

What is at question here is why you think you know better what a person
does with THEIR money, nothing more.
Like I stated before, if you are going to trumpet the successes of the
"War on Drugs" you are going to have your job cut out for you.

Education and treatment has always been more productive than
prohibition.

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:27:21 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:



We outlaw dangerous drugs and dangerous products. Do you object to
that too?

What is at question here is why you think you know better what a person
does with THEIR money, nothing more.

You didn't answer the question.

Like I stated before, if you are going to trumpet the successes of the
"War on Drugs" you are going to have your job cut out for you.

Education and treatment has always been more productive than
prohibition.

Do you believe that? I don't.

John

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:38:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:03:04 -0500, flipper wrote:

You have a problem with absurdities, like comparing physically addictive
substances to free will choices.

And you seem just plain mean.

You sound like a spoiled brat, a self-righteous one at that.

"I wanna ban gambling, because somebody might lose money!"
[opponent points out absurdity and unconstitutionality of premise]
"You're mean! Waah! Waah! Waah!"

Grow up, and quit trying to make rules that override adults' free will.

Feh.
Rich

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:38:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:03:04 -0500, flipper wrote:

You have a problem with absurdities, like comparing physically addictive
substances to free will choices.

And you seem just plain mean.

You sound like a spoiled brat, a self-righteous one at that.

"I wanna ban gambling, because somebody might lose money!"
[opponent points out absurdity and unconstitutionality of premise]
"You're mean! Waah! Waah! Waah!"

Grow up, and quit trying to make rules that override adults' free will.

Feh.
Rich

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:55:03 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:39:16 -0700, Rich Grise

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?

It's not. Forcibly preventing people from exercising their own free will,
and assuming the risks thereof, is tyrrany.

John, I thought you were one of the smart ones.

Thanks,
Rich

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:55:03 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:39:16 -0700, Rich Grise

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?

It's not. Forcibly preventing people from exercising their own free will,
and assuming the risks thereof, is tyrrany.

John, I thought you were one of the smart ones.

Thanks,
Rich

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:40:06 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:55:03 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:39:16 -0700, Rich Grise

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?

It's not. Forcibly preventing people from exercising their own free will,
and assuming the risks thereof, is tyrrany.

Is operating a casino free will? How about a meth lab?

"The risk thereof" could be 20 years in the slammer. Let them assume
that risk.

John

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:38:01 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:38:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:03:04 -0500, flipper wrote:

You have a problem with absurdities, like comparing physically addictive
substances to free will choices.

And you seem just plain mean.

You sound like a spoiled brat, a self-righteous one at that.

"I wanna ban gambling, because somebody might lose money!"
[opponent points out absurdity and unconstitutionality of premise]
"You're mean! Waah! Waah! Waah!"

Grow up, and quit trying to make rules that override adults' free will.

Feh.
Rich

I make no rules about gambling; how could I do that? I don't even
object to The Brat gambling, because I know she's not addictive.

I just think it's harmful to a lot of people, and I'd vote against it
given the opportunity.

John

John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:27:21 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

We outlaw dangerous drugs and dangerous products. Do you object to
that too?
What is at question here is why you think you know better what a person
does with THEIR money, nothing more.

You didn't answer the question.

Actually we don't outlaw all dangerous drugs. Alcohol and tobacco do way
more harm to the public than either ecstacy or cannabis. Potentially
very dangerous and addictive drugs like cocaine are relatively benign in
their unrefined state as used in tea at high altitudes. UK toxicologists
made this point fairly recently and were rounded on by politicians for
telling the truth.

I think Switzerland and Holland have it pragmatically about right. There
is no point in criminalising drug addiction and so providing a massive
income for criminals dealing in illegal drugs. Just like with US alcohol
prohibition it doesn't work. The profits available are too high.

Like I stated before, if you are going to trumpet the successes of the
"War on Drugs" you are going to have your job cut out for you.

Education and treatment has always been more productive than
prohibition.

Do you believe that?

Yes. You can't cure everybody, but locking them up and not dealing with
their addiction problems just makes matters even worse.

And the US "War on Drugs" is a complete joke. The effect is only to fill
the jails with ever more people - good for jail operating companies but
bad for taxpayers to have all those people locked up and unproductive.

I don't.

Why not? The evidence is very clear cut.

Regards,
Martin Brown

John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:27:21 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

We outlaw dangerous drugs and dangerous products. Do you object to
that too?
What is at question here is why you think you know better what a person
does with THEIR money, nothing more.

You didn't answer the question.

Actually we don't outlaw all dangerous drugs. Alcohol and tobacco do way
more harm to the public than either ecstacy or cannabis. Potentially
very dangerous and addictive drugs like cocaine are relatively benign in
their unrefined state as used in tea at high altitudes. UK toxicologists
made this point fairly recently and were rounded on by politicians for
telling the truth.

I think Switzerland and Holland have it pragmatically about right. There
is no point in criminalising drug addiction and so providing a massive
income for criminals dealing in illegal drugs. Just like with US alcohol
prohibition it doesn't work. The profits available are too high.

Like I stated before, if you are going to trumpet the successes of the
"War on Drugs" you are going to have your job cut out for you.

Education and treatment has always been more productive than
prohibition.

Do you believe that?

Yes. You can't cure everybody, but locking them up and not dealing with
their addiction problems just makes matters even worse.

And the US "War on Drugs" is a complete joke. The effect is only to fill
the jails with ever more people - good for jail operating companies but
bad for taxpayers to have all those people locked up and unproductive.

I don't.

Why not? The evidence is very clear cut.

Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:27:21 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:



We outlaw dangerous drugs and dangerous products. Do you object to
that too?

What is at question here is why you think you know better what a person
does with THEIR money, nothing more.

You didn't answer the question.
Because you are just trying to stray from your initial flawed premise.
If you want to have a discussion about drug use, we can, AFTER we get
past the current discussion.


Like I stated before, if you are going to trumpet the successes of the
"War on Drugs" you are going to have your job cut out for you.

Education and treatment has always been more productive than
prohibition.

Do you believe that? I don't.

Well, yes, you didn't say you wanted to educated people about the
stupidity of gambling, you said it should be outlawed. You didn't say
that there should be treatment for compulsive gamblers, you said you
wanted to outlaw it. So, you wanted to have a PROHIBITION on gambling.
You wanted to control what a person does with their money, as if you
knew better.

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:10:27 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:17:56 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

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.

That's not what 'general welfare' means. It's a limitation on the
Federal government and derives from, as well as being an example of,
why we don't have a (pure) 'democracy'.

Imagine if a sufficient number of States to control Congress (I.E. a
'democratic majority') banded together and then passed laws making
'the other States' pay all the taxes while the conspirators funneled
all the money to the conspiring States.

The Constitution address that concept directly. Read it.



Not exactly 'fair', wouldn't you agree?

The "General Welfare" means laws (and taxes) cannot be, to use modern
parlance, 'discriminatory'. They must be for the 'general welfare'
(meaning 'everyone in general') as opposed to a select group,
'majority' or not.

The interstate highway system is an example. All States and the people
benefit from the improved transportation system. It is good for the
"general welfare."

The notion of "stealing from the rich to give to the poor" and "we'll
make you do the right thing for your own good" as 'welfare' is a
progressive left word game perversion of the meaning and there was no
such thing as a 'welfare state' in 1792.

Congress has the constitutional power to tax and spend.

And while we're on word games, the 'rich' that Robin of Loxley and his
merry men stole from were the King's nobels and tax collectors. I.E.
the *government* that imposed unfair taxes on the people for their own
purpose and not the 'general welfare'.

You will always be closer to the original intent if you keep in mind
Jefferson's words "the government that governs least governs best"
when 'interpreting' the Constitution.

It used to be illegal in most states.

States have powers the Federal government does not.

But Federal powers always prevail. And the Commerce Clause packs a lot
of power.


John

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:15:56 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:27:21 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

We outlaw dangerous drugs and dangerous products. Do you object to
that too?
What is at question here is why you think you know better what a person
does with THEIR money, nothing more.

You didn't answer the question.

Actually we don't outlaw all dangerous drugs. Alcohol and tobacco do way
more harm to the public than either ecstacy or cannabis. Potentially
very dangerous and addictive drugs like cocaine are relatively benign in
their unrefined state as used in tea at high altitudes. UK toxicologists
made this point fairly recently and were rounded on by politicians for
telling the truth.

You didn't answer the question either.

John

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:01:07 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:27:21 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:



We outlaw dangerous drugs and dangerous products. Do you object to
that too?

What is at question here is why you think you know better what a person
does with THEIR money, nothing more.

You didn't answer the question.
Because you are just trying to stray from your initial flawed premise.
If you want to have a discussion about drug use, we can, AFTER we get
past the current discussion.


Like I stated before, if you are going to trumpet the successes of the
"War on Drugs" you are going to have your job cut out for you.

Education and treatment has always been more productive than
prohibition.

Do you believe that? I don't.

Well, yes, you didn't say you wanted to educated people about the
stupidity of gambling, you said it should be outlawed. You didn't say
that there should be treatment for compulsive gamblers, you said you
wanted to outlaw it.

Prevention is the best treatment.

So, you wanted to have a PROHIBITION on gambling.

I think society would be better off that way, yes. It doesn't affect
me on way or another, except that the gamblers contribute government
revenue that I don't have to.

You wanted to control what a person does with their money, as if you
knew better.

No, I want to outlaw professional gambling establishments and state
lotteries. That's quite different.

John

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:51:08 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:45:28 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:38:01 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:38:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:03:04 -0500, flipper wrote:

You have a problem with absurdities, like comparing physically addictive
substances to free will choices.

And you seem just plain mean.

You sound like a spoiled brat, a self-righteous one at that.

"I wanna ban gambling, because somebody might lose money!"
[opponent points out absurdity and unconstitutionality of premise]
"You're mean! Waah! Waah! Waah!"

Grow up, and quit trying to make rules that override adults' free will.

Feh.
Rich

I make no rules about gambling; how could I do that?

You're playing word games.

Not having dictatorial power doesn't mean you aren't "trying." You
are, by means of persuasion and, as you say below, your vote, given
the opportunity.

Well, this is a discussion group. It's my opinion that professional
gambling is harmful to a lot more people than it helps. Are you
objecting to people having opinions?

For the record, I am doing nothing to actively supress any gambling
enterprises.



I don't even
object to The Brat gambling, because I know she's not addictive.

But you would make it illegal anyway.

I would vote that way, yes.


I just think it's harmful to a lot of people, and I'd vote against it
given the opportunity.

This is where I have the biggest problem: your argument that, in your
opinion, it's "harmful to a lot of people." Setting aside whether your
opinion is even right (and you give no numbers or anything else
besides your 'opinion'), Where does the 'help' end because virtually
anything can be judged, by someone, to be 'harmful' in one way or the
other. Shall we pass laws requiring people to exercise? Dictate what
foods we can eat, for our own good of course. And surely most sports
should be banned since people can get hurt for nothing more than a
little entertainment. And people should wear proper clothing. Do we
ban clogs, boots, or sneakers? I dunno. Maybe we should take a 'vote'
on what's the best and then mandate everyone else wear the 'right
thing'.

I have not argued for laws against any individual behavior. But a
casino is a business, and businesses are regulated by government and
supressed if they do harm.


Once you start down that road it never ends.

Way, way too late.

John

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:39:44 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:38:30 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:03:04 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:28:39 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:14:34 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:28:53 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:16:46 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

In article ,
m says...
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:20:49 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:56:07 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:45:47 -0400, WangoTango
...
Ah, but the Casino debt was one VOLUNTARILY entered into.

When professionals use psychologists and advertizing and architects and
electronics and alcohol to predictably separate compulsive gamblers from
their assets, it's not exactly "voluntary."

Oh, feh. Are you volunteering to be The Great Nanny?

Gambling used to be illegal in most states. It still should be.
We all take risks every day.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to decide which ones?

As long as you don't run a casino, go for it.

You won't let him because you're determined to make 'gambling'
illegal.


Professional, casino/lottery type gambling used to be illegal in most
places.

And no one gambled, right? Except in homes, back alleys, and
speakeasys next to the 'prohibition' bar.

Yes. My family used to gather on Saturday nights and drink beer and
play poker, while the kids went wild in another room. The game was
fair.

But you'd make it illegal anyway.

Not casual gambling. But casinos are gigabuck enterprises that use
massive resources to impoverish their customers.


Casinos and lotteries aren't fair;

I have no idea what your definition of 'fair' is nor how you arrive at
the conclusion every casino on the planet is 'unfair' but I doubt
you've done a study.

Any casino that consistantly makes a profit (ie, stays in business)
has stacked the statistics against the players.

Gambling on pinball machines is still illegal in many places. Video
games are sometimes destructive, as is television, but there's no
prectical way to eliminate them.

Sure there is. Write a law. We can send cops around smashing them to
bits just like we did with stills and speakeasys.

There's no point in doing things that won't work. The Las Vegas strip
is kind of hard to hide.


Casinos and meth labs are things we
can do something about.

A Casino is *not* a methlab nor is it physically addictive.

As I've already said, the issue is free will and informed consent.
Physically addictive substances remove free will.

Some people become addicted to gambling, enough to ruin their lives.
Lots of old, poor people spend a heap on lottery tickets. Lotteries
and professional gambling establishments use professional tools,
including false advertising, to get them addicted.


Frankly, I only just teeter to the other side with physically
addictive drugs and, even then, I'm not entirely sure the chosen
'cure' isn't worse than the disease.

I'm personally anti-addictive. If I do too much of anything, even
pleasurable drugs, I get bored and want less of it. And I feel sorry
for people who are addictive and have contempt for the people who
exploit them.


The only principle involved is trying to make
life better wherever we can.

Pardon me for saying so but if you think government dictating against
the citizen's free will is 'making life better' then you're dancing
down the yellow brick road to hell and it's down right scary how the
word "freedom" has almost vanished from political discourse in this
country.

Consider seat belts.

John

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:15:56 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:27:21 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

We outlaw dangerous drugs and dangerous products. Do you object to
that too?
What is at question here is why you think you know better what a person
does with THEIR money, nothing more.
You didn't answer the question.

Actually we don't outlaw all dangerous drugs. Alcohol and tobacco do way
more harm to the public than either ecstacy or cannabis. Potentially
very dangerous and addictive drugs like cocaine are relatively benign in
their unrefined state as used in tea at high altitudes. UK toxicologists
made this point fairly recently and were rounded on by politicians for
telling the truth.

You didn't answer the question either.

OK. Then for the purposes of clarity provided that they do not endanger
other people I do not see the point in criminalising users of addictive
substances. So yes I would make them legal and tax them accordingly -
based on the harm done and expected cost of treatment. Switzerland seem
to work this model very effectively. Drugs that make bouncers and body
builders dangerously violent might need tighter controls.

It would also provide a useful outlet for the poppy farmers in
Afghanistan. I find it very ironic that when street heroin is cheap and
dealers are holding back a mountain of the stuff to control prices the
supply of legal medical opiate painkillers is dreadfully short!

Driving whilst intoxicated would still be a very serious offence. And
these days our analytical instruments are up to the task (which was not
true in the 80's and 90's). Roadside tests would be tricky though.

I wouldn't seek to ban solo free climbing either.

Regards,
Martin Brown

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:51:08 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:45:28 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:38:01 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:38:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:03:04 -0500, flipper
wrote:

You have a problem with absurdities, like comparing physically
addictive substances to free will choices.

And you seem just plain mean.

You sound like a spoiled brat, a self-righteous one at that.

"I wanna ban gambling, because somebody might lose money!"
[opponent points out absurdity and unconstitutionality of premise]
"You're mean! Waah! Waah! Waah!"

Grow up, and quit trying to make rules that override adults' free
will.

Feh.
Rich

I make no rules about gambling; how could I do that?

You're playing word games.

Not having dictatorial power doesn't mean you aren't "trying." You
are, by means of persuasion and, as you say below, your vote, given
the opportunity.

Well, this is a discussion group. It's my opinion that professional
gambling is harmful to a lot more people than it helps. Are you
objecting to people having opinions?

For the record, I am doing nothing to actively supress any gambling
enterprises.



I don't even
object to The Brat gambling, because I know she's not addictive.

But you would make it illegal anyway.

I would vote that way, yes.


I just think it's harmful to a lot of people, and I'd vote against
it given the opportunity.

This is where I have the biggest problem: your argument that, in your
opinion, it's "harmful to a lot of people." Setting aside whether
your opinion is even right (and you give no numbers or anything else
besides your 'opinion'), Where does the 'help' end because virtually
anything can be judged, by someone, to be 'harmful' in one way or the
other. Shall we pass laws requiring people to exercise? Dictate what
foods we can eat, for our own good of course. And surely most sports
should be banned since people can get hurt for nothing more than a
little entertainment. And people should wear proper clothing. Do we
ban clogs, boots, or sneakers? I dunno. Maybe we should take a 'vote'
on what's the best and then mandate everyone else wear the 'right
thing'.

I have not argued for laws against any individual behavior. But a
casino is a business, and businesses are regulated by government and
supressed if they do harm.


Once you start down that road it never ends.

Way, way too late.

John

Have you noticed that no civilization on the face of the earth meets these
guys' standards of "freedom?" lol

You can't talk sensible policy with people who would refuse to pay for any
policy.

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:01:07 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:27:21 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:



We outlaw dangerous drugs and dangerous products. Do you object to
that too?

What is at question here is why you think you know better what a person
does with THEIR money, nothing more.

You didn't answer the question.
Because you are just trying to stray from your initial flawed premise.
If you want to have a discussion about drug use, we can, AFTER we get
past the current discussion.


Like I stated before, if you are going to trumpet the successes of the
"War on Drugs" you are going to have your job cut out for you.

Education and treatment has always been more productive than
prohibition.

Do you believe that? I don't.

Well, yes, you didn't say you wanted to educated people about the
stupidity of gambling, you said it should be outlawed. You didn't say
that there should be treatment for compulsive gamblers, you said you
wanted to outlaw it.

Prevention is the best treatment.
You contradict your own statements.
I hope you are better at electronics than at maintaining a coherent
argument.


So, you wanted to have a PROHIBITION on gambling.

I think society would be better off that way, yes. It doesn't affect
me on way or another, except that the gamblers contribute government
revenue that I don't have to.
What you think may or may not be in line with a particular individual.
Why should your opinion have any bearing on what another person does
with their money?


You wanted to control what a person does with their money, as if you
knew better.

No, I want to outlaw professional gambling establishments and state
lotteries. That's quite different.
So, you want to decide for another what is best for them, sure sounds
like control to me.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:13:35 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:01:07 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:27:21 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:



We outlaw dangerous drugs and dangerous products. Do you object to
that too?

What is at question here is why you think you know better what a person
does with THEIR money, nothing more.

You didn't answer the question.
Because you are just trying to stray from your initial flawed premise.
If you want to have a discussion about drug use, we can, AFTER we get
past the current discussion.


Like I stated before, if you are going to trumpet the successes of the
"War on Drugs" you are going to have your job cut out for you.

Education and treatment has always been more productive than
prohibition.

Do you believe that? I don't.

Well, yes, you didn't say you wanted to educated people about the
stupidity of gambling, you said it should be outlawed. You didn't say
that there should be treatment for compulsive gamblers, you said you
wanted to outlaw it.

Prevention is the best treatment.
You contradict your own statements.
I hope you are better at electronics than at maintaining a coherent
argument.


So, you wanted to have a PROHIBITION on gambling.

I think society would be better off that way, yes. It doesn't affect
me on way or another, except that the gamblers contribute government
revenue that I don't have to.
What you think may or may not be in line with a particular individual.
Why should your opinion have any bearing on what another person does
with their money?

Because we have a representative government? Because I have opinions
about businesses exploiting individuals?

And, I repeat, I dislike gambling as a *commercial enterprise*. Let
them gamble amongst friends, or even at a bar as long as there's no
house cut.



You wanted to control what a person does with their money, as if you
knew better.

No, I want to outlaw professional gambling establishments and state
lotteries. That's quite different.
So, you want to decide for another what is best for them, sure sounds
like control to me.

If it were your decision, would you allow drug and gun dealers to set
up shop in school cafeterias? Would you, under any circumstances,
restrict people's free choice to buy and sell anything? Radioisotopes
at Safeway? Explosives sold roadside, out of pickup trucks? Unlicensed
cut-rate (pun!) surgery?

John

In article ,
says...
We outlaw dangerous drugs and dangerous products. Do you object to
that too?

What is at question here is why you think you know better what a person
does with THEIR money, nothing more.

You didn't answer the question.
Because you are just trying to stray from your initial flawed premise.
If you want to have a discussion about drug use, we can, AFTER we get
past the current discussion.


Like I stated before, if you are going to trumpet the successes of the
"War on Drugs" you are going to have your job cut out for you.

Education and treatment has always been more productive than
prohibition.

Do you believe that? I don't.

Well, yes, you didn't say you wanted to educated people about the
stupidity of gambling, you said it should be outlawed. You didn't say
that there should be treatment for compulsive gamblers, you said you
wanted to outlaw it.

Prevention is the best treatment.
You contradict your own statements.
I hope you are better at electronics than at maintaining a coherent
argument.


So, you wanted to have a PROHIBITION on gambling.

I think society would be better off that way, yes. It doesn't affect
me on way or another, except that the gamblers contribute government
revenue that I don't have to.
What you think may or may not be in line with a particular individual.
Why should your opinion have any bearing on what another person does
with their money?

Because we have a representative government? Because I have opinions
about businesses exploiting individuals?

And, I repeat, I dislike gambling as a *commercial enterprise*. Let
them gamble amongst friends, or even at a bar as long as there's no
house cut.



You wanted to control what a person does with their money, as if you
knew better.

No, I want to outlaw professional gambling establishments and state
lotteries. That's quite different.
So, you want to decide for another what is best for them, sure sounds
like control to me.

If it were your decision, would you allow drug and gun dealers to set
up shop in school cafeterias? Would you, under any circumstances,
restrict people's free choice to buy and sell anything? Radioisotopes
at Safeway? Explosives sold roadside, out of pickup trucks? Unlicensed
cut-rate (pun!) surgery?

More straw man BS.
I tire of your straw man crap, self contradiction, and inability to
understand the difference between a person making a personal choice and
a person endangering others, good day, I'm done with you.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:30:23 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

In article ,
says...
We outlaw dangerous drugs and dangerous products. Do you object to
that too?

What is at question here is why you think you know better what a person
does with THEIR money, nothing more.

You didn't answer the question.
Because you are just trying to stray from your initial flawed premise.
If you want to have a discussion about drug use, we can, AFTER we get
past the current discussion.


Like I stated before, if you are going to trumpet the successes of the
"War on Drugs" you are going to have your job cut out for you.

Education and treatment has always been more productive than
prohibition.

Do you believe that? I don't.

Well, yes, you didn't say you wanted to educated people about the
stupidity of gambling, you said it should be outlawed. You didn't say
that there should be treatment for compulsive gamblers, you said you
wanted to outlaw it.

Prevention is the best treatment.
You contradict your own statements.
I hope you are better at electronics than at maintaining a coherent
argument.


So, you wanted to have a PROHIBITION on gambling.

I think society would be better off that way, yes. It doesn't affect
me on way or another, except that the gamblers contribute government
revenue that I don't have to.
What you think may or may not be in line with a particular individual.
Why should your opinion have any bearing on what another person does
with their money?

Because we have a representative government? Because I have opinions
about businesses exploiting individuals?

And, I repeat, I dislike gambling as a *commercial enterprise*. Let
them gamble amongst friends, or even at a bar as long as there's no
house cut.



You wanted to control what a person does with their money, as if you
knew better.

No, I want to outlaw professional gambling establishments and state
lotteries. That's quite different.
So, you want to decide for another what is best for them, sure sounds
like control to me.

If it were your decision, would you allow drug and gun dealers to set
up shop in school cafeterias? Would you, under any circumstances,
restrict people's free choice to buy and sell anything? Radioisotopes
at Safeway? Explosives sold roadside, out of pickup trucks? Unlicensed
cut-rate (pun!) surgery?

More straw man BS.
I tire of your straw man crap, self contradiction, and inability to
understand the difference between a person making a personal choice and
a person endangering others, good day, I'm done with you.

Well, that's sure easier than answering questions.

John

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:56:41 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:51:08 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:45:28 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:38:01 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:38:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:03:04 -0500, flipper
wrote:

You have a problem with absurdities, like comparing physically
addictive substances to free will choices.

And you seem just plain mean.

You sound like a spoiled brat, a self-righteous one at that.

"I wanna ban gambling, because somebody might lose money!"
[opponent points out absurdity and unconstitutionality of premise]
"You're mean! Waah! Waah! Waah!"

Grow up, and quit trying to make rules that override adults' free
will.

Feh.
Rich

I make no rules about gambling; how could I do that?

You're playing word games.

Not having dictatorial power doesn't mean you aren't "trying." You
are, by means of persuasion and, as you say below, your vote, given
the opportunity.

Well, this is a discussion group. It's my opinion that professional
gambling is harmful to a lot more people than it helps. Are you
objecting to people having opinions?

For the record, I am doing nothing to actively supress any gambling
enterprises.



I don't even
object to The Brat gambling, because I know she's not addictive.

But you would make it illegal anyway.

I would vote that way, yes.


I just think it's harmful to a lot of people, and I'd vote against
it given the opportunity.

This is where I have the biggest problem: your argument that, in your
opinion, it's "harmful to a lot of people." Setting aside whether
your opinion is even right (and you give no numbers or anything else
besides your 'opinion'), Where does the 'help' end because virtually
anything can be judged, by someone, to be 'harmful' in one way or the
other. Shall we pass laws requiring people to exercise? Dictate what
foods we can eat, for our own good of course. And surely most sports
should be banned since people can get hurt for nothing more than a
little entertainment. And people should wear proper clothing. Do we
ban clogs, boots, or sneakers? I dunno. Maybe we should take a 'vote'
on what's the best and then mandate everyone else wear the 'right
thing'.

I have not argued for laws against any individual behavior. But a
casino is a business, and businesses are regulated by government and
supressed if they do harm.


Once you start down that road it never ends.

Way, way too late.

John

Have you noticed that no civilization on the face of the earth meets these
guys' standards of "freedom?" lol

You can't talk sensible policy with people who would refuse to pay for any
policy.



Rugged Individualists don't need no stinkin' government. They grow
their own food and load their own ammo.

John

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:52:25 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:54:22 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:


And stupid should hurt......

No. Stupid people should be reasonably protected against their
limitations, as we protect children and old people against theirs.
So, just how stupid does one have to be to fall under your protection,
how do we determine it, and where do we put them so they don't pose a
danger to themselves and the 'normal' people?

When some people do wide-spread harm to others, civil protections are
reasonable, regardless of how smart anybody is. Lots of smart people
have had their lives ruined by crack and meth and heroin, and by
gambling. One reason laws exist is to protect people from harm.



So many people are smug about being smart (which they sometimes even
are), as if they had any control over being born that way. And they
think other people should be punished, Darwinized to death for not
being smart. It's the same as believing that having royal blood makes
one superior, or that the Master Race can exterminate lower forms of
humanity.

As opposed to being smug about being some kind of benevolent protector
of the great uneducated and mentally feeble?

Who do you refer to? Certainly not me. I don't even own a cape.

You want to control people, and I do not.

I seek to control nobody, not even my kids or my employees.
Politicians and kings do that.

My philosophy is summed up in the bumper sticker

MEAN PEOPLE SUCK




Thanks so much for providing ample data for a troll-feeder filter.

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:55:37 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:04:12 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:


I don't have a gambling problem. Casino type gambling is boring. I
only gamble when I control the game and the odds are in my favor.

That's not gambling......that's CHEATING.

No, it's electronic design and bidding on jobs and investing in things
and people. All are calculated risks where you do all you can to avoid
losing.

What do you do?

John

Thanks so much for providing ample data for a troll-feeder filter.

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:39:16 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:34:16 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:04:12 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:


I don't have a gambling problem. Casino type gambling is boring. I
only gamble when I control the game and the odds are in my favor.

That's not gambling......that's CHEATING.

No, it's electronic design and bidding on jobs and investing in things
and people. All are calculated risks where you do all you can to avoid
losing.

What do you do?

Allow people to be free to make their own decisions, good and bad.
Treat adults like adults and not little children that need protection
from their own actions.

There is risk in all business and you have the freedom to take the risks
YOU see fit. Why is it you presume to know what is best for the rest of
humanity?

I have opinions about what might minimize human misery on the planet.
And I care. I suppose you don't. You seem offended by the very concept
of caring about other people. Sad.

John

Thanks so much for providing ample data for a troll-feeder filter.

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:23:28 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:12:16 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:52:25 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:54:22 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

Lots of smart people have
had their lives ruined by crack and meth and heroin, and by gambling. One
reason laws exist is to protect people from harm.

Harm from OTHERS!!!!

Yes. Like the people who manufacture crack and meth and heroin and
cigarettes and quack medicines and dangerous power tools.


Once again, when you try to protect me from myself, you are overriding
my Free Will. That's essentially the definition of evil.

Laws should protect you from being harmed by others. If you want to
make and consume your own meth, in your own house, it would be hard
for law enforcement to stop you. If you sell it in volume to others,
they often can and in my opinion should.

John

Thanks so much for providing ample data for a troll-feeder filter.

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:29:04 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:33:51 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:28:53 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

No. Stupid people should be reasonably protected against their
limitations, as we protect children and old people against theirs.

So, you really are advocating the God-damned Nanny State.

If protecting old people and children from predators meets your
definition, yes.

What will your response be when they ban skiing?

Skiing is an accepted risk. On a society-wide basis, it probably has
net physical and mental health benefits. I stay in shape so I can ski
better. And *all* risk shouldn't be legally mitigated... just the
really bad ones.

Crack cocaine isn't as good for people as skiing.

Should anthrax be available on ebay?

John

Thanks so much for providing ample data for a troll-feeder filter.

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:29:37 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:35:45 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:28:53 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

So many people are smug about being smart (which they sometimes even are),
as if they had any control over being born that way. And they think other
people should be punished, Darwinized to death for not being smart. It's
the same as believing that having royal blood makes one superior, or that
the Master Race can exterminate lower forms of humanity.

No, it's just that people who make defective fetuses should be the ones
responsible for their upkeep, not the taxpayers.


Mean people suck.

John

Thanks so much for providing ample data for a troll-feeder filter.

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:30:16 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:42:55 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

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.

John

Thanks so much for providing ample data for a troll-feeder filter.

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

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 suppose you consider yourself smart enough and tough enough to take
care of yourself, without help from laws or cops or ER doctors. And
you resent government taking action to protect people who aren't as
smart and as tough as you are. You want them to suffer for their
stupidity and weakness, and for being born, presumably because you
enjoy that suffering as proof of your superiority. That sounds just
plain mean to me.

If I misunderstand your position, please correct me.

John

Thanks so much for providing ample data for a troll-feeder filter.

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:26:06 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:49:36 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

In article ,
says...

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

Still stuck on that "others" thing.
That's not the issue, you were yapping on about protecting people from
themselves, BIG difference.

I was talking about protecting people from gigabuck casino operators.

We outlaw dangerous drugs and dangerous products. Do you object to
that too?

John

Thanks so much for providing ample data for a troll-feeder filter.

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:44:11 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:27:21 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:



We outlaw dangerous drugs and dangerous products. Do you object to
that too?

What is at question here is why you think you know better what a person
does with THEIR money, nothing more.

You didn't answer the question.

Like I stated before, if you are going to trumpet the successes of the
"War on Drugs" you are going to have your job cut out for you.

Education and treatment has always been more productive than
prohibition.

Do you believe that? I don't.

John

Thanks so much for providing ample data for a troll-feeder filter.

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:43:22 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:13:35 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:01:07 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:27:21 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:



We outlaw dangerous drugs and dangerous products. Do you object to
that too?

What is at question here is why you think you know better what a person
does with THEIR money, nothing more.

You didn't answer the question.
Because you are just trying to stray from your initial flawed premise.
If you want to have a discussion about drug use, we can, AFTER we get
past the current discussion.


Like I stated before, if you are going to trumpet the successes of the
"War on Drugs" you are going to have your job cut out for you.

Education and treatment has always been more productive than
prohibition.

Do you believe that? I don't.

Well, yes, you didn't say you wanted to educated people about the
stupidity of gambling, you said it should be outlawed. You didn't say
that there should be treatment for compulsive gamblers, you said you
wanted to outlaw it.

Prevention is the best treatment.
You contradict your own statements.
I hope you are better at electronics than at maintaining a coherent
argument.


So, you wanted to have a PROHIBITION on gambling.

I think society would be better off that way, yes. It doesn't affect
me on way or another, except that the gamblers contribute government
revenue that I don't have to.
What you think may or may not be in line with a particular individual.
Why should your opinion have any bearing on what another person does
with their money?

Because we have a representative government? Because I have opinions
about businesses exploiting individuals?

And, I repeat, I dislike gambling as a *commercial enterprise*. Let
them gamble amongst friends, or even at a bar as long as there's no
house cut.



You wanted to control what a person does with their money, as if you
knew better.

No, I want to outlaw professional gambling establishments and state
lotteries. That's quite different.
So, you want to decide for another what is best for them, sure sounds
like control to me.

If it were your decision, would you allow drug and gun dealers to set
up shop in school cafeterias? Would you, under any circumstances,
restrict people's free choice to buy and sell anything? Radioisotopes
at Safeway? Explosives sold roadside, out of pickup trucks? Unlicensed
cut-rate (pun!) surgery?

John


Thanks so much for providing ample data for a troll-feeder filter.

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:04:36 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:30:23 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

In article ,
says...
We outlaw dangerous drugs and dangerous products. Do you object to
that too?

What is at question here is why you think you know better what a person
does with THEIR money, nothing more.

You didn't answer the question.
Because you are just trying to stray from your initial flawed premise.
If you want to have a discussion about drug use, we can, AFTER we get
past the current discussion.


Like I stated before, if you are going to trumpet the successes of the
"War on Drugs" you are going to have your job cut out for you.

Education and treatment has always been more productive than
prohibition.

Do you believe that? I don't.

Well, yes, you didn't say you wanted to educated people about the
stupidity of gambling, you said it should be outlawed. You didn't say
that there should be treatment for compulsive gamblers, you said you
wanted to outlaw it.

Prevention is the best treatment.
You contradict your own statements.
I hope you are better at electronics than at maintaining a coherent
argument.


So, you wanted to have a PROHIBITION on gambling.

I think society would be better off that way, yes. It doesn't affect
me on way or another, except that the gamblers contribute government
revenue that I don't have to.
What you think may or may not be in line with a particular individual.
Why should your opinion have any bearing on what another person does
with their money?

Because we have a representative government? Because I have opinions
about businesses exploiting individuals?

And, I repeat, I dislike gambling as a *commercial enterprise*. Let
them gamble amongst friends, or even at a bar as long as there's no
house cut.



You wanted to control what a person does with their money, as if you
knew better.

No, I want to outlaw professional gambling establishments and state
lotteries. That's quite different.
So, you want to decide for another what is best for them, sure sounds
like control to me.

If it were your decision, would you allow drug and gun dealers to set
up shop in school cafeterias? Would you, under any circumstances,
restrict people's free choice to buy and sell anything? Radioisotopes
at Safeway? Explosives sold roadside, out of pickup trucks? Unlicensed
cut-rate (pun!) surgery?

More straw man BS.
I tire of your straw man crap, self contradiction, and inability to
understand the difference between a person making a personal choice and
a person endangering others, good day, I'm done with you.

Well, that's sure easier than answering questions.

John

Thanks so much for providing ample data for a troll-feeder filter.

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:35:01 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:29:38 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:10:36 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:00:58 -0500, flipper wrote:

I suppose that means we can look forward to GSE Big Macs after they
'regulate' away, to 'save' our fat ass, the fast food market.

The requirement to list trans fat content has worked very well. Most
packaged stuff no longer has trans fats. Since it's likely a killer, they
could have made it illegal.

I wish the government would require disclosure of MSG.

Haven't they required an ingredients list for decades?

MSG is hidden under a score or so of names, many of which are
ambiguous, like "yeast extract" and "processed soy" and worse.

Google can furnish lots more.

I also love the now-popular "evaporated cane juice." Soon we'll have a
bunch of new terms for "salt."

John


Thanks so much for providing ample data for a troll-feeder filter.

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:06:36 GMT, (GregS)
wrote:

In article t, WangoTango wrote:

I don't have a gambling problem. Casino type gambling is boring. I
only gamble when I control the game and the odds are in my favor.
That's not gambling......that's CHEATING.
I see now why you like the nanny state ideology so much.
The world is a scary place and you might get hurt or lose something
important to you and the government should make sure that just can't
happen, even if it means controlling other people's freedoms.



I used to sit at the Keno chairs in the early 80's and noticed some numbers come up
more than others, or go in cycles. They used to use TWO old fashioned pingpong
ball machines. They would switch every once in a while. Today the machines
are much better and they only have to use ONE. I don't play that anymore.

I am pretty good at Trifectas. My method is simple but still a good good
guess. Two of the prefferd dogs or horses will usually come in
123. Its that third one in there thats a toss up. Pick
out ones that have high odds but have shown good speeds in the past
and throw them into the mix.

greg

Thanks so much for providing ample data for a troll-feeder filter.

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:07:05 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:56:41 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:51:08 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:45:28 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:38:01 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:38:30 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:03:04 -0500, flipper
wrote:

You have a problem with absurdities, like comparing physically
addictive substances to free will choices.

And you seem just plain mean.

You sound like a spoiled brat, a self-righteous one at that.

"I wanna ban gambling, because somebody might lose money!"
[opponent points out absurdity and unconstitutionality of premise]
"You're mean! Waah! Waah! Waah!"

Grow up, and quit trying to make rules that override adults' free
will.

Feh.
Rich

I make no rules about gambling; how could I do that?

You're playing word games.

Not having dictatorial power doesn't mean you aren't "trying." You
are, by means of persuasion and, as you say below, your vote, given
the opportunity.

Well, this is a discussion group. It's my opinion that professional
gambling is harmful to a lot more people than it helps. Are you
objecting to people having opinions?

For the record, I am doing nothing to actively supress any gambling
enterprises.



I don't even
object to The Brat gambling, because I know she's not addictive.

But you would make it illegal anyway.

I would vote that way, yes.


I just think it's harmful to a lot of people, and I'd vote against
it given the opportunity.

This is where I have the biggest problem: your argument that, in your
opinion, it's "harmful to a lot of people." Setting aside whether
your opinion is even right (and you give no numbers or anything else
besides your 'opinion'), Where does the 'help' end because virtually
anything can be judged, by someone, to be 'harmful' in one way or the
other. Shall we pass laws requiring people to exercise? Dictate what
foods we can eat, for our own good of course. And surely most sports
should be banned since people can get hurt for nothing more than a
little entertainment. And people should wear proper clothing. Do we
ban clogs, boots, or sneakers? I dunno. Maybe we should take a 'vote'
on what's the best and then mandate everyone else wear the 'right
thing'.

I have not argued for laws against any individual behavior. But a
casino is a business, and businesses are regulated by government and
supressed if they do harm.


Once you start down that road it never ends.

Way, way too late.

John

Have you noticed that no civilization on the face of the earth meets these
guys' standards of "freedom?" lol

You can't talk sensible policy with people who would refuse to pay for any
policy.



Rugged Individualists don't need no stinkin' government. They grow
their own food and load their own ammo.

John

Thanks so much for providing ample data for a troll-feeder filter.

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:09:39 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:04:36 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:30:23 -0400, WangoTango
wrote:

In article ,
says...
We outlaw dangerous drugs and dangerous products. Do you object to
that too?

What is at question here is why you think you know better what a person
does with THEIR money, nothing more.

You didn't answer the question.
Because you are just trying to stray from your initial flawed premise.
If you want to have a discussion about drug use, we can, AFTER we get
past the current discussion.


Like I stated before, if you are going to trumpet the successes of the
"War on Drugs" you are going to have your job cut out for you.

Education and treatment has always been more productive than
prohibition.

Do you believe that? I don't.

Well, yes, you didn't say you wanted to educated people about the
stupidity of gambling, you said it should be outlawed. You didn't say
that there should be treatment for compulsive gamblers, you said you
wanted to outlaw it.

Prevention is the best treatment.
You contradict your own statements.
I hope you are better at electronics than at maintaining a coherent
argument.


So, you wanted to have a PROHIBITION on gambling.

I think society would be better off that way, yes. It doesn't affect
me on way or another, except that the gamblers contribute government
revenue that I don't have to.
What you think may or may not be in line with a particular individual.
Why should your opinion have any bearing on what another person does
with their money?

Because we have a representative government? Because I have opinions
about businesses exploiting individuals?

And, I repeat, I dislike gambling as a *commercial enterprise*. Let
them gamble amongst friends, or even at a bar as long as there's no
house cut.



You wanted to control what a person does with their money, as if you
knew better.

No, I want to outlaw professional gambling establishments and state
lotteries. That's quite different.
So, you want to decide for another what is best for them, sure sounds
like control to me.

If it were your decision, would you allow drug and gun dealers to set
up shop in school cafeterias? Would you, under any circumstances,
restrict people's free choice to buy and sell anything? Radioisotopes
at Safeway? Explosives sold roadside, out of pickup trucks? Unlicensed
cut-rate (pun!) surgery?

More straw man BS.
I tire of your straw man crap, self contradiction, and inability to
understand the difference between a person making a personal choice and
a person endangering others, good day, I'm done with you.

Well, that's sure easier than answering questions.

That's disingenuous as hell and I understand his consternation because
it doesn't matter with you that questions are answered as you simply
ask the same already answered questions over and over.


John

Nobody has addressed the basic question about whether government
should regulate commercial activity that is harmful to individuals who
use it "voluntarily." The extreme libertarian position is that
anything goes and, I suppose, seat belts should be optional on new
cars and doctors needn't be licensed and making and selling tons of
crack cocaine is a private matter.

The only answers I saw were complaints about the regulation of
individual behavior, and my question was about commercial activity. I
agree that gambling needn't be illegal for individuals, and is
impractical to restrain, but I think we'd be better off if
professional casinos and lotteries were illegal, as they are in many
states.

Non-pasteurized milk products is a similar example.

Care to address the issue yourself?

John