Last login: Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Writein and Game05...Ya'll make good points. It is very hypocritical for the government to run a lottery and ban poker and slots. And, Writein...yeah, if some fool spends his paycheck on lottery tickets, it very well could lead to divorce and welfare for the kids. I grant you that. I'm just wondering, though, do ya'll feel the same way about buying booze or cigerattes? A lottery ticket costs a heck of a lot less than a pack of cigerettes AND won't cause cancer.
I buy a ticket from time to time. Back when the referendum was going on the ballot, my wife told me that she was going to vote against because she didn't believe gambling was okay. I told her I was going to vote for it and, if it passed, I was going to play. BUT, I also told her that to keep from insulting her, if I won I wouldn't give her any of the money. :) The most I ever won wsa $174 dollars and, it's funny, she didn't complain when I took her out to a nice dinner. I have never spent more than two dollars on lottery tickets for any drawing. I don't smoke or drink. I spend a couple bucks on lottery tickets and don't ever expect to win, but it's fun to fanticize about that happening.
The government is meddling way too much in the private lives of citizens already. If some fool spends the grocery money on lottery tickets or Southern Comfort, it's NOT my concern. The family might get some of my money as welfare payments, but the government has already taxed it out of my pocket anyway. I buy tickets responsibly and don't spend anywhere near what I could afford to lose. When I buy a lottery ticket, I'm pursueing happiness. My comment to both the government and do-gooder people who claim they know better than I how to spend my disposable income is simple: "Don't Tread On Me."
Flag this comment
It strikes me that a person has the right to spend his money any way in which he sees fit. Remember, it's HIS money. This is one of those things that falls under the heading of liberty. The pursuit of happiness is one of those unalienable rights the Declaration of Independence speaks of. If buying lottery tickets is the way some pursue happiness, it is none of the business of anyone else...with the possible exception of his wife. Everyone recognizes the odds against winning the lottery, but it isn't up to anyone who thinks he knows better what a citizen can and cannot buy. Every time someone buys a winning ticket, that person's dreams are realized. The odds against winning are probably greater than the odds of being struck by lightening, but, I'd be willing to wager a Big Mac against a Whopper that there have been more lottery winners in Victoria County than there have been people struck by lightening.
This comment was removed by the user.
Wait a minute...did I read that right? the cop gave a ticket to the guy who caused the wreck? In Victoria? Go figger.
Bucket...I worked for the airline for ten years. Holidays were NOT days you could count on not having to work. Now that I've been at the bank for five, I still can't get used to the idea of being off on holidays.
I guess my favorite is "Saving Private Ryan." When the old veteran is at the Normandy cemetary and asks his wife if he's been a good enough man to have deserved being pulled out at the cost of other lives.....man, that gets me every time.
Jason...I've gotta agree with you about "12 O'Clock High." Wonderful movie and agree with you about "Tora Tora Tora." It really is a much better film than "Pearl Harbor." I can't get interested in "Midway", however. In the first place, I've never been a fan of Heston and the side story about the pilot and his Japanese girlfriend leaves me cold.
I like "Flying Leathernecks" because of the real combat film spliced into the movie.
"Patriot" with Mel Gibson is another particular favorite. Different war but well done, nevertheless.
Oops. I almost forgot "Sands of Iwo Jima." That was the first movie my mother let me stay up late and watch on television waaaay back when I was a kid.
You're right, J. NEITHER of them will have to recuse themselves. So, what's your problem with Thomas? In one post to me you called him (uncle) Thomas and in a later post, you refer to the Hon. Clarence Thomas. Which is it...uncle Thomas or Hon. Clarence Thomas? You were bellyaching about Mrs. Thomas for some reason. Instead of looking for something to bash me about, why don't you tell us just what she did that you think should cause her husband to recuse himself from the debate and vote on BOCare? Give us YOUR opinion of whatever she did that got you so exercised.
Writein..."Waywardwind.I hazard a guess you won’t talk about Hon Clarence Thomas’ role in the Health care debate. And why he should be recuse himself."
I guess you were about to give up on me answering you, but you wrote the first post to me after I went to bed and the one quoted above while I was at work. I have to work to pay Social Security so my wife can afford to be retired -- as she often reminds me. I sometimes have things to do other than monitor your creative postings. I answered as quickly as I could after I found your posts.
Writein..."I don’t see you questioning the issue of Justice Clarence (Uncle) Thomas. Why is that?"
Well, J, I figured I'd let YOU do that. I didn't mention ANY of the justices. I'm not sure exactly which issue you have with Thomas so go for it. By the way, what would you have called me if I had written the Uncle Thomas thing? Would that have been an illustration of racism on my part?
" As for your rant that justices don’t can’t get fired etc. The U.S. Constitution has the Senate as the body to fire them."
It wasn't a rant, it was envy. Yeah, the Constitution has a provision for impeachment and removal of justices. However, in the entire history of the country, it's NEVER happened, regardless of how richly deserved it might have been. An absolute dunce cannot be removed as long as s/he is reasonably honest. Even a justice eaten up with dementia and cannot control his/her bodily functions can remain on the bench. I still contend that being a United States Supreme Court justice is the greatest job in the world. I've reconsidered and it's BETTER than the queen of England.
"I do not hear you mention anything about Thomas’ wife role in some political activities namely the Health Care debate, of Justice Kagan has to go so does Justice Thomas."
THAT is an interesting sentence. But, J, you're right. I didn't mention anything about Mrs. Thomas or any of her activities regarding the health care debate. I know absolutely NOTHING about the activities of any spouse of any justice. I don't know why you jumped on me for not mentioning something I never claimed to know anything about. All I said was that law doesn't apply to presidents, justices and congress critters. If you're outraged over the activities of Mrs. Thomas, feel free to mention them yourself.
Tafoer...She won't have to recuse herself. Don't you know that the Supremes, Congress and the president are above the law? At one time in this country -- a long time ago -- laws applied even to the ones who make the laws, but no more. The BEST job in the world today, with the possible exception of queen of England, is to be a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. It's a lifetime gig, the pay is good, you can't be fired, there is NO performance review from the boss, because there IS NO BOSS. The term is only nine months long so there is a three month vacation every year. Heck, there isn't even a Constitutional requirement that a justice has to be a lawyer. In the words of a local car dealer, "What a deal!"