Discussion of California Ballot Initiatives

[innerSpaceman]

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?)

[3894]

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.

[Alex]

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..

[JWBear]

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]

Originally Posted by JWBear

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?

The painting was from looted from her uncle's estate looted by the Nazis during the annexation of Austria.

She fought for decades to get the paintings taken from her uncle's estate (she is one of three heirs) returned and was finally victorious in 2006 when an Austrian judge required the Austrian museum that possessed them had to return them to her.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Alex

The painting was from looted from her uncle's estate looted by the Nazis during the annexation of Austria.

She fought for decades to get the paintings taken from her uncle's estate (she is one of three heirs) returned and was finally victorious in 2006 when an Austrian judge required the Austrian museum that possessed them had to return them to her.

Thank you for the clarification, Alex.

My question for IsM still stands. The painting legally belonged to her. Why was it dishonest for her to sell her own property?

[Alex]

I didn't mean to offer any invalidation of the question just to provide the fuller history in case it mattered to anybody.



Steve, beyond simply disagreeing with you, has anybody here accused or implied racism on your part that you feel the need to pre-emptively cloak yourself under it's mantle?