Discussion of California Ballot Initiatives

[Alex]

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?

[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?

[Morrigoon]

Kevy: admittedly I did not watch the Superbowl long enough to see the other side's ad. But I don't consider myself swayed by the opposition's ads either. I just go based on knowing what "now" is, versus my suspicion of whatever changes someone is trying to make. Of course someone always stands to profit, no matter what happens, but it isn't profit that scares me, it's profit motive - in other words, if someone is trying to CHANGE something, and I don't know enough about it to know what kind of changes we're talking about.

In general I don't trust any ads regarding political initiatives because, much like campaigns for candidates, they make broad promises of what will happen without telling me the details of how it is supposed to be accomplished. So you really never know what you're voting on, even though you're given the impression of having a "say" in the system. And given that the likelihood of any voting majority in this country actually going to the trouble of looking for and interpreting the actual text of an initiative, I think that activists of any nature know they can promise that Initiative X will do Y, and people will vote based upon that statement, even if Initiative X basically declares that the state will now be run by the Intergalactic Federation with Senator Palpatine installed as Emperor-for-life, and claim Y says that we're voting to put more money into schools and save fuzzy bunnies from absolute annihilation by Vogon bulldozers.

[Kevy Baby]

Following the title of the thread, does anyone have comment on Proposition 92: the "Community Colleges. Funding. Governance. Fees. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute."? (The link is to the CA Secretary of State web site on the issue.)

I haven't had a chance to research it properly and I was hoping someone had some insight (one way or the other).