p>In a capitalist society, arguments based on CORPORATE GREED are meaningless. Everything we get, from radishes in the grocery store to ribbons and sleigh bells, we get as a result of CORPORATE GREED. Profit is how it works.
<
p>Isn’t the question whether the dogs are being mistreated or not? If so, does that requires legal remedy? If so, is this ballot initiative the best way obtain that legal remedy?
<
p>Otherwise tutting about CORPORATE GREED is like tutting about dirty axle grease or the inconvenience of traffic lights.
joetssays
but if it wasn’t for CORPORATE GREED we wouldn’t have stuff like prescription medications, cars, planes, or TV that isn’t state-run.
<
p>Methinks however, that if a evil, greedy racetrack wanted to make more money, they’d have healthy dogs. It’s way more expensive for a firm to constantly be buying new equipment than to maintain what they have. How’s that for some GREEDY CORPORATE thinking?
kbuschsays
JoeTS for Racetrack Operator!
Let Joe Go to the Dogs in 08
Arf! Arf!
dcsohlsays
“It’s way more expensive for a firm to constantly be buying new equipment than to maintain what they have.”
<
p>As a rule of thumb, that’s generally true. But getting new dogs is pretty cheap. Put a male and a female in the same cage, and you’re there. Feed the pups until they’re old enough to race, and there you go. Ready to replace the parents the moment something happens to them. And cheaper than veterinary bills (which I can attest can be damned expensive, particularly when they are of the emergency variety).
<
p>So, yes, for something like a car, taking care of it is cheaper than buying a new one when you run the first one into the ground after only 20,000 miles. But for dogs… if you don’t give a damn about any single dog, it’s cheaper to let nature take its course.
joetssays
which means there’s going to be a period of time where that dog is not producing any revenues and costing you money. I really just can’t see any economical way that not taking decent care of your dogs isn’t the best course.
To their “owners” racing greyhounds are short-term investments.
<
p>Like all investments, they seek to secure the highest return while incurring the least amount of cost.
joetssays
It’s nonsensical to invest the kind of capital to raise a dog and train it to a level where it’s going to competitively race and have it be a short term investment.
stomvsays
[and by no means do I agree with the tenor of kara]
<
p>Everything we get is not a result of corporate greed. We get lots from government, and that’s not corporate greed. We buy plenty of products from small businesses, which I wouldn’t call corporate and many of which don’t exhibit the callous greed we’ve seen from the big companies. Greed and profit aren’t synonymous, and many things we “get” are a result of community action and interest in our fellow man, not corporate greed.
<
p>Just sayin’.
kbuschsays
I was being too dramatic.
<
p>Appeals against “corporate greed” may be useful politically. As an analytical tool, it’s not a fruitful concept.
<
p>Yes, we get love, snowplows, sewage treatment, summer nights, and community softball leagues all without corporate greed.
Isn’t the callousness of big companies just a result of their bigness? They’re farther away from those affected by their decisions and closer to the spreadsheets calculating ROI.
<
p>What’s interesting to me is Google’s “Do No Evil” business model. There are some ways that the system rewards virtue.
kbuschsays
Sorry I came down so hard on you on your first comment at Blue Mass Group. Maybe I should have been more gentle.
An editorial in the New Bedford Standard-Times presents the argument that I believe is central to the discussion of Question 3. Greyhound racing is an industry that is sinking deeper into the corporate welfare system, and this ballot question is a way to end the suffering of dogs and Massachusetts taxpayers.
<
p>
Two greyhound tracks remain open: Raynham Park, right here in Bristol County, and Wonderland Greyhound Park in Revere.
Money gambled at the tracks has declined substantially in recent years, dropping 37 percent in Raynham and 65 percent in Revere between 2002 and 2007. Officials from both tracks have said they will go out of business soon without state intervention, and they are asking for slot machines to shore up their revenue.
<
p>The editorial continues:
<
p>
Raynham Park owner George Carney’s own testimony at a legislative hearing last year revealed how tracks would fare without state help: “I’m telling you there’s no money left in the racing. If you want to keep us going, you’ve got to give us the slots,” the Boston Globe quoted him saying.
So without slot parlors, the dog tracks would fail. And why bail them out?
<
p>If I want to watch greyhound races, I’ll sit alongside the Mass Pike.
The rap about how many dogs die each year is silly. How many more dogs are killed by owners who let their dogs run all over the streets and get hit by cars? who’s more irresponsible, race dog owners or average joe? If we loose the tracks we will be taking a step back from ever having casino’s in this state. Lets face it the added tax base could bail out our state and boost the job market.
Every years racing dogs are injured because of CORPORATE GREED.
<
p>This is not about jobs this is about treating DOGS with RESPECT and kindness.
<
p>Please vote YES on Question 3!!
<
p>http://www.protectdogs.org/ind… for more info
Our economy runs on CORPORATE GREED.
<
p>In a capitalist society, arguments based on CORPORATE GREED are meaningless. Everything we get, from radishes in the grocery store to ribbons and sleigh bells, we get as a result of CORPORATE GREED. Profit is how it works.
<
p>Isn’t the question whether the dogs are being mistreated or not? If so, does that requires legal remedy? If so, is this ballot initiative the best way obtain that legal remedy?
<
p>Otherwise tutting about CORPORATE GREED is like tutting about dirty axle grease or the inconvenience of traffic lights.
but if it wasn’t for CORPORATE GREED we wouldn’t have stuff like prescription medications, cars, planes, or TV that isn’t state-run.
<
p>Methinks however, that if a evil, greedy racetrack wanted to make more money, they’d have healthy dogs. It’s way more expensive for a firm to constantly be buying new equipment than to maintain what they have. How’s that for some GREEDY CORPORATE thinking?
JoeTS for Racetrack Operator!
Let Joe Go to the Dogs in 08
Arf! Arf!
“It’s way more expensive for a firm to constantly be buying new equipment than to maintain what they have.”
<
p>As a rule of thumb, that’s generally true. But getting new dogs is pretty cheap. Put a male and a female in the same cage, and you’re there. Feed the pups until they’re old enough to race, and there you go. Ready to replace the parents the moment something happens to them. And cheaper than veterinary bills (which I can attest can be damned expensive, particularly when they are of the emergency variety).
<
p>So, yes, for something like a car, taking care of it is cheaper than buying a new one when you run the first one into the ground after only 20,000 miles. But for dogs… if you don’t give a damn about any single dog, it’s cheaper to let nature take its course.
which means there’s going to be a period of time where that dog is not producing any revenues and costing you money. I really just can’t see any economical way that not taking decent care of your dogs isn’t the best course.
To their “owners” racing greyhounds are short-term investments.
<
p>Like all investments, they seek to secure the highest return while incurring the least amount of cost.
It’s nonsensical to invest the kind of capital to raise a dog and train it to a level where it’s going to competitively race and have it be a short term investment.
[and by no means do I agree with the tenor of kara]
<
p>Everything we get is not a result of corporate greed. We get lots from government, and that’s not corporate greed. We buy plenty of products from small businesses, which I wouldn’t call corporate and many of which don’t exhibit the callous greed we’ve seen from the big companies. Greed and profit aren’t synonymous, and many things we “get” are a result of community action and interest in our fellow man, not corporate greed.
<
p>Just sayin’.
I was being too dramatic.
<
p>Appeals against “corporate greed” may be useful politically. As an analytical tool, it’s not a fruitful concept.
<
p>Yes, we get love, snowplows, sewage treatment, summer nights, and community softball leagues all without corporate greed.
Isn’t the callousness of big companies just a result of their bigness? They’re farther away from those affected by their decisions and closer to the spreadsheets calculating ROI.
<
p>What’s interesting to me is Google’s “Do No Evil” business model. There are some ways that the system rewards virtue.
Sorry I came down so hard on you on your first comment at Blue Mass Group. Maybe I should have been more gentle.
An editorial in the New Bedford Standard-Times presents the argument that I believe is central to the discussion of Question 3. Greyhound racing is an industry that is sinking deeper into the corporate welfare system, and this ballot question is a way to end the suffering of dogs and Massachusetts taxpayers.
<
p>
<
p>The editorial continues:
<
p>
<
p>If I want to watch greyhound races, I’ll sit alongside the Mass Pike.
<
p>
If three fails, the dog tracks will continue to want to be bailed out with slots. I prefer to remove the temptation for corporate welfare.
<
p>Dog racing is a dying industry. I’d rather pull the plug on it than risk the state dumping money in to artificially prop it up.
The rap about how many dogs die each year is silly. How many more dogs are killed by owners who let their dogs run all over the streets and get hit by cars? who’s more irresponsible, race dog owners or average joe? If we loose the tracks we will be taking a step back from ever having casino’s in this state. Lets face it the added tax base could bail out our state and boost the job market.