A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Why should anyone applaud Bush's policy statements on Iraq until he provides some demonstration that he can deliver on the big talk -- that his administration can execute?

A speech that would have run 39 minutes was interrupted by applause 62 times, yet still Democrats must be bashed for not applauding Bush enough. Except on Darfur, where evidently they applauded too much, and must be blamed for the long-running failures of a Republican Administration (and a Republican Congress) to do anything.

It's a Tinkerbell Foreign Policy -- if we all would just close our eyes and try a little harder to believe, it would work.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
-- if we all would just close our eyes and try a little harder to believe, it would work.

I believe you also need to launch missiles into the Afghan mountains for the policy to be fully implemented.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

So Illinois is planning to sell its lottery to a private investor for a lump sum, in exchange for the right to run the lottery, and keep all profits, for 75 years. While I don't really have much of a care what Illinois does to its own citizens, does it trouble anyone else that the state will be institutionalizing state-sponsored gambling with no real opportunity to shut it down if things go wrong (e.g., people realize that lotteries are a really poor way to get revenue)?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
A speech that would have run 39 minutes was interrupted by applause 62 times, yet still Democrats must be bashed for not applauding Bush enough. Except on Darfur, where evidently they applauded too much, and must be blamed for the long-running failures of a Republican Administration (and a Republican Congress) to do anything.

It's a Tinkerbell Foreign Policy -- if we all would just close our eyes and try a little harder to believe, it would work.

Other parts of the speech I liked, though. The energy stuff sounded promising, though, but it's impossible to know whether any of it was really meant seriously, and we're led to believe it wasn't. After all, last year we learned that we were Addicted to Oil, and what happened? Bupkus.

I liked the Superb Americans at the end, especially the NY Subway Hero guy. Hero yes, humble not so much. But who cares? I ain't got nothin' BUT love for you, man!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So Illinois is planning to sell its lottery to a private investor for a lump sum, in exchange for the right to run the lottery, and keep all profits, for 75 years. While I don't really have much of a care what Illinois does to its own citizens, does it trouble anyone else that the state will be institutionalizing state-sponsored gambling with no real opportunity to shut it down if things go wrong (e.g., people realize that lotteries are a really poor way to get revenue)?

Yes. And from a fiscal perspective, I would rather that the revenues received from the Illinois Lottery 70 years from now be received and spent by Illinois' citizens of 2077, not 2007.l

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So Illinois is planning to sell its lottery to a private investor for a lump sum, in exchange for the right to run the lottery, and keep all profits, for 75 years. While I don't really have much of a care what Illinois does to its own citizens, does it trouble anyone else that the state will be institutionalizing state-sponsored gambling with no real opportunity to shut it down if things go wrong (e.g., people realize that lotteries are a really poor way to get revenue)?

Agreed.

[Replaced_Texan]

I was just amused by the number of members of Congress (both sides of the aisle) paying more attention to their Blackberries than to the speech.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Agreed.

You seem like someone who would know, or at least could opine. When the King/Queen of England granted a patent for the production of a particular good (that is, the exclusive right), was it paid as a lump sum at the outset or over time?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So Illinois is planning to sell its lottery to a private investor for a lump sum, in exchange for the right to run the lottery, and keep all profits, for 75 years. While I don't really have much of a care what Illinois does to its own citizens, does it trouble anyone else that the state will be institutionalizing state-sponsored gambling with no real opportunity to shut it down if things go wrong (e.g., people realize that lotteries are a really poor way to get revenue)?

What sorts of things are you worried about going wrong?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Adder
What sorts of things are you worried about going wrong?

Lotteries are a state-sanctioned form of legalized gambling. They have a highly regressive impact on the poor, who most frequently purchase lottery tickets. The people of a state might reasonably come to the conclusion that having such lotteries is not good policy and they should be eliminated. That's easily done of the lottery is run by the state. Not so easily done if it's privately owned.

One specific, more limited example (I think cited in teh article) is Massachusetts, which concluded that the lottery should not advertise. Could Illinois do the same once it has sold off the rights?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Lotteries are a state-sanctioned form of legalized gambling. They have a highly regressive impact on the poor, who most frequently purchase lottery tickets. The people of a state might reasonably come to the conclusion that having such lotteries is not good policy and they should be eliminated. That's easily done of the lottery is run by the state. Not so easily done if it's privately owned.

One specific, more limited example (I think cited in teh article) is Massachusetts, which concluded that the lottery should not advertise. Could Illinois do the same once it has sold off the rights?

While you are certainly right about the first point, I suspect that ship has sailed, and am skeptical that there is a realistic chance that any state government will decide to give up one of its most popular drivers of revenue.

On the second point (as with a number of the concerns raised in the article), I would think that is a matter or what the contract says.

I guess overall, my problems with state lotteries are with there existence, not with who owns them.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So Illinois is planning to sell its lottery to a private investor for a lump sum, in exchange for the right to run the lottery, and keep all profits, for 75 years. While I don't really have much of a care what Illinois does to its own citizens, does it trouble anyone else that the state will be institutionalizing state-sponsored gambling with no real opportunity to shut it down if things go wrong (e.g., people realize that lotteries are a really poor way to get revenue)?

Not as concerned as I am by the fact that in 2007 the third largest city in the nation is the personal fiefdom of a corrupt, oppressive, racist family and their corrupt posse, all with blood on its hands; which family conspires with organised crime in the administration and control of such fiefdom. I am further concerned by the amount of racism and corruption in the police department of said city. Public. schools.

Those are modern day tragedies. If the state can make a quick profit off the lottery that is minor to the ongoing crimes in chicago/cook county/

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Slave thinks the military gives succor to the enemy

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You seem like someone who would know, or at least could opine. When the King/Queen of England granted a patent for the production of a particular good (that is, the exclusive right), was it paid as a lump sum at the outset or over time?

I can at least opine, as with all things.

I believe patents and charters like this were usually given in exchange for graft paid to the appropriate official, or at an earlier year involved a marriage or other alliance.

But, in jolly old England, the sovereign could always change his or her mind and revoke such things; certainly the Charters of the various trading companies were altered or revoked and became political hot potatos on more than one occassion. I think there is a reason our constitution needed to spell out that the states should make no law impairing the obligation of contracts.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Slave thinks the military gives succor to the enemy

I see a vast difference between disapproving of how the war is being is handled (i.e., 42% of this poll), and outright hoping for failure (see prior poll, 34% of the Democrats).