Text Size

No Holds Barred

Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Need to get something off your chest? Have a topic that doesn't fit one of the other forums? Rant away in here. Mature audiences only, not for the easily offended.

Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:57 am

Swerb wrote:Somewhere deep down, there are arguments against Gilbert's proposal that may make some sense. I don't see the monopoly issue as a very relevant one. And if it is, you're not presenting the argument correctly. As the resident board miser, who uses over 50% of his posts to put down other peoples posts, you're going to catch shit for it.


What happens when Gilbert's casino sucks?

What happens when someone wants to put a casino up in Akron, or Lorain, maybe one near Cedar Point or Kings Island?

What about when the downtown area can support multiple casinos? Perhaps as a part of a revitalized flats or a renovated lakefront?

Show me instances where Monopolies actually help the consumer? Please show me 1.



And again, why are people ok with the 50 million dollar licensing fee, when other states are giving out licenses for 3-500 million?
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby swerb » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:00 am

Stu wrote:
Swerb wrote:Somewhere deep down, there are arguments against Gilbert's proposal that may make some sense. I don't see the monopoly issue as a very relevant one. And if it is, you're not presenting the argument correctly. As the resident board miser, who uses over 50% of his posts to put down other peoples posts, you're going to catch shit for it.


What happens when Gilbert's casino sucks?

What happens when someone wants to put a casino up in Akron, or Lorain, maybe one near Cedar Point or Kings Island?

What about when the downtown area can support multiple casinos? Perhaps as a part of a revitalized flats or a renovated lakefront?

Show me instances where Monopolies actually help the consumer? Please show me 1.

And again, why are people ok with the 50 million dollar licensing fee, when other states are giving out licenses for 3-500 million?

If Gilbert's casino sucks? Not as many people will go and revenues will not meet projections. Given the numbers on how many people leave the state to gamble in other states, given the fact that every business Gilbert has touched as not "sucked", the odds are against it. Especially if it is put in the right spot, with the right supporting dining and entertainement options, as Gilbert says he wants to do.

As someone that thrives on being miserable, you'll be happy though. So you got that going for you, which is nice.

Gilbert's plan is to put (I think) four in the state. I'm sure he's done the research to decipher what is the right #. Your monopoly concerns, while valid, have been debunked. The licensing fee ... I have no idea why it is what it is. I'm sure you're just cherrypicking the highest licensing fees ever paid and know even less about the issue than I do. I have no idea what the "market" is on those. I do know that the people bringing up the 50mm licensing fee have conflicting agendas against Gilbert opening a Cleveland casino.
"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

http://www.twitter.com/theclevelandfan
User avatar
swerb
JoBu's bee-yotch
 
Posts: 17919
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: Twinsburg, OH
Favorite Player: Mango Hab
Least Favorite Player: Bob LaMonte

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby leadpipe » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:45 am

Stu wrote:
Swerb wrote:Somewhere deep down, there are arguments against Gilbert's proposal that may make some sense. I don't see the monopoly issue as a very relevant one. And if it is, you're not presenting the argument correctly. As the resident board miser, who uses over 50% of his posts to put down other peoples posts, you're going to catch shit for it.


What happens when Gilbert's casino sucks?

What happens when someone wants to put a casino up in Akron, or Lorain, maybe one near Cedar Point or Kings Island?

What about when the downtown area can support multiple casinos? Perhaps as a part of a revitalized flats or a renovated lakefront?

Show me instances where Monopolies actually help the consumer? Please show me 1.



And again, why are people ok with the 50 million dollar licensing fee, when other states are giving out licenses for 3-500 million?


The odds of Gilbert's casino being a success are waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy more likely than the city sitting on their collective asses and waiting for the time to come when the area can support multiple casinos.

Seen any great plans to revitalize the flats anytime soon. Exactly. Neither have I.

Good Christ man, Gilbert's casino being a success is a pipe dream, but the above is even one thousandth of a percent likely to happen?

Look at the city. Look at it's history of management. Look at it's current tax base.

Again, nothing to lose. If it fails, your back to what????

Please, if you don't want a monopoly, understood. But don't act like this idea is somehow going to mortage the city or state's future.
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby idoctribefan » Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:48 pm

Lead Pipe wrote:
Stu wrote:
Swerb wrote:Somewhere deep down, there are arguments against Gilbert's proposal that may make some sense. I don't see the monopoly issue as a very relevant one. And if it is, you're not presenting the argument correctly. As the resident board miser, who uses over 50% of his posts to put down other peoples posts, you're going to catch shit for it.


What happens when Gilbert's casino sucks?

What happens when someone wants to put a casino up in Akron, or Lorain, maybe one near Cedar Point or Kings Island?

What about when the downtown area can support multiple casinos? Perhaps as a part of a revitalized flats or a renovated lakefront?

Show me instances where Monopolies actually help the consumer? Please show me 1.



And again, why are people ok with the 50 million dollar licensing fee, when other states are giving out licenses for 3-500 million?


Seen any great plans to revitalize the flats anytime soon. .


I don't know if these are "great plans", but it's a start. This was in the PD Wednesday.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index ... fundi.html
"And three of the better guys in franchise history, Daugherty, Z and now Kyrie could get hurt in a rubber room full of cotton balls." - Leadpipe
User avatar
idoctribefan
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:35 pm
Location: NE Ohio
Favorite Player: Joe Haden
Least Favorite Player: #6

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:11 pm

Swerb wrote:As someone that thrives on being miserable, you'll be happy though. So you got that going for you, which is nice.

Swerb, I've never attacked you, not in this thread or any other. WTF is your problem that you have to resort to this shit when having a discussion?
Swerb wrote:Gilbert's plan is to put (I think) four in the state.

You are supporting the plan and you are unsure of how many casinos it involves?
Swerb wrote:Your monopoly concerns, while valid, have been debunked.

I asked you to show me a monopoly that helps consumers. You've yet to do that. And how can something valid be debunked?
Swerb wrote:The licensing fee ... I have no idea why it is what it is. I'm sure you're just cherrypicking the highest licensing fees ever paid and know even less about the issue than I do. I have no idea what the "market" is on those. I do know that the people bringing up the 50mm licensing fee have conflicting agendas against Gilbert opening a Cleveland casino.

So basically, you have no idea what how many casinos this involves and you don't know if the licensing fees are fair. Why are you blindly supporting Gilbert?
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby skatingtripods » Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:45 am

From what I was told by someone working for the campaign, the licensing fee is low so that they can push it through the red tape immediately and start construction. They know it's going to be a significantly higher number.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14352
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Sat Sep 19, 2009 7:39 am

Skating Tripods wrote:From what I was told by someone working for the campaign, the licensing fee is low so that they can push it through the red tape immediately and start construction. They know it's going to be a significantly higher number.


Its going to be a higher number? Are you saying the law says 50 and then later on theyre going to offer to pay more?
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Sun Sep 20, 2009 1:08 pm

interesting article: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2009 ... /909200314

Because of a loophole, Issue 3 will ban charitable "Monte Carlo Nights,'' leaving churches and other nonprofits to find alternative ways to raise money.


Here is what it contains: one of the lowest casino tax rates in the nation. Ohio's 33 percent tax rate is lower than Pennsylvania's 55 percent, New York's 57 percent, Maryland's 67 percent and Rhode Island's 71 percent.


Here is what it does not contain: a requirement that the casinos must actually be built. Issue 3 authorizes four casinos, including one in Cincinnati and one in Toledo, but does not require any of the four to be built. It also sets no deadline for starting construction - or completing it.

Issue 3 is being underwritten mainly by Penn National Gaming, a company that spent $25 million just last year for a Kansas casino - then backed out of the deal. Penn could do the same here. Penn National operates casinos in Indiana near Cincinnati and owns Toledo Raceway Park. There is growing concern that part of Penn's motivation is to avoid competition for their Indiana and Toledo investments.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:05 pm

Gilbert was just on Triv. Triv asked how the city of Toledo could support a Casino. Gilbert talked about how there are over 20 Indian casinos in Michigan, each of them profitable, while there are less people in Michigan than Ohio.


Funny how Gilbert thinks Michigan can handle so many Casinos, yet some on this board believe competition is unnecessary because the city of Cleveland cannot handle 2 casinos anyway.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby leadpipe » Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:18 pm

Stu wrote:Gilbert was just on Triv. Triv asked how the city of Toledo could support a Casino. Gilbert talked about how there are over 20 Indian casinos in Michigan, each of them profitable, while there are less people in Michigan than Ohio.


Funny how Gilbert thinks Michigan can handle so many Casinos, yet some on this board believe competition is unnecessary because the city of Cleveland cannot handle 2 casinos anyway.


And some on this board are just looking at what they feel the reality is for Cleveland.

You want to wait for the perfect storm to hit a place can't can't attract a drizzle, that's your opinion. Great. Vote no.

Others have a different view.

But understand it's over, Stu. Posting every little nugget you feel supports your stance ain't changing those people's minds, just like we're not chaning yours.

It's as clear as the debate between you and me. I think there's nothing to lose. You do.

End of story.
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby jfiling » Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:24 pm

Stu wrote:Gilbert was just on Triv. Triv asked how the city of Toledo could support a Casino. Gilbert talked about how there are over 20 Indian casinos in Michigan, each of them profitable, while there are less people in Michigan than Ohio.


Funny how Gilbert thinks Michigan can handle so many Casinos, yet some on this board believe competition is unnecessary because the city of Cleveland cannot handle 2 casinos anyway.

I agree with you on the monopoly point, but it's baby steps. If these four casinos (two run by Gilbert, two run by some company in PA) make money hand over fist, there will be more. I want it to be open for everyone who wants to build and run a casino anywhere in the state, but considering how backward most of this state is, I'll take the baby steps.
jfiling
Old School Writer
 
Posts: 3875
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:14 pm
Location: Akron, Ohio
Favorite Player: Silky Johnston
Least Favorite Player: Buck Nasty

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Orenthal » Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:59 pm

Stu wrote:Gilbert was just on Triv. Triv asked how the city of Toledo could support a Casino. Gilbert talked about how there are over 20 Indian casinos in Michigan, each of them profitable, while there are less people in Michigan than Ohio.


Funny how Gilbert thinks Michigan can handle so many Casinos, yet some on this board believe competition is unnecessary because the city of Cleveland cannot handle 2 casinos anyway.


lol monopoly what? Las Vegas nights at churches, Bingo, Keno, Instant games, Mega Millions, 654 times a day pick 3 and 4, Rolling cash 5, Classic Lotto, Mega Millions, Home poker games, internet black jack, internet poker, internet craps, internet anything you can fucking imagine, your local book maker, get the picture.

Sure guy will have the only casino, but he is putting up the dollars, and marketing blitz, and it isn't even a slam dunk that it passes. However to say he has some monopoly on gambling is assissinine(sp).
"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:00 am

Lead Pipe wrote:Posting every little nugget you feel supports your stance ain't changing those people's minds, just like we're not chaning yours.


You can't tell me that the part about how Penn doesnt even have to build these casino's hasnt impacted you in the slightest. How do you know they are not just using this legislation to protect their interests in other states? They've done it before.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:01 am

jfiling wrote:
Stu wrote:Gilbert was just on Triv. Triv asked how the city of Toledo could support a Casino. Gilbert talked about how there are over 20 Indian casinos in Michigan, each of them profitable, while there are less people in Michigan than Ohio.


Funny how Gilbert thinks Michigan can handle so many Casinos, yet some on this board believe competition is unnecessary because the city of Cleveland cannot handle 2 casinos anyway.

I agree with you on the monopoly point, but it's baby steps. If these four casinos (two run by Gilbert, two run by some company in PA) make money hand over fist, there will be more. I want it to be open for everyone who wants to build and run a casino anywhere in the state, but considering how backward most of this state is, I'll take the baby steps.


Its not baby steps though, because the changes in the constitution creates the monopoly. It will be extremely difficult to change it again to allow competition.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:04 am

Orenthal wrote:
Stu wrote:Gilbert was just on Triv. Triv asked how the city of Toledo could support a Casino. Gilbert talked about how there are over 20 Indian casinos in Michigan, each of them profitable, while there are less people in Michigan than Ohio.


Funny how Gilbert thinks Michigan can handle so many Casinos, yet some on this board believe competition is unnecessary because the city of Cleveland cannot handle 2 casinos anyway.


lol monopoly what? Las Vegas nights at churches, Bingo, Keno, Instant games, Mega Millions, 654 times a day pick 3 and 4, Rolling cash 5, Classic Lotto, Mega Millions, Home poker games, internet black jack, internet poker, internet craps, internet anything you can fucking imagine, your local book maker, get the picture.

Sure guy will have the only casino, but he is putting up the dollars, and marketing blitz, and it isn't even a slam dunk that it passes. However to say he has some monopoly on gambling is assissinine(sp).


One article said that the monte carlo nights for churches would be made illegal by issue 3 passing.

All the lottery games you mentioned are run by the lottery, thats not true competition. And its also lame ass gambling.

And please dont compare internet gaming to the real thing. Unless you think its just as exciting to roll the dice by left clicking as it is on a real craps table.

To put words into your terminology, comparing these forms of gaming to a full blown casino is asinine.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Orenthal » Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:53 am

Stu wrote:
Orenthal wrote:
Stu wrote:Gilbert was just on Triv. Triv asked how the city of Toledo could support a Casino. Gilbert talked about how there are over 20 Indian casinos in Michigan, each of them profitable, while there are less people in Michigan than Ohio.


Funny how Gilbert thinks Michigan can handle so many Casinos, yet some on this board believe competition is unnecessary because the city of Cleveland cannot handle 2 casinos anyway.


lol monopoly what? Las Vegas nights at churches, Bingo, Keno, Instant games, Mega Millions, 654 times a day pick 3 and 4, Rolling cash 5, Classic Lotto, Mega Millions, Home poker games, internet black jack, internet poker, internet craps, internet anything you can fucking imagine, your local book maker, get the picture.

Sure guy will have the only casino, but he is putting up the dollars, and marketing blitz, and it isn't even a slam dunk that it passes. However to say he has some monopoly on gambling is assissinine(sp).


One article said that the monte carlo nights for churches would be made illegal by issue 3 passing.

All the lottery games you mentioned are run by the lottery, thats not true competition. And its also lame ass gambling.

And please dont compare internet gaming to the real thing. Unless you think its just as exciting to roll the dice by left clicking as it is on a real craps table.

To put words into your terminology, comparing these forms of gaming to a full blown casino is asinine.


Well I spelled it differently! Anyhow I have 100 bucks I want to gamble, I have a plethora of options, bottom line. Keep going though...
"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:44 am

Orenthal wrote:Anyhow I have 100 bucks I want to gamble, I have a plethora of options, bottom line. Keep going though...


Have fun with your joke lottery scratch and sniff tickets.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:47 am

Stu wrote:
Orenthal wrote:Anyhow I have 100 bucks I want to gamble, I have a plethora of options, bottom line. Keep going though...


comparing the lottery to casino gaming is like saying Microsoft didnt have a monopoly because the playstation 2 had a home screen with web browser.

the 2 arent in the same league.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby leadpipe » Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:53 am

Stu wrote:
Orenthal wrote:Anyhow I have 100 bucks I want to gamble, I have a plethora of options, bottom line. Keep going though...


Have fun with your joke lottery scratch and sniff tickets.


Man, are you missing the point. You know how many clowns play these games?

And how many millions of dollars a year does internet gambling bring in?

Lastly, you can find as many articles you want about Monte Carlo gmaes for churches becoming illegal, but people have found there way around this for years, and will continue to do so. The licensed fake charities are abundant, mainly because, suprise, suprise, people representing the state are on the take.

These facts also add to a point, that even if it winds up being a monopoly, you will still get a better shake than what you are currently getting from the state.

Lead Man is an advantage player. If the odds blow, he doesn't go. He would like to reap the benefits of those who will, and he feels less of the targeted tax dollars will be ciphoned away, you know, like the dollars run through the state.

Again, Stu, what's there to argue about at this point. Just let it go. Be confident in your stance. Vote no.
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6643
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:24 am

Lead Pipe wrote:Man, are you missing the point. You know how many clowns play these games?


Tons, thats why they call it the idiot tax and I am eternally thankful to the morons who play the bad odds in order to fund government programs instead of myself having to do it via taxes.



But again, I'm going to bring up the most important point. What if this is just a front for Penn gaming to protect its non Ohio based gaming interests?
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Orenthal » Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:58 pm

Stu wrote:
Orenthal wrote:Anyhow I have 100 bucks I want to gamble, I have a plethora of options, bottom line. Keep going though...


Have fun with your joke lottery scratch and sniff tickets.


I prefer KENO (mooning) :thud:

With lines like these you claim victory in a debate? Set fire to any effigies of Rich Uncle Pennybags???
"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Orenthal » Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:00 pm

Stu wrote:But again, I'm going to bring up the most important point. What if this is just a front for Penn gaming to protect its non Ohio based gaming interests?


Gilbert is building a casino in Cleveland. What happens outside this city on this issue is of little concern to me. Gilbert has been to visable in his campaign to pull a fast one. Another non starter IMO.
"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby skatingtripods » Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:01 pm

Here's a preview from Ch. 5's website

Image
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14352
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Ziner » Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:03 pm

What a generic name, why couldnt they have come up with something better. ;-) ;) :wink:
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7063
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Orenthal » Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:29 pm

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:29 pm

Orenthal wrote:With lines like these you claim victory in a debate?


I have done no such thing.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Orenthal » Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:23 pm

Stu wrote:
Orenthal wrote:With lines like these you claim victory in a debate?


I have done no such thing.


I would say you did, of course in typical veiled way...

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=15415&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=50

Couple posts there seem like Swerb couldn't fight facts on the Casino issue. That seems to me, by extension, that you have the facts; but they are much more personal feelings then facts since the issue at hand is if the measure will pass, not if it fits into a Stu wet dream.

Again for emphasis Gilbert will have no such monopoly on the gambling dollar, whether you like the games, their odds, or their payouts is irrelevant.
"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Sat Sep 26, 2009 9:24 am

Orenthal wrote:
Stu wrote:
Orenthal wrote:With lines like these you claim victory in a debate?


I have done no such thing.


I would say you did, of course in typical veiled way...

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=15415&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=50

Couple posts there seem like Swerb couldn't fight facts on the Casino issue. That seems to me, by extension, that you have the facts; but they are much more personal feelings then facts since the issue at hand is if the measure will pass, not if it fits into a Stu wet dream.

Again for emphasis Gilbert will have no such monopoly on the gambling dollar, whether you like the games, their odds, or their payouts is irrelevant.


I was saying he stopped fighting when I threw facts at him. Not that I won because he stopped.

How is it a "personal feeling" that Penn has used legislation like this in other states to protect their outside interests while ignoring the state they supposedly were working with?

How is it a "personal feeling" that the tax rates are much lower than what other states are receiving?

How is it a "personal feeling" that when bidding is involved, licenses can go for as high as 400-500 million per casino, yet issue 3 requires only 50 million?

The monopoly argument is the only one you could consider a "personal feeling", as some people dont see how 1 casino can be considered a monopoly when there are other options like the internet or scratch off tickets. I'm sure most economists would see the difference though.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Orenthal » Sat Sep 26, 2009 10:40 am

Yeah, since Penn and Gilbert are putting up the cash, they shouldn't get the direct benefit. If you want a utopian bill that gets everyone involved, you will have to convince the state legislature or some group of citizens to craft the proposal. That would be the only way to get a huge casino license fee, one which would probably be doubtful since the surrounding area already has gaming. 10 years ago maybe, but I am not sure you get the massive fees in this economy.

The 33% tax rate would be 4th highest among the 14 states with table games. You are telling me Ohio, one of the highest taxed states should confiscate more money so Stu can accept the proposal. Slot only states are the ones that are in the 50% range, then good luck getting table games once that rate is established, like the state would ever allow the rate to be lowered without another statewide issue. Yeah real free market thinking there...

Again the huge license fees will not occur unless a third party pushes the proposal. Usually these proposals are passed by the state to increase government revenues thru gaming. The Ohio Lottery has worked wonders there, but hey Stu following your line of thinking, why not give the State of Ohio a new boatload of cash. They really know how to run things into the ground...

It is not that I cannot see your points, like many above have said, this is the best proposal that finally has the likelyhood of passing. Sorry if I have no sympathy that the state doesn't get to rake in huge amounts thru tax and fees.
"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Sat Sep 26, 2009 11:26 am

Orenthal wrote:Sorry if I have no sympathy that the state doesn't get to rake in huge amounts thru tax and fees.


The fact is, the State is us. We are the ones who get screwed if things dont work out, not the bureaucrats in Columbus.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Sat Sep 26, 2009 11:29 am

Orenthal wrote:Yeah, since Penn and Gilbert are putting up the cash, they shouldn't get the direct benefit. If you want a utopian bill that gets everyone involved, you will have to convince the state legislature or some group of citizens to craft the proposal. That would be the only way to get a huge casino license fee, one which would probably be doubtful since the surrounding area already has gaming. 10 years ago maybe, but I am not sure you get the massive fees in this economy.


Des Plaines was awarded a casino license fee in December 2008 for their bid of $435 million.

That was after the economy tanked, and in an area already surrounded by gaming.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Orenthal » Sat Sep 26, 2009 11:48 am

Stu wrote:
Orenthal wrote:Yeah, since Penn and Gilbert are putting up the cash, they shouldn't get the direct benefit. If you want a utopian bill that gets everyone involved, you will have to convince the state legislature or some group of citizens to craft the proposal. That would be the only way to get a huge casino license fee, one which would probably be doubtful since the surrounding area already has gaming. 10 years ago maybe, but I am not sure you get the massive fees in this economy.


Des Plaines was awarded a casino license fee in December 2008 for their bid of $435 million.

That was after the economy tanked, and in an area already surrounded by gaming.


$50 million in Pittspuke for slots casino.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08115/87 ... latest.xml

$10-12 million additional to get table games.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09265/999810-454.stm

Look at that last article and look at the tax rates. Hmmmm I wonder what the net tax rate will be on those once they have table games... Oh, is Pennsylvania closer to Ohio and more relevant then Des Plaines? Waiting on your obligatory response…
"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Sun Sep 27, 2009 7:48 am

if Illinois is too far, then heres an Indiana example:

http://www.wibc.com/news/Story.aspx?ID=1139925

But Jim Brown, general manager of gaming for Hoosier Park Racing and Casino in Anderson, said it paid a $250 million licensing fee for casino rights knowing that many of its customers would come from the Fort Wayne area.




As far as a comparison of PA to Ohio, it is a good one, i'll grant you that. My only issue is, PA has many more casinos than Ohio will be limited to. Don't you think, that if we are granting a monopoly to a company, that they should actually pay for that monopoly via higher licensing fees? Typically, in real world America if you pay for exclusive rights for something, you pay more for it.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Sun Sep 27, 2009 8:02 am

Orenthal wrote:
Stu wrote:
Orenthal wrote:Yeah, since Penn and Gilbert are putting up the cash, they shouldn't get the direct benefit. If you want a utopian bill that gets everyone involved, you will have to convince the state legislature or some group of citizens to craft the proposal. That would be the only way to get a huge casino license fee, one which would probably be doubtful since the surrounding area already has gaming. 10 years ago maybe, but I am not sure you get the massive fees in this economy.


Des Plaines was awarded a casino license fee in December 2008 for their bid of $435 million.

That was after the economy tanked, and in an area already surrounded by gaming.


$50 million in Pittspuke for slots casino.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08115/87 ... latest.xml

$10-12 million additional to get table games.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09265/999810-454.stm

Look at that last article and look at the tax rates. Hmmmm I wonder what the net tax rate will be on those once they have table games... Oh, is Pennsylvania closer to Ohio and more relevant then Des Plaines? Waiting on your obligatory response…



From what I've read, there is a limit on PA casinos of 5,000 slot machines each. Is there such a limit on casino's in issue 3, I cannot find one?

Also, 60-62 million is still more than the 50 million listed in Issue 3, and as I said in my last post, if you are paying for a monopoly you should be paying an increased amount, not a discount.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Orenthal » Sun Sep 27, 2009 10:25 am

If I'm Gilbert and Penn, I'm looking for the smallest possible amount that would still be acceptable to the majority of the voting public. As many times as I have heard Gilbert, or read Luken, I have heard them mention they did extensive polling of likely voters and retained several consultants and focus groups. The ballot language is a combination of self interest and what was most likely to pass.

One aspect of the proposal I really like is that the taxes go directly to local government, thus bypassing one layer of the bureaucracy, and perhaps a reason for the smaller license fee. Bottom line Gilbert did his research, asked the people what they wanted in a proposal, and this is was the result. Can't please everyone, and only the vote will prove whether this is the one.

edit
Even the unscientific poll on this site has Issue 3 winning 29-2. I'm sure past proposals would have gotten nothing close to that. I myself a huge fan of casinos voted down the last two measures. One being in a cornfield, the other only slots...
"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby swerb » Sun Sep 27, 2009 10:32 am

All over but the weeping for you Stu:

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf ... /post.html

Poll shows 59 percent of Ohio voters would vote for casinos

59%-38% for it. Combined poll of Ohio's four largest newspapers.

Image

LET'S GET REEEEEADY TO GAAAAAAAMBLE!!!!

Image
"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

http://www.twitter.com/theclevelandfan
User avatar
swerb
JoBu's bee-yotch
 
Posts: 17919
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: Twinsburg, OH
Favorite Player: Mango Hab
Least Favorite Player: Bob LaMonte

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:22 am

Orenthal wrote:If I'm Gilbert and Penn, I'm looking for the smallest possible amount that would still be acceptable to the majority of the voting public. As many times as I have heard Gilbert, or read Luken, I have heard them mention they did extensive polling of likely voters and retained several consultants and focus groups. The ballot language is a combination of self interest and what was most likely to pass.


I don't blame them for wanting to pay as little as possible.

Orenthal wrote:One aspect of the proposal I really like is that the taxes go directly to local government, thus bypassing one layer of the bureaucracy, and perhaps a reason for the smaller license fee.


I'll agree with this. There may be another reason for the low licensing fee, I dont know as none has been brought up. Considering the number of slot machines that he may have, the tax rate overall is still not what I would expect. Especially for a monopoly. Its a tax rate set by the company, not by the people. And normally I'm the type of person that wants low taxes to help business thrive, but again, things are different with monopolies.

Orenthal wrote:Bottom line Gilbert did his research, asked the people what they wanted in a proposal, and this is was the result. Can't please everyone, and only the vote will prove whether this is the one.


True. I am very impressed with the amount of research the team has put together, and they clearly may have found something that can please a lot of people, and more importantly not displease too many.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:26 am

Swerb wrote:All over but the weeping for you Stu:

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf ... /post.html

Poll shows 59 percent of Ohio voters would vote for casinos

59%-38% for it. Combined poll of Ohio's four largest newspapers.

LET'S GET REEEEEADY TO GAAAAAAAMBLE!!!!



It is not unusual for such measures, like last November's failed proposal for a casino in southwest Ohio, to be up in polling weeks ahead of voting day. And this campaign is being fought fiercely on both sides.


Looks like you read the article about as closely as you read the actual legislation.

Image
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:33 am

Orenthal wrote:One aspect of the proposal I really like is that the taxes go directly to local government, thus bypassing one layer of the bureaucracy, and perhaps a reason for the smaller license fee. Bottom line Gilbert did his research, asked the people what they wanted in a proposal, and this is was the result. Can't please everyone, and only the vote will prove whether this is the one.


Here's proof people don't know anything about the tax rates regarding the casino, and how it impacts their voting:

http://www.cleveland.com/casino/poll/

"From what you know or have heard, do you think this tax the casinos pay is:

Too high: 5%
Too low: 9%
About right: 14%
Know too little to say: 71%
Don't know: 1%
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Ziner » Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:32 am

Stu:Casinos::Souldawg:Quinn
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7063
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:19 pm

Ziner wrote:Stu:Casinos::Souldawg:Quinn

wrong.

love casinos. been to vegas over a dozen times since turning 21, 5 years ago (wouldve been more but there was a 21 month hiatus when i got engaged/married).
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby swerb » Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:04 pm

Image
"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

http://www.twitter.com/theclevelandfan
User avatar
swerb
JoBu's bee-yotch
 
Posts: 17919
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: Twinsburg, OH
Favorite Player: Mango Hab
Least Favorite Player: Bob LaMonte

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:23 pm

Swerb wrote:Image



:tool:


i guess personal attacks and nonsensical posts are all you understand, so I'll just retaliate with something similar. I know I shouldn't stoop down to your level. Hows that saying go? Never stoop down to the level of an idiot because they will beat you with experience. Something like that.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:05 am

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2009/09/issue_3_will_hurt_businesses_n.html
Issue 3 will hurt businesses near casinos, group of restaurants, bars says

Jacob Evans of the beverage association said if Issue 3 passes, surrounding businesses will suffer because gamblers will not leave the casinos -- which would have competing bars and restaurants and other entertainment.
"Some of our fears will be realized," Evans said, "that this actually results in a net loss of jobs in those four cities that would have casinos. They would begin to suck away business and employees from those surrounding businesses."

Pascarella said casinos, outside of Nevada, don't bring in any new business or residents or spur growth for a city or region.
"What we have is what economists call a zero sum game," he said. "One person is a dollar worse off and another person is a dollar better off. But there is no growth, just an exchange of money."
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby swerb » Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:30 am

Image
"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

http://www.twitter.com/theclevelandfan
User avatar
swerb
JoBu's bee-yotch
 
Posts: 17919
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: Twinsburg, OH
Favorite Player: Mango Hab
Least Favorite Player: Bob LaMonte

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:39 am

sorry swerb, i didnt mean to get facts and research in the way of your tacky, pointless, unfunny pictures.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby swerb » Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:44 am

Stu wrote:sorry swerb, i didnt mean to get facts and research in the way of your tacky, pointless, unfunny pictures.

Don't worry, they didn't. :thumb up:
"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

http://www.twitter.com/theclevelandfan
User avatar
swerb
JoBu's bee-yotch
 
Posts: 17919
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: Twinsburg, OH
Favorite Player: Mango Hab
Least Favorite Player: Bob LaMonte

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Thu Oct 01, 2009 11:07 am

Swerb wrote:
Stu wrote:sorry swerb, i didnt mean to get facts and research in the way of your tacky, pointless, unfunny pictures.

Don't worry, they didn't. :thumb up:


at least you admit they are tacky, pointless, and unfunny.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Stu » Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:42 am

http://www.times-gazette.com/news/article/4688301

Amendment would expand casino issue

COLUMBUS -- Voters in Ohio counties or cities would decide whether to allow casinos in their communities under a constitutional amendment proposed by one state lawmaker.

Rep. Dennis Murray, a Democrat from Sandusky, said he introduced House Joint Resolution 4 to further the debate on expanded gambling in Ohio and to question whether state Issue 3 is the right plan for the state. The latter, to be decided by voters next month, would allow casinos at four sites in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo.

Murray's amendment would allow as many as 15 casinos in the state, with locations determined by county populations, according to documents.

If approved by local voters, the casinos would pay taxes of 50 percent on their gross revenues, with 45 percent of the proceeds going to the state's general fund, 20 percent to Ohio counties and 20 percent to school districts.

The remainder would be distributed to the communities where the casinos are located, a state casino control commission, horse racing tracks, law enforcement and gambling addiction services, according to documents.

Locations also would have to pay licensing fees, plus commit to investing $25 million upfront in their casinos, according to documents. And gambling would be restricted to patrons ages 21 and older.

"I felt it was important to put another alternative in the mix and start a discussion about what a better gambling amendment might look like," Murray said, adding, "I think there's support for having a broader discussion. ... I think a lot of people recognize the flaws with Issue 3 and they're trying (to determine) how to respond to it."

HJR 4 would have to be approved by both the Democrat-controlled House and Republican-controlled Senate to appear before voters in November 2010.
Stu
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 2:15 pm
Favorite Player: Eric Wedge
Least Favorite Player: Swerb

Re: Gilbert: 50 Days To Sell Ohioans On Casino Proposal

Unread postby Orenthal » Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:45 pm

Stu wrote:http://www.times-gazette.com/news/article/4688301

Amendment would expand casino issue

COLUMBUS -- Voters in Ohio counties or cities would decide whether to allow casinos in their communities under a constitutional amendment proposed by one state lawmaker.

Rep. Dennis Murray, a Democrat from Sandusky, said he introduced House Joint Resolution 4 to further the debate on expanded gambling in Ohio and to question whether state Issue 3 is the right plan for the state. The latter, to be decided by voters next month, would allow casinos at four sites in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and Toledo.

Murray's amendment would allow as many as 15 casinos in the state, with locations determined by county populations, according to documents.

If approved by local voters, the casinos would pay taxes of 50 percent on their gross revenues, with 45 percent of the proceeds going to the state's general fund, 20 percent to Ohio counties and 20 percent to school districts.

The remainder would be distributed to the communities where the casinos are located, a state casino control commission, horse racing tracks, law enforcement and gambling addiction services, according to documents.

Locations also would have to pay licensing fees, plus commit to investing $25 million upfront in their casinos, according to documents. And gambling would be restricted to patrons ages 21 and older.

"I felt it was important to put another alternative in the mix and start a discussion about what a better gambling amendment might look like," Murray said, adding, "I think there's support for having a broader discussion. ... I think a lot of people recognize the flaws with Issue 3 and they're trying (to determine) how to respond to it."

HJR 4 would have to be approved by both the Democrat-controlled House and Republican-controlled Senate to appear before voters in November 2010.


Say what you want about Issue 3, I find it odd all these lawmakers coming out of the woodwork to pass all this expanded gambling. How the wind blows...
"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."
User avatar
Orenthal
 
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:18 pm
Location: The Midd Heights
Favorite Player: Dan Gilbert
Least Favorite Player: Blacks, Gays, Poor

PreviousNext

Return to No Holds Barred

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron

Who is online

In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests