Discussion of California Ballot Initiatives - Page 3

Prudence · 01-31-2008, 12:04 AM

I'm just happy that Indian law is now on the WA bar - it's so new that we're all pretty equally disadvantaged, and hopefully I'll get an Indian law question instead of something totally sucky - like corporations.

So if I was there I'd vote yay, give 'em whatever they want.

Of course, if I was there I probably wouldn't be taking the WA bar.

BarTopDancer · 01-31-2008, 11:09 AM

I enjoy Vegas environments in Vegas. But I really don't care if the Indian Casinos build 2000 more slot machines. I still doubt I'd go there.

So a yes vote helps the poor tribes and helps the state. Not seeing the bad side.

innerSpaceman · 01-31-2008, 11:21 AM

I think the Yes Indians are more attractive than the No Indians because they are the ones with money to look good, and the others are still mired in poverty.

Somehow I recall that every benefit for the Yes Indians works to screw over the No Indians. And more money for the state seems good, but I hate gambling and I want it outlawed (says the person who wants almost all drugs legalized). And it bugs me that there's one law for (certain) Yes Indians and another law for all other Californians. Bah on that.

I'm voting with the No Tribe. My spirit animal will do likewise.

Ghoulish Delight · 01-31-2008, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Somehow I recall that every benefit for the Yes Indians works to screw over the No Indians. And more money for the state seems good, but I hate gambling and I want it outlawed (says the person who wants almost all drugs legalized). And it bugs me that there's one law for (certain) Yes Indians and another law for all other Californians. Bah on that.

It may bug you, but that was the deal. We were supposed to give them sovereignty. What bugs me is the two-faced nature that we've treated the supposed "sovereignty" with. Like I said elsewhere, it's either sovereign or it's not.

Strangler Lewis · 01-31-2008, 11:45 AM

I don't like the "It helps the state argument." It's akin to the "Our schools win, too!" argument for the lottery. We should be able to come up with ways to raise revenue other than on the backs of the lower classes, i.e., ways other than lotteries, taxes on state-encouraged gambling and escalating traffic fines.

Alex · 01-31-2008, 11:48 AM

I agree with that. I'm pro-gambling but other than in line with other businesses I am not gambling enriching the state coffers.

I am very much against state run gambling and would happily see the state lottery system dismantled. Not even the mob would consider running gambling operations so tilted as the state lotteries.

NirvanaMan · 01-31-2008, 11:56 AM

The only one I really cared much about was 91. Money for transportation is continually pilfered by the government for non-related spend after initiatives are passed by the electorate with the specific goal of improving transportation and highway initiatives in the state.

I really believe one of the only purposes of goverment is to develop and maintain public infrastructure, specifically roads and highway systems. It is essential to retain those dollars for those purposes. It is also a key concern of many voters in CA so they are willing to pony up a couple extra bucks as traffic continues to be such an issue, especially in LA. It is misleading and downright criminal to then divert said resources into something else be it education or some pork barrel initiative.

Kevy Baby · 01-31-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NirvanaMan

The only one I really cared much about was 91. Money for transportation is continually pilfered by the government for non-related spend after initiatives are passed by the electorate with the specific goal of improving transportation and highway initiatives in the state.

I may be incorrect on this, but I thought that Measure M, which provided transit funds for Orange County, worked out pretty good. As I've said before, I am usually against anything which spends my money (read: bond issues), but I think this was one that actually did what it was supposed to do.

SacTown Chronic · 01-31-2008, 01:40 PM

With Al Gore's greatest invention - the internet (he also invented global warming and space docking; Tipper invented bukkake and the PMRC) - who needs brick and mortar casinos anymore, anyway? You'd be stunned to know how many fish I catch and skin on a regular basis by playing online poker. And with sports betting and casino games also just a click away.....well, I haven't been inside an actual casino in years.

Kevy Baby · 01-31-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

With Al Gore's greatest invention blah blah blah

Ya know, it's hard to take anything you post seriously with that avatar of yours. It's like a train wreck: ya just can't help but look!

01-31-2008, 12:04 AM	#1
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	I'm just happy that Indian law is now on the WA bar - it's so new that we're all pretty equally disadvantaged, and hopefully I'll get an Indian law question instead of something totally sucky - like corporations. So if I was there I'd vote yay, give 'em whatever they want. Of course, if I was there I probably wouldn't be taking the WA bar. __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes

01-31-2008, 11:09 AM	#2
BarTopDancer Prepping... Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Here, there, everywhere Posts: 11,405	I enjoy Vegas environments in Vegas. But I really don't care if the Indian Casinos build 2000 more slot machines. I still doubt I'd go there. So a yes vote helps the poor tribes and helps the state. Not seeing the bad side. __________________ Spork is the new MacGyver Postcards From My Edge
	Submit to Quotes

01-31-2008, 11:21 AM	#3
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I think the Yes Indians are more attractive than the No Indians because they are the ones with money to look good, and the others are still mired in poverty. Somehow I recall that every benefit for the Yes Indians works to screw over the No Indians. And more money for the state seems good, but I hate gambling and I want it outlawed (says the person who wants almost all drugs legalized). And it bugs me that there's one law for (certain) Yes Indians and another law for all other Californians. Bah on that. I'm voting with the No Tribe. My spirit animal will do likewise.
	Submit to Quotes

01-31-2008, 11:45 AM	#5
Strangler Lewis Doing The Job Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: In a state Posts: 3,956	I don't like the "It helps the state argument." It's akin to the "Our schools win, too!" argument for the lottery. We should be able to come up with ways to raise revenue other than on the backs of the lower classes, i.e., ways other than lotteries, taxes on state-encouraged gambling and escalating traffic fines. __________________ Live now-pay later. Diner's Club!
	Submit to Quotes

01-31-2008, 11:48 AM	#6
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I agree with that. I'm pro-gambling but other than in line with other businesses I am not gambling enriching the state coffers. I am very much against state run gambling and would happily see the state lottery system dismantled. Not even the mob would consider running gambling operations so tilted as the state lotteries.
	Submit to Quotes

01-31-2008, 11:56 AM	#7
NirvanaMan Making Change Happen Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 990	The only one I really cared much about was 91. Money for transportation is continually pilfered by the government for non-related spend after initiatives are passed by the electorate with the specific goal of improving transportation and highway initiatives in the state. I really believe one of the only purposes of goverment is to develop and maintain public infrastructure, specifically roads and highway systems. It is essential to retain those dollars for those purposes. It is also a key concern of many voters in CA so they are willing to pony up a couple extra bucks as traffic continues to be such an issue, especially in LA. It is misleading and downright criminal to then divert said resources into something else be it education or some pork barrel initiative.
	Submit to Quotes

01-31-2008, 01:40 PM	#9
SacTown Chronic the myth of the dream Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,217	With Al Gore's greatest invention - the internet (he also invented global warming and space docking; Tipper invented bukkake and the PMRC) - who needs brick and mortar casinos anymore, anyway? You'd be stunned to know how many fish I catch and skin on a regular basis by playing online poker. And with sports betting and casino games also just a click away.....well, I haven't been inside an actual casino in years. __________________ Is it the fingers, or the brain that you're teaching a lesson?
	Submit to Quotes