Should the US have a National Lottery?

[Ebowed]

No.  I support legal gambling, but government sponsored gambling is another matter.

[Ebowed]

Yes. Great way to raise money. Call it the "stupidity tax">

More accurately, it would effectively turn out to be a tax on the poor.

[Ebowed]

Yes, I would vote against a state lottery and it is not only "ultra-conservatives" that oppose them.

[Ebowed]

The election results beg to differ.

Is Kanye West an "ultra-conservative" for deriding lottery tickets in his rap songs?  Are socialists "ultra-conservative" for opposing a tax on the poor?

Stop making stupid arguments.  Shouldn't you be at a gun show or something?

[Ebowed]

Also, BRTD, where are the "ultra-liberal" counties in North Dakota to see how they voted?  You know, the ones that support the Marxist revolution?

[Ebowed]

Why did the most liberal Democrats vote against banning online gambling?

Uh, that's a completely different issue.  I would never vote for an online gambling ban.  (Although Bernie Sanders did.)  This is about a government sponsored lottery.

Why would I go to a gun show?

Because you're a wannabe redneck.

[Ebowed]

Which as I pointed out, is the socialist stance, rather than leaving it up completely to the private sector, which would be the libertarian stance (the social conservative stance is basicaly banning all gambling altogether)

Oh, okay.  Who cares?

I'm not leaving gambling to the 'private sector' - I support regulation and taxation.  The government itself should not be in the business of teasing people with lottery tickets.

I've given my stance and backed it up with very liberal reasoning.  Your only argument is that my position is the "ultra-conservative" opinion.  So, again, who the hell cares?  No one cares about your labels.

Then why haven't I bought any guns and don't plan on buying any guns? Thinking gun control doesn't work doesn't make you a redneck.

You tell us that, but I bet you load your rifle and slowly fight the urge not to blast everyone's heads off whenever you read a post by WalterMitty or one of your other obsessions.

[Ebowed]

My argument is the lottery works for raising money for things such as education and welfare programs which benefits the public.

Lotteries are notoriously corrupt in that regard.  Only a small percentage of the money goes to where it was promised to go to.

If you want social services, raise taxes.  Doesn't matter if it's harder to push for.  It's much more effective.

Hell in RBH's thread you basically said you couldn't understand any rationale for opposing a lottery.

I asked for a rationale to oppose the lottery.  That's very different than saying I can't even begin to comprehend why anyone would do so-- I was simply genuinely curious in the arguments against it, as I hadn't thought about it much before.

Aside from that I have always remembered you as being against gun control. This recent transition to being radically for it and considering anyone who thinks gun control is ineffective is a redneck is a much larger turnaround than anything I've ever done.

I never said I was for gun control.  On a local level, I agree that it doesn't work.  On a national level, restrictions actually have to make sense-- i.e. not based on cosmetics (the assault weapons ban) or restricting civil liberties (preventing "terrorist" suspects from buying them).  This is a moderate and reasonable stance.

On the other hand, you seem to be more in the camp of the "ultra-conservatives."  Oh, yeah, there we go with those silly labels again!