Prop A?

[pstokely]

Yes or No?

[Telly Savalas]

1. No.

The purpose of this bill is to allow casinos to sucker people into losing as much money as possible. Loss limits may be a tad on the paternalistic side, but it does make a marginal reduction on the risk that I have more foreclosed houses in my neighborhood due to their owners getting shitfaced drunk and losing their mortgage money on the riverboat.

I really wouldn't feel very strongly about it if it weren't for the insipid ads they run in support of it which feature some grandfatherly figure rambling on about how the measure protects education. The education fund provided by the casino taxes will only make up a small percentage of total education spending. So if right-wing douchebags in Jeff City are committed to cutting education they still can, thus Prop A isn't protecting anything. This is simply a case of casinos with deep-pockets pushing on us a something to make their pockets deeper.

I refuse to validate this disingenuous bullshit by voting for the proposition.

[NoFederales]

2. No. It's all BS, from the Lottery Money days up to the Casinos. The paltry

take from gambling going into ed. coffers will enable the legislative shits to cut the State Budget again to suit/fund their interests, not education. If it's come down to "Do I believe my liars more than the other guy's liars?", I prefer the quaint, old school tactic of trying to figure it out myself, so fallible, so vexing--it's hard, I tell ya, such hard work--but I blame it on my "underfunded" education.

NoFederales

[pstokely]

3. I'm Undecided

It is passes it puts limits on the number of casinos

[Telly Savalas]

5. Why do you think that's in there?

To serve the public interest? Or to reduce the potential competition to existing casinos?

[RayOfHope]

4. No for me n/t