By downsized

November 4, 2009 7:14 PM | Link to this

Welcome to the dance, Ohioans. My state has more forms of gambling than Vegas. The politicians PROMISED property tax relief and prosperity. Property taxes have zoomed upward. Our stupid, lying, Democratic governor just announced across the board 10% cuts. Correction officers, State Patrol, mental health facilities, child care, education. Nobody was spared. Now, he wants to break union contracts. Oh, but he pledges no new taxes. There is no difference in parties. There is only one party, money. It buys influence, patronage and fuels fools. Your voters just rolled the dice and hit snake eyes.

By vick

November 4, 2009 9:57 AM | Link to this

Wow, Issue 3 passed. Reportedly the voters in the counties that will have the casino gambling pushed this one across the finish line. Kenny Rogers used to say “you gotta know when to fold’em.” Good luck, gamblers!

By H. Lee

November 3, 2009 4:36 PM | Link to this

I’m voting No on 2 and 3, because cruelty and raw greed may be human and all that, but I really think they don’t need to be enshrined in the Ohio Constitution. But my vote will be wasted, of course. People who can make a few more dollars by keeping pigs and calves in lifetime coffins would bitterly resent being told by “the government” to add a few more inches for the cause of humane care. This way, the agri-business folks will be in charge of farming practices as long as Ohio exists. And those who think the casinos will bring jobs, jobs, job, have forgotten, forgotten, forgotten that the same glorious promises were make about the Ohio Lottery. I can still remember being told on TV that if we pass the Lottery, no school levies will ever be needed again. No, with casinos, the rich will get richer, the poor, if lucky, (as insider’s friends tragically were not) will only get poorer, and if the issue should fail this time, it will be back and back and back until it passes. I considered not voting this year, but I remember that when my mom was born, women were still denied the right to vote, and I remember a lot of people went through hell to get me to right to punch that little card, so off I go to do it.

By Alice

November 3, 2009 3:04 PM | Link to this

I agree that while I get sick of all the election advertising, I have really seen the “Yes on 3” ads a lot- and it’s been really noticeable the last couple of days. If a casino is the answer to our financial problems through added jobs and tax revenue, then why did Indiana just have to cut a lot of jobs to stay (barely) in the black and where is all that money in Michigan? The ads talk about all the billions that Ohioans are losing out on because the money is going to Michigan - why is Michigan in worse shape than we are? The ads that really annoy me are the election ads that air on predominantly “black-owned/ran” stations, especially from conservative groups. They’re so patronizing and I wonder if they even realize that they just sound even more like a*holes.

By Jimmy the Greek

November 3, 2009 12:57 PM | Link to this

Limber up those fingers, Vick. You could deal blackjack in Cincinnati when not reviewing books. It probably would pay better.

By vick

November 3, 2009 12:35 PM | Link to this

I just got yet another robo-call telling me to vote yes on Issue 3. Still not one call telling me to vote no. Enough is enough…

By Insider

November 3, 2009 9:04 AM | Link to this

Two people close to me were gambling addicts…one put a bullet in his head…the other went bankrupt…I guess these types of stories are behind the over promo of ‘3’

By irishguy

November 3, 2009 8:48 AM | Link to this

I’ve been undecided about this one. Keeping money in Ohio is good, more jobs are great! Will most of the money still be going out of State? What sort of tax deal will the casinos get? I think most of the smoking gamblers will still go out of state where they can smoke.

By vick

November 3, 2009 12:06 AM | Link to this

Well Scott, and Bill, I just watched the World Series game tonight and I watched and listened to every commercial that was aired on Fox 45 in Dayton from the first pitch until the end of the post-game wrap up. Fortunately, it was a fabulous game so enduring the commercials was not painful as it might have been. While my analysis of the commercial content during this limited period on just one station can hardly be called scientific I did count all the ads for Issue 3, both pro and con. There was one ad against it and there were two for it. And since this was a heavily watched broadcast in our area on the eve of election day I must say that the anti-Issue 3 ads were certainly not blanketing the airwaves on this instance. I’m not convinced that they are running 4 to 1 against Issue 3. The robo-calls are heavily in favor based on the calls I’m getting. $ome big money wants this one to pass…

By Bill

November 2, 2009 9:11 PM | Link to this

The TV ads are definitely weighted toward the No vote. However, I will be voting YES. I think there has been an “overwhelming case” made for it. Jobs, jobs, jobs plus $500MM in annual tax revenue for a state with our struggles is a no-brainer.

By vick

November 2, 2009 7:52 PM | Link to this

Scott, I do have a TV. I’m just getting ready to tune in the World Series. I usually hit the mute button for commercials but I’ll try to keep an eye on the pro and con ads for Issue 3. Thanks, for the heads up.

By Scott

November 2, 2009 7:49 PM | Link to this

Hey Vick, try turning on your TV set, if you have one. The vote NO on Issue 3 ads are outnumbering the YES ads by a 4 to 1 margin. The big bucks from the neighboring states casinos are trying real hard to keep the Buckeye gambling money in their pockets.

By vick

November 2, 2009 6:45 PM | Link to this

“That’s Intelligent”- Issue 3 is not a person, the last time I checked. “Troy Trojan” I never read reviews of books that I plan to review because I want to decide for myself based on my own reading of that book. “Mike 25”-I have never bought a lottery ticket in my life. The last time I inquired I was told that most gamblers were still losers, right? “Dave”-excellent point. “LMJ” -yes, she was one of my robo-callers today. “Faraway” - I have a phone so that people who need to reach me can do so. I was expecting a couple of important calls today to schedule author interviews for tomorrow. Otherwise, I would have turned off my phone. These disruptive pro-Issue 3 calls made it difficult to concentrate on the book review I’m writing AND they tied up my phone line so that the important calls could not get through. Publicists were getting busy signals on my phone. Thanks to Issue 3!

By faraway

November 2, 2009 6:34 PM | Link to this

herd the animals into the casinos and let them bet on Russian roulette…the house is always a winner and we know what’s for dinner. Oh yeah - what exactly does this have to do with what’s a good book to read?

By lmj

November 2, 2009 5:31 PM | Link to this

I’ll bet you got a call from Mary Ellen Withrow. I’ll lay odds.

By Dave

November 2, 2009 5:31 PM | Link to this

I always vote against any amendment unless the proponents have made an overwhelming case for it. They want to change the constitution, so the onus in on THEM to prove it is needed.

By mike25

November 2, 2009 5:22 PM | Link to this

If you don’t mind the exodus of billions of Ohio dollars to surrounding states to gamble, go ahead and vote no. We use to have to go out of state to play the lottery too.

By TroyTrojan

November 2, 2009 4:46 PM | Link to this

So you are “a person who takes an opposing view, esp. one who rejects the majority opinion, as in economic matters.” Why do you even vote? Out of spite? This is exactly the kind of behavior I abhore. You would rather vote against an issue, no matter what it is, if you see or are encouraged to support it more than you are not. I suppose you critique books the same way, where if you hear folks like it you opine negative about it or vice-versa? ALL voters should learn enough about both sides of an issue before making a decision. I guess your vote and mine will cancel each other out then in this instance. Hopefully there are more voters like me than there are of you.

By That's Intelligent!

November 2, 2009 3:55 PM | Link to this

Seems like an ignorant way to decide which way you’ll vote on a certain issue! Using your logic, I shall vote for the next president based on who spends the least on his/her campaign! At least educate yourself on an issue before deciding which way you’ll vote!