- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 17, 2006 at 2:07 am #595009AnonymousInactive
http://www.gambling911.com/Seattle-Times-Online-Gambling-061606.html
Washington Governor Christine Gregoire declares online gambling illegal….and Seattle Times better be careful
It’s true! The Seattle Times is guilty of running an “online gambling promotional” type column by poker pro Daniel Negreanu where he occasionally suggests readers “hone their poker skills at online casinos”. As of this month, suggestions of this type can be considered “illegal” based on the new Washington State law that not only prohibits online gambling, but also prohibits the promotion of such activity.
Pharmacists appear to be next on Governor Christine Gregoire *hit list.
Washington Governor Christine Gregoire, a pro-abortion Democrat, threatened members of the state’s pharmacy board on last week after they approved a limited pharmacist’s conscience clause.
The board said pharmacists should be allow to opt out of dispensing drugs that violate their moral or religious beliefs as long as they refer the customer to another pharmacist or pharmacy.
Pharmacists can opt out of filling the prescription but cannot “obstruct a patient in obtaining a lawfully prescribed drug or device” and must assist the customer in finding a timely alternative.
June 17, 2006 at 7:23 pm #695804AnonymousInactiveWow, um, good point. I guess. Until it devolves into a completely unrelated pro-lifer rant.
Quote:So what have we learned from the current Washington State administration?It’s okay to kill babies, but it’s wrong to gamble online, unless it’s on horses and you can gamble in the state’s land-based casinos.
That’s just embarassingly phrased, embarassingly poorly thought-out, and substantively weakens the writer’s point. Ahem. IMHO.
June 17, 2006 at 8:29 pm #695810AnonymousInactiveSulkyGirl wrote:Wow, um, good point. I guess. Until it devolves into a completely unrelated pro-lifer rant.That’s just embarassingly phrased, embarassingly poorly thought-out, and substantively weakens the writer’s point. Ahem. IMHO.
I was thinking the same thing when I read that. The point of comparison wasn’t made very clear let alone the supporting argument presented was weak. Perhaps I missed the point? lol.
June 17, 2006 at 9:21 pm #695814AnonymousInactiveJune 17, 2006 at 10:20 pm #695820AnonymousInactiveDominique, good post. The comic says it all!
June 20, 2006 at 2:33 pm #696122AnonymousInactiveAnd here’s a followup editorial in the Seattle Times:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003062386_danny15.html
Affiliates take note!
-
AuthorPosts