|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
When The ‘Freedom’ Caucus Isn’t For Freedom
Group’s opposition to private sector gaming is troubling… and hypocritical.
previous post
Group’s opposition to private sector gaming is troubling… and hypocritical.
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
13 comments
How much are the casino nabobs paying for this repetitive coverage?
This is quite the mystery. It is almost like people who form a caucus based on legislating behavior and morality are…not about freedom?
A lot of people want freedom for themselves, but they don’t necessarily want it for others. At the end of the day, probably very few people want true freedom for everyone.
Will what you and so many wacky libertarians fail to see and understand is society and people cannot handle too much freedom. Stupid actions and decisions can many times affect many of us in detrimental ways when we have nothing to do with those making those dumb decisions. Then we have to employ the blood sucking liberal lawyers to gain justice or we take it into our own hands. Keep your weed, you casinos and your hookers you consistently want the freedom for others(of course) to partake in. What you fail to understand is a moral society has need of restraints. Some things are just bad for society as a whole
Spoken like a true authoritarian. You cannot handle casinos, weed, and hookers so nobody gets them?
Spoken like a true blood sucking leech, er I mean liberal lawyer
That was a great response. Well thought out and really right to the point. I have no response for such a great comment.
There are people who would say attacking my profession and calling me names means you could not come up with an actual thought. But not me. I think this is brilliant.
Really, great work. Don’t let anyone tell you that you sounded stupid. And I will not hold this against you when you are crying in my office begging for help.
Perhaps if this caucus is not pro-personal freedom, perhaps it should not call itself Freedom Caucus. In all honesty, this “caucus” is not so much about freedom for citizens and is more about dictating what everybody should think and do and read.
Bo, the Freedom Caucus ain’t never been about Freedom or being conservative. It is about money$$$$$$.
Please share where this $$ to The Freedom Caucus is going.
I understand the libertarian point of view wholly and completely on this. This issue is a good one to weigh freedom versus reality. When (not “if”) this “freedom” causes irreparable harm in a community, its cures ultimately falls back on the taxpayer.
Drug abuse, mental health and alcohol abuse (and soon gambling addiction) programs are funded by the very “tax is theft” freedom first taxpayers. But there’s silence on the back end regarding the effects of gambling and addiction.
The thought that there’s “free money” left on the table to a politician is too big a temptation for the big government RINOs and Dems.
Now if we were pondering legalizing (100% unregulated) a slot machine and poker table in every house and business in S.C., I could get behind that.
But don’t be fooled into thinking a casino is going to fix all your roads and bridges as I’m sure they’ll argue. It’s all about the cash flow to who knows who, without any responsibility for the damage to a community. All “regulated” by a nanny state to keep things clean and transparent through a state funded gambling commission.
Yes, this will GROW government.
Making heroine and methamphetamines legal has the same “freedom” argument. But who dares go there without being called a kook? As a friend to a few gambling addicts, the harm is real.
I can say NO to the money flow to the government funded organizations that transition and transform broken addicted people back into society, but can the libertarians focus on the less sexy effects and costs? The growth of government? The “free money?”
You know Will’s libertarian views include wanting to legalize illicit drugs, prostitution and gambling. Some libertarians are just too wacky.
Mr Kilmartin, “heroines” are already legal; there just aren’t many of us.