Want to be a millionaire? Vote in Arizona!

kelticwizard wrote:

I can believe that you are opposed to a lottery. What I don't believe, and nobody believes, is that if by some coincidence you won a million dollars in one, that you would refuse the money.
......
....
Get off your high horse, okie. You're not fooling anyone. You would take the money, like anyone would.

I told you more than once, keltic, I don't play the lotteries. I never have, so I won't win any. You can have the lotteries, go ahead buy your tickets I don't care.

I don't care if you believe it or not, keltic. I am comfortable with it. For the umpteenth time, I do not play the lottery. They are ripoffs. I know lots of people that don't play the lotteries, because they feel as I do.

Lotteries are a huge draw on the economy, sucking millions out of the economy, that could be spent on more worthwhile pursuits, things like baby food, formula, insurance, a better car, a whole host of things, keltic. Don't get me started on lotteries. They are promised as a pot of gold at the end of rainbow, but for the vast majority of people, and for the government, they are nothing more than cash drains on families and the economy as a whole. So when a politician proposes a lottery to get us to vote, it is nothing more than an insult.

I repeat, I do not play the lotteries, and I do not wish to win a lottery. Get over it.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I told you more than once, keltic, I don't play the lotteries. I never have, so I won't win any.

Ah, but if an Arizona-style law is passed in your state, every time you vote you would be in the lottery without asking. And if your name came up, you would have the million dollar prize offered to you.

And you are trying to seriously tell us that if that happened, you'd turn your back on the money because you are THAT opposed to lotteries?

Baloney.

The reason you are telling us this hooey, okie, is that you whole line of argument on this forum is as the Great Moralizer. That's how you argue virtually every issue. We all have morals, or at least most of us, but we do compromise now and then. That is to say, if we don't really like something, but it pays off big time for us, most of us will bend and take the cash unless the thing in question is just horrible. That's just being human.

The lottery issue is a case in point. There are a lot of people who oppose it on principle, but if it happened that they found themselves entering one by virtue of their voting without being asked, and they won a lifetime's income, they'd take the money.

But if you admitted you'd take the money-and you would take it-suddenly your position as the A2K Moralizer gets harder to maintain. So you make these perfectly preposterous statements about how you don't want their "dirty money" and you would walk away which absolutely nobody reading this believes, so that your online persona may live to moralize to us again. And again. And again.

0 Replies

Who would be paying for this lottery? I thought a lottery involved people buying tickets, from which prize winners got their money? Are they now going to charge people to vote, or is this not really a lottery, but the state handing out prizes for voting from a drawing comprised of voters? As I've already said, I think this would, or at least should be unconstitutional, so if such a law was instituted and I happened to win, I think it would shake up the politicians to give the money back, write a letter explaining why they can keep their lousy bribe, publish the letter in all the newspapers, and then take them to court.

Frankly, keltic, I am sick of blood sucking politicians offering bribes to people for the sole reason that they can get into office.

0 Replies

olie wrote:

As I've already said, I think this would, or at least should be unconstitutional, so if such a law was instituted and I happened to win, I think it would shake up the politicians to give the money back, write a letter explaining why they can keep their lousy bribe, publish the letter in all the newspapers, and then take them to court.

Like hell you would. If you won that drawing, the only place that money is going would be into whatever combination of savings accounts, money markets, investments and luxury items you might have had a hankering for.

I really don't know who you are fooling, okie. You are not turning down the money. The only thing you are doing is providing much amusement for the readers of this thread as they watch you try to maintain your A2K persona as the Great Moralizer when you are confronted with a situation where you would have to admit you would bend your principles somewhat if the reward was great enough.

We all make those tradeoffs. Stop putting yourself above the human race.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

olie wrote:
As I've already said, I think this would, or at least should be unconstitutional, so if such a law was instituted and I happened to win, I think it would shake up the politicians to give the money back, write a letter explaining why they can keep their lousy bribe, publish the letter in all the newspapers, and then take them to court.

Like hell you would. If you won that drawing, the only place that money is going would be into whatever combination of savings accounts, money markets, investments and luxury items you might have had a hankering for.

I really don't know who you are fooling, okie. You are not turning down the money. The only thing you are doing is providing much amusement for the readers of this thread as they watch you try to maintain your A2K persona as the Great Moralizer when you are confronted with a situation where you would have to admit you would bend your principles somewhat if the reward was great enough.

We all make those tradeoffs. Stop putting yourself above the human race.

Arrogance on display here for all to see. Not only do you have all the right opinions according to you, but now you are trying to tell me what my opinion is, or what I would do.

You want to pay voters to vote. Great platform to run on Keltic, whatever it takes to win, throw ethics out the window. You are a lib for sure, you keep proving it over and over.

So if I am against paying voters to vote, and assert I would not accept money to vote, I am a moralizer. Great reasoning, keltic. I think you could use a little morals.

0 Replies

Okie, it is not arrogance to call a cock-and-bull story a cock-and-bull story, and that is what you are handing us right now.

Do you seriously believe that anyone here is buying your scenario of being offered a million dollars from a drawing of voters in the state, and instead of taking it you'd make a public display of refusing it in an effort to change the law?

But if you admitted you would do the human thing and take the money despite misgivings about the law itself, you would reveal yourself as being human and capable of compromising your principles under certain circumstances, which we all are.

In one of your earlier posts, you tried to act surprised that anyone would even consider taking the million if they were opposed to the law. As if you couldn't conceive it would even cross their mind. Talk about pouring it on thick.

I really don't know who you think you are kidding.

0 Replies

You have amused me with your opinions, but actually you and your opinions are becoming fairly disgusting as you continue to defend bribery for votes. If you were in Congress, I suppose you would be one of the crooks that would vote for a bill if somebody paid you off. That is in fact what the Abramoff scandal is about. That is a crime. And here you have the gall of proposing such practice to become everyday legal standard practice for citizens when they vote. And you have the gall to pretend to be all knowing about what I would do with the million. If its a dollar or a million, makes no difference, the principle should be the same. If I don't take a dollar, than I should not take a million. I find your opinions increasingly disgusting keltic.

0 Replies

Okie:

Your use of the word "bribe" is deceiving. What is being proposed is not a bribe, but a prize.

A bribe is something somebody specific pays in order to get something back, for instance, a construction company paying members of a legislative committee under the table in order to get lucrative public road construction contracts. Generally, bribes are paid in secret.

Not so with a prize. In this case, the list of people of people who voted are put into a drawing, one name is drawn and the prize of one million dollars is given to that individual. Nobody knows who the individual even voted for, so it can hardly be construed as favoring one candidate over another. The process is not done in secret, quite the opposite: the legislature passes the bill setting up the drawing, the drawing will likely be shown on TV, the name made public, and reporters and TV cameras will be there when the lucky voter collects the prize. Obviously, this is about as far from a bribe as you can get.

Which is why it is simply impossible to believe your scenario of turning down the money in order to protest the process. As stated previously, there are circumstances where I would walk away from a million dollars. I'll even give you credit and say there are circumstances where you would walk away from a million dollars. What is not believable is that this is one of those circumstances where you would, even if you opposed the law.

To turn down a lifetime's average income, which a million dollars is, the source of the money has to be ghastly. Simply being opposed to the law is not enough-the source has to be worse than that.

You are not turning the money down. The law might not be to your liking, but it is the law, the process was above board and it cannot be so much against you liking that you refuse the money.

What you are doing here is posturing-saying that if you're opposed to something, to whatever degree, great or small, you would not even think of benefitting from it. Life does not work like that. People don't work like that.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

there is already a voter roll lottery in my state, its called jury duty.

Same here. And on that note, I think I like the idea because I know damn well some people don't vote to avoid that lottery. Might just even things out a little.

Sorry Okie, my eyes rolled. :wink:

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

kuvasz wrote:
there is already a voter roll lottery in my state, its called jury duty.
Same here. And on that note, I think I like the idea because I know damn well some people don't vote to avoid that lottery. Might just even things out a little.

Sorry Okie, my eyes rolled. :wink:

I'm sorry too. First of all, jury duty is not a lottery. A lottery, according to the definition in my dictionary, involves a drawing among people buying a chance, whereby the winners of the drawing receive prizes. I am not aware that you purchase getting your name on the jury duty rolls and that jury duty is a prize. Add to this the only thing you get out of jury duty is to serve your civic duty, lose time at work or otherwise, and receive a small reimbursement for your expenses, which is probably less than it costs you to do it.

Lets see now, we have at least keltic, kuvasz, and OCCOM BILL that are in favor of becoming voter prostitutes. Who else would like to register their political propensities concerning this issue?

0 Replies

Want to be a millionaire? Vote in Arizona!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know