If you liked Nathan Deal’s Principled Stance In Favor of Local Control You’ll be disheartened to know it only took one phone call for him to change it

Jim Galloway has the deets

Roy Barnes opposes Casinos because they’ll compete with the state monopoly lottery. Deal opposes them because the Christian Right told him to. I’m really having a hard time deciding which of these two I dislike the least.

74 comments

    • polisavvy says:

      Why can’t he at least act like he has a pair? I mean why does every politician succumb to what the Christian Right people always want. Someone needs to wake up and realize that Georgia needs money. If the casinos are the way to go, then go for it. I don’t believe that any members of the Christian Right will be forced by gunpoint to enter a single casino. It’s like Sunday Sales, no Christian Right people will be forced in a liquor store, either.

    • Lady Thinker says:

      Deal – Democrat to Republican, quit Congress, no, that that quit back for two weeks, then quit again, switched his view on abortions, and there are several more, I just can’t remember them all at this time.

      Oh, forgot his influence to get his monopoly in Gainesville.

  1. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Chris needs to go back in the archives and retrieve Erick’s lapdog illustration to represent Deal for this thread.

  2. As an (ex?) Democrat, Deal simply forgot the GOP talking points for a moment.

    John Monds, on the other hand, supports freedom and smaller government – which means if a casino operator wants to build here then so be it.

    • Chris says:

      or if I wanted to convert my 1/3 acre home in a subdivision into a cow slaughtering facility I could too.

      • Hank Reardan says:

        Chris you know that is a dishonest answer. That can and is taken care of by contract law. You more to a subdivision with rules.
        either you love freedom or you dont.
        BTW chris what party are you voting for this year.

      • Actually Chris, that would be covered by your county zoning ordinances. If you can convince your county to let you do that then I suppose that’s okay. Good luck!

        • AubieTurtle says:

          Isn’t the power of the county to have ordinances, or even for the county to exist for that matter, at the discretion of the state? Wouldn’t a Libertarian governor want to remove this power that has been granted by the state that is suppressing the landowner’s right to do with their land as they please?

          • seenbetrdayz, Ph.D. says:

            If it were in the state’s power to grant the power to counties to make the ordinances, then it would be within the state’s power to take it away. I suggest that it is a different case entirely:

            The people have granted counties the power to make ordinances, and it is within the people’s right to take it away. If your area’s zoning restrictions are um, restrictive (apologies for the redundancy), then the people are to blame (or thank, I suppose, depending on your view of bovine slaughterhouses). Ideally, if the power of such ordinances cannot be returned to the individual, then the power should be kept as local as possible (so we can vote the bums out). If my home county won’t allow it, I could also simply move to a county that will (not that I have any interest in meat-processing). Or I could fight to change the ordinances in my county (even run against a county commissioner), but that could end up taking more time.

          • “Isn’t the power of the county to have ordinances, or even for the county to exist for that matter, at the discretion of the state? Wouldn’t a Libertarian governor want to remove this power that has been granted by the state that is suppressing the landowner’s right to do with their land as they please?”

            Aubie – no. Most Libertarians realize there are reasons for certain things like zoning ordinances. Sure, some zoning ordinances may go over the top a bit – such as how many cars can park in a driveway or that you’re only allowed to have one boat parked at your house at a time, etc. But most Libertarians are about local control. If the community decides that they want to allow meat processing at someone’s house, then that’s for that community to decide. To restrict the county from making those choices is similar to the arguments that people are making against the federal government regulating such things as the drinking age, the legality of marijuana, gay marriage, etc. Essentially, those powers not specifically given to the state are left to the county / city / town / whatever.

  3. bluemcduff says:

    This is pathetic.

    I wish I could change some his more odious positions with one phone call.

    I’m not a fan of Nathan Deal and I’m only voting for him for three reasons:

    1) I believe in Republican governance in that most will appoint honest, responsible people to state agencies and judicial seats.

    2) Roy Barnes is extremely opportunistic and arrogant. I don’t want to see his second term where the teacher’s unions have him by the short hairs.

    3) Redistricting. We stand to gain a seat or two from the 2010 Census and I want to make sure it goes into safe GOP hands.

    Therefore, I’d rather see Sonny Perdue’s third term in the person of Nathan Deal and primary him out in 2014 because the status quo is greatly preferable than the alternative.

    • ACCmoderate says:

      Some responses:

      2) What politician isn’t extremely opportunistic and aarogant? Are you saying that Nathan Deal is running for Governor out of the kindness of his own heart and not because the opportunity opened up?

      3) The redistricting argument is a complete red herring, and you know it. As Governor, Barnes would be able to veto any plan that is overly gerrymandered by the GOP (a practice that Republicans used to decry when it was Democrats drawing the maps). With a governor from one party and a general assembly from another, we’re a lot more likely to get a sane and coherent electoral map for once.

      The status quo has run our state into the crapper. I’m not content with being in the rearview mirror of states like North Carolina that have their heads screwed on straight.

      The status quo gave us a House Speaker that had an affair with a lobbyist, poorly thought out economic planning, even more poorly thought out water managment, and absolutely ZERO solutions to the problems we were facing as a state 8 years ago.

      F*$% your status quo.

      • bluemcduff says:

        All right, I’ve done my research and while the teachers have organized into the GAE and PAGE they have no collective bargaining power.

        Therefore, with no bargaining power there is no union.

        I stand corrected.

        I still maintain they use the same tactics as unions despite the lack of ability to use whipsawing tactics and strike.

  4. ACCmoderate says:

    Can I just say “screw the religious right” on this one? If you’re so worried that Jesus is going to frown upon gambling, DON’T WALK INTO A CASINO. We all know that Ralph Reed’s pious soul didn’t have a problem with casinos or Casino Jack for that matter.

    If its not hurting anyone else, don’t tell me how to live my life.

  5. Doug Grammer says:

    I think this is a non-issue. I doubt the legislature is going to give the option of casino gambling to either candidate for governor.

    • You see, Doug, librtarians want to allow casinos not because the industry is paying us to back that position, but because we believe in and trust in the principles of liberty.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        Nope. It will be different for different people. I may have my reasons for opposing casino gambling, but they may have nothing to do with your reasons, if you have any. Different people have different sets of morals, and what offends my morals may not offend others.

        For example, there are some LP party members who are in favor of drugs, prostitution, and gambling. Harry is opposed to those because he views those activities as destructive behavior. LP party members may view Harry as immoral because he supports restricting their rights to do whatever they want. Harry may view LP party members as immoral because they advocate things that many view as vices. This is an example, actual reasons may vary, and even if they consider the stances of others to be immoral may be in question.

        I am not going to spout off that my believes are superior to others and that they are unethical or immoral for not agreeing with me. We have other posters on here who can do that for us.

        I don’t approach it from a moral or immoral point of view. I look at it in a pragmatic sense. Is it good for Georgia (under my own opinion) and is there anything I can do to pass it or stop it? I don’t see the state legislature considering passing it, so it doesn’t matter, unless it’s something I want to push for.

  6. John Konop says:

    I disagree with both candidates on this issue for various reasons:

    1) I do not buy casino gambling competes with the lottery more than likely on-line gambling and other states with casinos.

    2) I personally would not vote for a casino because I think it brings more issues than revenue, but I do think each county should decide not the state or the federal government.

    3) It seems both candidates are pandering over doing their job.

    • JK,

      On your 2nd issue, the tax rate on Casinos should be determined to be at least high enough to take care of whatever those could be… that would be a legitimate tax/fees on an industry.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        So as long as the casinos bring in enough tax revenues to deal with the additional problems, the money (not the good) outweighs the bad? Sounds to me like you are advocating creating industries just to tax them….like pot. Your party is OK with prostitution, drugs, gambling….maybe you should move to Vegas? I think that at around 95% of Georgia will tell you “No thanks.” Maybe more if you could get your platform clearly articulated and circulated.

        • No Doug, I’m advocating Liberty, industries create themselves, due to the wants and needs of the citizens.
          When one actually believes in freedom, they also realize the bad(those that would infringe on others rights) comes with the good(those that are responsible and respect rights). It’s governments legitimate role to deal with “the bad,” while leaving “the good” the hell alone.

          • Doug Grammer says:

            So for the record, the LP is still in favor of prostitution, drugs, and gambling, unless you have changed your party platform?

              • Doug Grammer says:

                If “nanny statism” is defined by prosecuting drug pushers, then the answer is YES. BTW, which drug would the LP want to make legal for sale next if pot were legal?

                • John Konop says:

                  I guess the GOP and Democrats are for endless war we cannot afford, Middle East, Drugs……. and for if they are for banning drugs why not alcohol and cigarettes?

                  If I follow the logic it is wrong to make money off the taxes from alcohol and cigarettes.

                  How is the war going against drugs, gambling…..? the only winners I see are the gangs and the underworld like when we had prohibition.

                  I would like to hear what Barnes and Deal position on the above issues.

      • John Konop says:

        Daniel N. Adams,

        This is more of a local issue in my opinion. I am against criminalizing social behavior unless it has a direct affect on other people ie drunk driving. If you criminalize social behavior the only winners are the underworld and gangs ie “War on Drugs”

        I do support local standards. The problem with a casino it tends to attract a seedy environment which is not what I would want in my town. Yet the local community should make that call not just one person, state and or federal government especially not based on special interest group pressure.

        I tend not to trust people on the right or left that know what is best for all of us and refuse to let the community vote on social behavior. I am sure we both agree on the above point.

        This is my biggest disappointment with GOP at times. They claim to be about local standards yet support heavy handed failed policies like No Child Left Behind, War on Drugs, Nation Building, Federal Gay Marriage Ban……..

        • kyleinatl says:

          Underground Atlanta can’t get any more seedier than it already is…seems ripe to turn into a Casino environ.

        • macho says:

          So John, just so I have you straight on your “War on Drugs” criticism, you think it would be perfectly okay if say the community of Johns Creek wanted to outlaw the sale of Meth at toy stores, but Alpharetta was cool with it, that the state should play not role in providing any kind of consistent regulation?

          • John Konop says:

            Macho,

            First I doubt if any community would legalize selling METH in a toy store. Second I do think many communities would de-criminalize drugs realizing it is a social behavior problem that has become a major industry fueling terrorism, gangs…… And that drug addiction problem should be dealt with rehab not the prison system. Fourth the hypocrisy on this issue as demonstrated by many making excuses for Rush Limbaugh when he was busted and yet you cheer on Rush on his radio show when calls for “convict them and send them up the river” for being busted with drugs. Finally the ‘War on drugs” is not working like during prohibition: “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. “

            • macho says:

              So you think that a small community, maybe a town of a couple of hundred, should be allowed to legalize the sale of meth or crack at the corner grocery store?

                • macho says:

                  No, I don’t think it’s been working. I think it’s been an abysmal failure. Although, I’m not ready to say we need to legalize all drugs. Just like the premise in the movie “Traffic,” I think our actions increase the profit margins for the remaining drug lords. We can’t keep drugs out of prison, so why should we think we would be able to keep drugs from crossing our vast borders.

                  Now, I wonder if you will have the intellectual integrity to answer my previous question with a “yes” or “no” response.

                  You know the routine. You must answer “yes” to support your earlier statement of, “I tend not to trust people on the right or left that know what is best for all of us and refuse to let the community vote on social behavior. ”

                  If you answer “no” then you’ve acknowledged there are some social behaviors that a local community probably should not be allowed to vote on, and at that point we are just debating degrees – your view of votable social behaviors versus my view of votable social behaviors.

                  It’s the whole, “We’ve already established what you are. We’re just negotiating the price” quote attributed to Winston Churchill, but probably not said by Churchill.

                  • John Konop says:

                    Macho,

                    I am not sure to tell you the truth. The truth is rich people like Rush Limbaugh take drugs like “Hillbilly Heroin” ie Oxycontin legally because they have the money to get via doctors. And it is hard to argue that is much different than street heroin other than the risk of dealing with drug dealers. And really the truth is I think people like Rush should have the right as long as they are not driving on it…..

                    Do you see the catch 22 in my mind?

      • Three Jack says:

        deal supports gambling as long as it does not involve rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother.

        68 years old….come on, the guy can’t be expected to remember day old issue positions.

  7. macho says:

    I’m starting to wonder if he has an original thought process. He’s voted to fund abortions and he’s voted for massive increases in Federal programs and the excuse always is, “Well he was voting with the leadership of whatever party he was a member of at the time,” as if he didn’t have a brain of his own.

  8. heroV says:

    Are there casinos in a place in this country that we aspire to become like? I’m seriously asking. When I think casinos, I think Vegas, Detroit, Atlantic City, and Mississippi, which are all places in this country that are even more economically depressed than we are.

    • macho says:

      I kind of agree with you, but in the case of Las Vegas it’s really a temporary problem due to an extreme real estate bubble. Gambling basically built an entire civilization in the middle of the desert.

      Nevada has no personal or corporate income tax, due largely to gaming revenues. So quite a few retirees and businesses have moved there over time.

  9. saltycracker says:

    Have to, choke, run somewhat with JK on this on.
    Drugs: identify, legalize, control & tax the tar out of them.
    Treat abuse as a health problem and the bootleggers as criminals.

    Casinos: Why not designate an area between some major population areas – say one of the state border rivers ?

Comments are closed.