Discussion of California Ballot Initiatives - Page 7

Morrigoon · 02-04-2008, 10:49 AM

I'm mostly suspicious of it because of the sheer amount of money they obviously stand to make from it.* I mean, there was a "vote yes" ad on during the g*ddamn SUPER BOWL. ANY political initiative having that much money poured into it is going to make me suspicious. In light of some of the other crap I've seen them try to pull using initiatives in the past (one gaming initiative would have basically forced the state to automatically renew gaming compacts. Forced.), I don't trust for a second that there aren't things hidden in the text of this one that will serve them a whole lot and the rest of California not at all. Besides, there's enough gambling already in this state. If CA needs more slots, let another tribe open them. At this point, about the only gambling-related initiative I'd vote for would be one that removed the requirement to involve cards in the games (eg: California Craps, and such stupidity).

(*-said with the understanding that there is nothing wrong with people making money, but the sheer amount of money they must stand to make from this, given their investment in it sets off my "shenanigans" alarm something fierce.)

innerSpaceman · 02-04-2008, 11:27 AM

And yes, Alex ... if given the opportunity to vote Robin Hood style on forbidding the sale of an inherited painting for $125 million, I would.

That's not to say I agree such a thing should be up for a vote by me. But if it is, then Errol Flynn will be my guide.

JWBear · 02-04-2008, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

And yes, Alex ... if given the opportunity to vote Robin Hood style on forbidding the sale of an inherited painting for $125 million, I would.

That's not to say I agree such a thing should be up for a vote by me. But if it is, then Errol Flynn will be my guide.

May I ask why you wouldn't allow someone to sell their own property?

Alex · 02-04-2008, 11:30 AM

Cool. No argument with that, we just disagree.

Out of curiosity, do you have any sense of when the line of decency in terms of personal wealth has been crossed or is it like Potter Stewart and pornography?

Kevy Baby · 02-04-2008, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I'd likely agree that it's none of my damn business, but there it is on my ballot. And, this is just me, but I think anyone making $30,000 a month is OBSCENE on its face, and I will vote against that for anyone in the world any time they put such a choice on my ballot.

(Most of the time, I don't get to vote against extreme disproportionate wealth distribution, so I'll thrilled at the opportunity I'll have tomorrow.)

The question aside as to whether 2,100 individuals are receiving $30,000 per month, what makes the number obscene? Is it that no one is allowed to make more than you? (And I do not mean this as a personal jab - I don't believe anyone on this board makes that kind of money.) When does an amount of money become obscene? To a minimum wage worker, $3,000 per month is a lot of money and $6,000 per month ($72,000 per year) may be an obscene amount of money. Is $10,000 per month obscene? Where is the cut-off point?

Personally, I don't believe that any amount of money made by an individual is obscene as long as it is made in an honest fashion and not at the detriment of others. In the case of the Indian Casinos issues, I am not seeing a negative to allowing.

So to me, the issue is about whether the tribes should be allowed to make a choice to expand. Since no one appears to be harmed by allowing the expansion, I see no need to disapprove it unless I want to strip someone of their choice. Wouldn't the liberals be in favor of allowing choice?

innerSpaceman · 02-04-2008, 12:29 PM

Ok, Kevy ... well I don't believe any money made from gambling is made honestly. And I don't happen to believe that selling a painting you did not buy is done honestly.

Your mileage may vary. And yes, I have no predefined red-line of wealth obsenity ... so I only know it when I see it, and only vote on it when someone in government decides I have that right.

I see Indians making 30,000 per month from the weakness of poor schmucks who lose their money in rigged games of chance ... and when those Indians want more money from that immoral (imo) scheme, I will say No if I'm asked.

How nice of them to ask me. Now go fvck yourselves, rich and thieving redskins.

(Yeah, I said redskins ... I'm the LoT racist, remember?)

Kevy Baby · 02-04-2008, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

I'm mostly suspicious of it because of the sheer amount of money they obviously stand to make from it.* I mean, there was a "vote yes" ad on during the g*ddamn SUPER BOWL. ANY political initiative having that much money poured into it is going to make me suspicious.

Then you should be equally suspicious as to why you should vote AGAINST the initiatives as that side too had Superbowl ads and that side is also spending an equally huge amount. And that amount is being spent (largely) by private entities: Bay Meadows and Hollywood Park Race Tracks as well as other Tribes (Pala near San Diego and United Auburn).

Does knowing that affect your opinion?

3894 · 02-04-2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I see Indians making 30,000 per month from the weakness of poor schmucks

Maybe you have me on Ignore, I don't know. The per capitas are not figured in the way you indicate.

In certain ways gaming is fvcking the tribes because it has changed the way that Indians define who is and is not Indian, and all because of money. Gaming is going a long way towards "helping" Indians assimilate the values of the dominant society.

JWBear · 02-04-2008, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

...And I don't happen to believe that selling a painting you did not buy is done honestly....

Why? If I remember correctly, she inherited the painting. It was hers to do as she saw fit. How is selling your own possessions dishonest?

Alex · 02-04-2008, 01:38 PM

I should also clarify that if I were a member of a tribe I would campaign strongly for staying out of large gambling operations as I think in the long run they probably aren't a great idea for the tribe as a distinct entity.

But I'm not and they have decided on that course so I don't feel that even if I'm being given a chance to enforce on them my preferences that it is an opportunity I should have been given..

02-04-2008, 10:49 AM	#61
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	I'm mostly suspicious of it because of the sheer amount of money they obviously stand to make from it.* I mean, there was a "vote yes" ad on during the gddamn SUPER BOWL. ANY political initiative having that much money poured into it is going to make me suspicious. In light of some of the other crap I've seen them try to pull using initiatives in the past (one gaming initiative would have basically forced the state to automatically renew gaming compacts. Forced.), I don't trust for a second that there aren't things hidden in the text of this one that will serve them a whole lot and the rest of California not at all. Besides, there's enough gambling already in this state. If CA needs more slots, let another tribe open them. At this point, about the only gambling-related initiative I'd vote for would be one that removed the requirement to involve cards in the games (eg: California Craps, and such stupidity). (-said with the understanding that there is nothing wrong with people making money, but the sheer amount of money they must stand to make from this, given their investment in it sets off my "shenanigans" alarm something fierce.) __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

02-04-2008, 11:27 AM	#62
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	And yes, Alex ... if given the opportunity to vote Robin Hood style on forbidding the sale of an inherited painting for $125 million, I would. That's not to say I agree such a thing should be up for a vote by me. But if it is, then Errol Flynn will be my guide.
	Submit to Quotes

02-04-2008, 11:30 AM	#64
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Cool. No argument with that, we just disagree. Out of curiosity, do you have any sense of when the line of decency in terms of personal wealth has been crossed or is it like Potter Stewart and pornography?
	Submit to Quotes

02-04-2008, 12:29 PM	#66
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Ok, Kevy ... well I don't believe any money made from gambling is made honestly. And I don't happen to believe that selling a painting you did not buy is done honestly. Your mileage may vary. And yes, I have no predefined red-line of wealth obsenity ... so I only know it when I see it, and only vote on it when someone in government decides I have that right. I see Indians making 30,000 per month from the weakness of poor schmucks who lose their money in rigged games of chance ... and when those Indians want more money from that immoral (imo) scheme, I will say No if I'm asked. How nice of them to ask me. Now go fvck yourselves, rich and thieving redskins. (Yeah, I said redskins ... I'm the LoT racist, remember?)
	Submit to Quotes

02-04-2008, 01:38 PM	#70
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I should also clarify that if I were a member of a tribe I would campaign strongly for staying out of large gambling operations as I think in the long run they probably aren't a great idea for the tribe as a distinct entity. But I'm not and they have decided on that course so I don't feel that even if I'm being given a chance to enforce on them my preferences that it is an opportunity I should have been given..
	Submit to Quotes