Reason #24 to VOTE NO on ISSUE 3
CLICK THIS TEXT TO VISIT THIS BLOG'S CURRENT SITE
From Gambling Online Magazine:
Poker fans swap sex for cash.
It has always been said that everyone has their price. According to a recent pokerstars survey that price is $2.3 million.
Apparently, more than half of the US population would swap a healthy sex life for a healthy bank balance made from an online poker win. And even more surprising than that is more men would do the celibacy swap for cash than women, however men did have a higher price for the trauma. The Women asked said they would settle for no sex for a year for an average of $1.9 million, the men asked for $2.3 million.
We always knew money and sex were Man’s favorite things, but until now sex has always won. Perhaps it’s the added adrenalin rush of winning the money at an online poker game that has swung the vote. However, I remain unconvinced. It’s fine in theory, but deprive a man of sex for a year and who knows what will happen…
When people desire money over sex, you know it's a bad proposition.
Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3:
Reason 25
Reason 26
Reason 27
Reason 28
Reason 29
Reason 30
Reason 31
Reason 32
Reason 33
Reason 34
Reason 35
Reason 36
Reason 37
Reason 38
Reason 39
Reason 40
Reason 41
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50
Reason 51
Reason 52
Reason 53
Reason 54
Reason 55
Reason 56
Reason 57
Vote no on Issue 3 (Ohio Learn and Earn).
JBlog Me
11 Comments:
Whoa, Jill! You've hit below the belt! You're taking these guys on with no holds barred!
Daniel, now that the PD has endorsed Issue 3, I'll be going full guns. There's a lot of info I've held back because it's just so unsavory and controversial and difficult to get anyone to speak about. Screw it. Issue 3 is a #*$&%# rotten idea. As soon as my husband gets home, I'm telling him that I want to cancel the PD subscription.
Shalom Jill,
I think you should go a step further and demand a refund for at least the last year.
B'shalom,
Jeff
What is that saying about a woman's wrath?
Furthermore, I'm going to find out how much it costs to put an ad in the PD and I'm going to publish a complete fisking of Issue 3's amendment language. It is the most horrific, unlawful, inapplicable (as in, it can't even be applied it's so full of contradictions and lack of clarity) piece of garbage I've ever read. Whatever individuals will claim that they contributed to how it's written not only should be ashamed of themselves, they should be disbarred and fired from any jobs that require them to act as lawyers.
Have you read the thing?
Totaly and utter FEH.
Wow, the PD should know better, but so should a lot of other folks.
Tom, I say this as a lawyer and an Ohio citizen, if even the most senior name partner at Jones Day handed in that amendment to a client, the client would refuse to pay the bill and demand a re-draft. It fails to accomplish even what it purports to accomplish. It is a terrible, terrible piece of legal writing and has NO place in the constitution. No matter HOW beneficial, and even if I DID support gambling as something to have in Ohio. Seriously - the Ratners can do better and I'm shocked, SHOCKED that they wouldn't have insisted on a better piece of writing. Clearly, they do not expect to be living in Ohio under that constitution but only reaping the money that it will bring them.
Did you read about how W. VA officials who oversaw the legalization of gambling there said, and I quote, that Ohio's being ripped off? That we should be getting $200 million for licensing fees, not only $15million?
Sick, totally sick. I guess when you have as low collective self-esteem as Mayor Frank Jackson, Jimmy DiMora and even Stephanie Tubbs Jones seem to be projecting that Cleveland and Cuyahoga County has, then you don't expect people to give you anything near to what you really should be getting.
I am, literally, beside myself with anger over that endorsement. It is absolutely without merit.
AND, coup de grace - it's above the endorsement for Betty Montgomery, the co-chair of the Vote no on Casinos committee!!! What irony.
hmmm... paying people money not to have sex. Sounds like Issue 3 is more of an anti-prostitution ammendment than anything else. And who would be against that?
The previous was courtesy of the GOP-Spin-Machine. The views expressed are not necessarily those of the author, his relatives, or rational people in general.
Your first sentence? That assumes that you regard the acts received and given via a prostitute as even a modicum of what some of us would accept as "sex." :)
No offense to the prostitutes that read this blog intended.
Please let me expose a newspaper that backed issue three with an even more brainless editorial than the PD: "The Sandusky Register." Their entire argument boiled down to: every other state around Ohio is doing it. So if the other states jump off the proverbial cliff? No doubt, the "Register" will urge us "monkey see, monkey do."
Kudos to the "Tiffin Advertiser-Tribune" for correctly advising voters to cast "no" ballots for Issue 3.
Thanks for the info on endorsements, Danial. Very interesting.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home