PDA

View Full Version : Why NO on 94-97?


mblat
01-17-2008, 7:36 PM
What is wrong with indians making more money from gambling?

762cavalier
01-17-2008, 8:17 PM
I don't see anything wrong with them. Looks like a couple of racetrack owners and other casinos are upset that they may make more money than them.

toolman9000
01-17-2008, 8:47 PM
My Grandfather grew up on the reservation, these pacts make four tribes very powerful and puts the rest of California's tribes in the skids. It is a very bad deal for California, there is a better way but this gaming is going to get out of control for the most powerful tribes and they will end up like the Saudis with too much money buying gold toilets and making bad financial decisions which will give future tribal beneficiaries a "reverse welfare" mentality. All the money with no ambition instead of no money and no ambition. The government gave my Grandfathers tribe all they wanted all the time, you know what they do for fun now? They get drunk and burn down new houses for fun - the government just rebuilds them. Free $ all the time no limit.

Moving off the reservation and moving to California and becoming a productive citizen is the best thing he ever did, living on the reservation as a victim forever is not good for anyone.




Number of Tribes/Compacts in California

Total Number of Tribes in California with current Compacts, Request for Compacts, or Petitioning for Federal Recognition, or unknown status: 172

Total Number of Tribes in California that have Federal Recognition: 108

Total number of Tribal-State Compacts in California: 65*

Compacted Tribes that have active gaming facilities: 52

Compacted Tribes that are non-gaming: 13

Total number of Tribes that have Class II Gaming but no compact: 1

Total number of Tribes that have requested a compact from Governor Davis: 13

Total number of Tribes that are petitioning for Federal Recognition: 50

Total number of Tribes that have withdrawn petitions or were denied by the BIA: 7

Total number of Tribes where their status is unknown: 39 (including 32 tribes that are federally recognized with no other status)

*These figures do not include the recent compact signed by Governor Davis for the Ft. Mojave Tribe, since the compact has not been approved by the Legislature.

Tribal Acreage of Federally Recognized Tribes Total Tribal
Acreage in California (97 Tribes): 989,643 acres


*Data compiled from the 2002 Field Directory of the California Indian Community, Department of Housing and Community Development Data from 97 Tribes total out of 108 listed in the Report. Those Tribes that left this item blank or noted 0 in population were not included in the total number of Tribes.

Counties and Tribes
Forty-five counties with Indian Tribes in gaming, non-gaming, petitioning for federal recognition, or proposed gaming.

Twenty-six counties with active gaming in their communities. (Total of 53 Tribes in those 26 counties).

Thirty-four counties with active and proposed gaming. Of those, eight counties have proposed gaming and do not have any current gaming facilities. Total of 78 Tribes in those thirty-four counties that have active or proposed gaming.

Twenty-five counties with tribes that are petitioning for federal recognition. Of those, ten counties do not have any active or proposed gaming in their communities.

One county has a tribe where the status of the tribe is unknown (Alpine).

Fourteen counties with no tribes in gaming, non-gaming, petitioning for federal recognition or proposed casinos: Alameda, Merced, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Sierra, Stanislaus, Sutter, and Ventura.

*Numbers include the June 25, 2003 opening of the Picayune Rancheria Casino in Madera County, and the November 3, 2003 opening of the Lytton Band in Contra Costa County (Class Two Gaming).

Satex
01-17-2008, 9:01 PM
What is wrong with indians making more money from gambling?

Absolutely nothing wrong with Indians making more money from Gambling, BUT its absolutely disgusting to be taxing them MUCH MUCH MORE than regular businesses to make for the shortfalls of our government. Especially since the taxes they will fork out will not pay for serving them. I also find it disgusting to see our LE and FD (citizens +) parading on TV how this bill will be great for paying for them.
I will be voting against these disgusting ballot measures. If the state is in the red, REDUCE EXPENSES (start with welfare).

p7m8jg
01-17-2008, 9:01 PM
thanks for the perspective Toolman9000!

xrMike
01-17-2008, 9:07 PM
What is wrong with indians making more money from gambling?Do Indians even work in these casinos? Or do they just sit back and get a % of the profits?

SemiAutoSam
01-17-2008, 9:14 PM
So if the prop passes they would operate just like the FED.

I'm voting no on those.
No external audits = out of control.

I would honestly like to see it where there is no gambling in California what so ever.




Under the props, they would get to audit themselves. No outside auditors allowed. In Vegas, everything is carefully audited and regulated to keep the casinos honest. Not so in CA, and it's about to get worse.....

I for one don't want the state to get used to a new source of revenue. If you want a smaller State govt, then you got to keep them from getting more money.

Blackflag
01-17-2008, 9:26 PM
So if the prop passes they would operate just like the FED.

I'm voting no on those.
No external audits = out of control.

I would honestly like to see it where there is no gambling in California what so ever.


Exactly. I lived in two other places where gambling was either introduced or expanded. No good comes of it, regardless how they're selling it.

spencerhut
01-17-2008, 9:29 PM
I would honestly like to see it where there is no gambling in California what so ever.

How can you say that? We're all working to restore rights to play with dangerous toys and you are worried about gambling? I say let um' waste their money. I am voting no on the Indian things by the way. It's just not fair, if they can have a casino and get rich off the morons, why can't everyone else have the same opportunity?

Kind of like cops and machine guns. I don't really care if they can have one as long as I can have one too.

toolman9000
01-17-2008, 9:29 PM
...
No external audits = out of control.
...

+1

This gives four tribes the opportunity to screw California and their future generations. The elders would not be proud.

MrTuffPaws
01-17-2008, 9:29 PM
Absolutely nothing wrong with Indians making more money from Gambling, BUT its absolutely disgusting to be taxing them MUCH MUCH MORE than regular businesses to make for the shortfalls of our government. Especially since the taxes they will fork out will not pay for serving them. I also find it disgusting to see our LE and FD (citizens +) parading on TV how this bill will be great for paying for them.
I will be voting against these disgusting ballot measures. If the state is in the red, REDUCE EXPENSES (start with welfare).

+1

....

Linh
01-17-2008, 9:56 PM
Absolutely nothing wrong with Indians making more money from Gambling, BUT its absolutely disgusting to be taxing them MUCH MUCH MORE than regular businesses to make for the shortfalls of our government. Especially since the taxes they will fork out will not pay for serving them. I also find it disgusting to see our LE and FD (citizens +) parading on TV how this bill will be great for paying for them.
I will be voting against these disgusting ballot measures. If the state is in the red, REDUCE EXPENSES (start with welfare).

Okay that makes sense, except the indians want to pass it so they can have more machines. So you're saying that the gov is treating the indians unfairly? It's pretty clear to me that is what the indians want. So it seems that you do think there is something wrong with indians making more money and just using the gov taxes as an excuse.

Currently I care less if these bills pass or fail my dad doesn't work for an indian casino anymore. He works for a non indian place.

I'm undecided at this point since this will increase cali cash while like Sam stated they will be out of control. I also have a friend that works at one of the 4 casino and he stated that the accounting department is corrupt.

Mr. Beretta
01-17-2008, 10:01 PM
If anybody ever got screwed by the government, it was the Indians. They can make more money from folks, who want to throw it away, then so be it.

JMHO

Linh
01-17-2008, 10:05 PM
If anybody ever got screwed by the government, it was the Indians. They can make more money from folks, who want to throw it away, then so be it.

JMHO

Well said also food for thought if anyone here is against indians making money from gambling then to be fair we should make a bill where it would be illegal to gamble in Vegas as well.

Hoop
01-17-2008, 10:48 PM
Do Indians even work in these casinos? Or do they just sit back and get a % of the profits?

They get a % of the profits, how large generally depends on the tribe and how many people are in it.

Personally I hate the idea of Indian Gaming & never vote in favor of it.

Blackflag
01-17-2008, 11:00 PM
Well said also food for thought if anyone here is against indians making money from gambling then to be fair we should make a bill where it would be illegal to gamble in Vegas as well.

This is not 100 years ago. These current folks today have not been screwed by the government any more than you and I (!), and they have just as many opportunities.

Except I can't open a casino.

MrTuffPaws
01-17-2008, 11:01 PM
Well said also food for thought if anyone here is against indians making money from gambling then to be fair we should make a bill where it would be illegal to gamble in Vegas as well.

Save that it is only 4 tribes out of all of them. They are just opportunists that happen to own profitable casinos.

tenpercentfirearms
01-17-2008, 11:03 PM
Man you guys are buying right into the propaganda. They still get audited and they still have to comply with the rules. Read the voter pamphlet. The nice thing is they will not have to go through so many environmental hurdles to build their new casinos. That there makes me want to help them out, screw the tree huggers and the massive amounts of red tape business has to go through to get anything done in this state.

Also the revenues that go into the RSTF (Revenue Sharing Trust Fund) will increase and that money gets spread out to the little tribes that don't have casinos (again, you would know this if you read the voting pamphlet.

So basically the Indians will make out like bandits, the state will get more money, and new jobs will be created without having to go through so much environmental red tape.

So of course liberals want to see this thing get voted down. What else is new? I guess just the fact that so many of you on here are so liberal. :p

xrMike
01-18-2008, 10:00 AM
This is not 100 years ago. These current folks today have not been screwed by the government any more than you and I (!), and they have just as many opportunities.

Except I can't open a casino.These are the reasons I'll be voting NO on the gaming props... No special favors.

Plus like one very smart poster said earlier, you can't reduce a cancer (govt.) by feeding it. You need to cut off its resources and funding wherever possible.

Real conservatives know this, but since real conservatives these days are labelled "crazy" and "unelectable," only :nuts: crazy people will :taz: be voting :nuts: NO :nuts: on these gaming props... :taz: :D

Rhys898
01-18-2008, 10:05 AM
I've never been to an indian casino. But I certainly don't begrudge them the opertunity to make money in that fashion. Better to have legalized, taxed, and safe gambling establishments, than forcing the gambling addict to go underground :)

Jer

PS I was sure I had seen something about independant auditors, I can't imagine the government bending over for something like that. "Sure, we'll give you a percentage of our revenues, but, you can't send in auditors so that you know you are getting your cut, you just have to trust us..." RIGHT, even the demos aren't that dumb.

dfletcher
01-18-2008, 10:36 AM
The government and the Indians working together again - reminds me of a story out of New York.

A few years ago the federal government was upset with the upstate New York Mohawk Indian tribe because they were allowing people to freely enter the US through their tribal lands, which happens to border with Canada.

I imagine there were some phone calls back & forth (picture Bob Newhart talking to Chief Dan George) the jist of which was the Mohawks telling the feds "Listen, if we were any good at keeping people out in the first place you guys wouldn't be here - we didn't know how to do it 400 years ago, why would you think that's changed?"

Just always struck me as funny the feds were asking the Indians to enfore US immigration policies.

DrjonesUSA
01-18-2008, 11:28 AM
What is wrong with indians making more money from gambling?


1) I do not believe that Indians should be recognized as sovereign tribes/countries/whatever. We came here, kicked their butts and took their dirt. If they do not like it, they can either try to take it back from us, move to another country, or STFU and be good Americans.

2) I do not want to give the state the chance to earn any more money. The state of CA stands to gain millions of dollars in tax dollars from these compacts - money that absolutely will be used to ban our guns and ammunition, wirelessly control our thermostats and otherwise oppress and legislate us to death.

I'm voting against all of the gaming propositions for those two reasons.

Rob P.
01-18-2008, 11:41 AM
The biggest problem with these propositions is what they represent. Not the taxes, not the indians, not the reservation, not the poverty level, not even the state economy.

What these propositions represent is a problem with vision. IF you want to have legal gambling in the State of California, then repeal the anti-gambling statutes. If you don't want to have gambling in California, then stop having "exceptions" to the anti-gambling statutes (like reservation casinos)

Anything else is being based on poor understanding of the law, poor vision, poor management, and poor legislative function.

Vote no and either repeal the statutes or start enforcing the laws for ALL californians.

ptoguy2002
01-18-2008, 4:25 PM
****It doesn't matter.
Indian reservations are sovereign nations, and they don't have to do ANYTHING that California residents want or don't want them to do. They can expand and add all the gaming machines they want, and they really don't need California's approval to do it.
Now I don't really care for it, but in the end the tribes will do whatever they want regardless, so if California can get some money from them in an agreement, great, take whatever you can get.

ptoguy2002
01-18-2008, 4:34 PM
The nice thing is they will not have to go through so many environmental hurdles to build their new casinos.

They don't have to go through any environmental hurdles if its not EPA. AQMD districts have no real power on Indian reservations, regardless of any laws that exist to the contrary, or any arguement about spillover.. Yeah, they shine on AQMD by getting air quality permits to build something, but once its built or started, they don't care. "We'll save some money and shut off our SCR now that its running and passed the source test."

Cato
01-18-2008, 4:37 PM
Gambling is a terrible vice: it destroys lives and families. It promises people that they can get rich quick with little or no work.

Enriching Indians by getting non Indians to dump their hard earned cash into a slot machine or on a roulette wheel is just wrong.

These casinos are really owned and run by Chinese folks in Malaysia and similar places: they get the bulk of the profits. The Indians are just being thrown a bone. The Indians are just getting more cash for alcoholism and idleness. We are just facilitating their extinction.

That's why we should vote no in Indian gaming.

DrjonesUSA
01-18-2008, 4:40 PM
They don't have to go through any environmental hurdles if its not EPA.


Hmmm....maybe we can strike a deal with the Indians to have them kill off the rest of the CA condor......

:43:

Patriot
01-18-2008, 4:48 PM
Hmmm....maybe we can strike a deal with the Indians to have them kill off the rest of the CA condor......

:43:

:rofl2:

bbc26
01-18-2008, 4:52 PM
These casinos are really owned and run by Chinese folks in Malaysia and similar places: they get the bulk of the profits. The Indians are just being thrown a bone. The Indians are just getting more cash for alcoholism and idleness.

Where did you get your facts?

Cato
01-18-2008, 5:45 PM
These casinos are really owned and run by Chinese folks in Malaysia and similar places: they get the bulk of the profits. The Indians are just being thrown a bone. The Indians are just getting more cash for alcoholism and idleness.

Where did you get your facts?


You think the Indians are building this "American" gambling empire themselves? They are killing themselves with booze and gov't cheese. I get pissed when I see commercials full of obese, diabetic Indians asking for more gambling. A fellow named Lim Goh Tong began an international gambling empire that is infecting America. Your money on the black jack table isn't paying for John Redcorn's courses at a junior college; no, its going to enrich some Chinese thugs in Kuwala Lumpur. Google "Lim Goh Tong," then track the ownership of the controling interests in Indian gaming.

bbc26
01-18-2008, 6:16 PM
Wow, I guess I have some serious questions to ask tommorrow at my tribe's meeting then.

As far as I knew that money does exactly that, pays for college, healthcare, the building of our community rec center, payroll for the entire administrative staff, including our own tribal enforcement officers, repairs to the roads on the reservation that neither the city, county, nor the feds maintain, and plenty of donations to local schools and the recreation and parks district.


Thanks for the heads up. I gonna have to ask for all the financials from the casino, which is availabe to any tribal member.

Satex
01-19-2008, 7:53 AM
Gambling is a terrible vice: it destroys lives and families. It promises people that they can get rich quick with little or no work.

Old argument, like drugs and guns. Guns destroy lives and families too - so we should take all the guns away from the citizenry - for our own safety - right?
No one put a gun to gamblers heads - they are adults and made the choice themselves. If they can't make the right choices about gambling, how would they be able to make choices about all the other challenges in life?

lawnrevenge
01-19-2008, 8:24 AM
The nice thing is they will not have to go through so many environmental hurdles to build their new casinos.

How's that drinking water in Taft? Can you taste the pesticides from the years of no environmental regulation?
I've worked for several years in the construction industry. I prepared all the environmental reports and plans for many new developments. There are a few places where it has gone overboard, but in general, the environmental regulations were put in place to stop contractors from destroying the environment. Prevent erosion during construction and water pollution afterwards. The only real problem is that the idiots in Sacramento have turned something that took me 1/2 a day to do three years ago into something that now takes at least a week.

EOD Guy
01-19-2008, 8:41 AM
nVegas, everything is carefully audited and regulated to keep the casinos honest.

:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:

11Z50
01-19-2008, 8:51 AM
I live near 2 Indian casinos, Table Mountain and Chukchansi. I go to Chukchansi 2-3 times a month for dinner and a little gaming. For the wife and I, it's cheap entertainment. The restaurants are very nice, food is great, and there's a good selection. We usually get comped for dinner, and I spend a couple hundred playing. Of course, I don't always win, but I have had some good nights!

The reason I mentioned the above is that some of us actually enjoy going to the casinos, and it's not an evil thing. Sure, the Indians don't get all the proceeds, and gambling is a racket, but I don't care. It's entertainment. It's worth a couple hundred $$$ to go out and have a little fun. If you want to talk about a true evil business, let's talk about the oil companies!!!!

I'm voting yes on the props. If the casinos make a buck, that's fine by me. If they pay more taxes, all the better. Maybe it'll keep the tax man's hand out of my wallet as much. As for gov't being out of control, I say it's been that way for years. But that's a whole different rant!

Quiet
01-19-2008, 9:16 AM
Indian casinos.
Allowing the native american to win back the country a nickel at a time. :p

dfletcher
01-19-2008, 9:37 AM
Sorry, don't know who posted the remark about the government getting more tax dollars and becoming even more involved in our lives - more anti gun, dictating behavior - but I think it was right on. Government is like a tumor and it requires lots of money to grow and be strong, and to debilitate its host. Deprived money government will shrink into itself.

This isn't about Indian casinos "and oh BTW, it's OK because they'll pay more taxes". It's about government securing another means of feeding itself and growing stronger.

Why would we want the government to have more $$$?

Quiet
01-19-2008, 9:40 AM
Deprived money government will shrink into itself.
More like...
Deprived money, government will tax the people more.

dfletcher
01-19-2008, 9:50 AM
More like...
Deprived money, government will tax the people more.

Could be. Then we go back to not voting for people who raise taxes. Sooner or later some genius will get the idea that running on low taxes will get them elected.

stator
01-19-2008, 10:09 AM
What is wrong with indians making more money from gambling?

Because I believe in equal rights, if native Americans are allowed to make money by running gambling establishments in California, so should all other Californians regardless of race. This is not the case but really is just modern day affirmative action.

Otherwise, it would be hypocritical to claim that the do-over for SB23 AW registration that only LEO received several years after the registration closed for everyone else.

Equal rights for all, no exceptions.

SemiAutoSam
01-19-2008, 10:26 AM
BINGO the man gets it.

100% my views.




Because I believe in equal rights, if native Americans are allowed to make money by running gambling establishments in California, so should all other Californians regardless of race. This is not the case but really is just modern day affirmative action.

Otherwise, it would be hypocritical to claim that the do-over for SB23 AW registration that only LEO received several years after the registration closed for everyone else.

Equal rights for all, no exceptions.

DrjonesUSA
01-19-2008, 10:56 AM
Sorry, don't know who posted the remark about the government getting more tax dollars and becoming even more involved in our lives - more anti gun, dictating behavior - but I think it was right on. Government is like a tumor and it requires lots of money to grow and be strong, and to debilitate its host. Deprived money government will shrink into itself.

This isn't about Indian casinos "and oh BTW, it's OK because they'll pay more taxes". It's about government securing another means of feeding itself and growing stronger.

Why would we want the government to have more $$$?


That was me, thanks & glad you agree!!!

VOTE NO ON 94-97!!!!!!!!!

Cato
01-19-2008, 12:00 PM
Old argument, like drugs and guns. Guns destroy lives and families too - so we should take all the guns away from the citizenry - for our own safety - right?
No one put a gun to gamblers heads - they are adults and made the choice themselves. If they can't make the right choices about gambling, how would they be able to make choices about all the other challenges in life?


Good point. Let's sell drugs in vending machines at High Schools.
The kids gotta learn responsiblity sometime!

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/crewrt/refreshing.jpg





.

ImpliedConsent
01-26-2008, 9:24 AM
Good point. Let's sell drugs in vending machines at High Schools.
The kids gotta learn responsiblity sometime!


There are age-based restrictions on gambling and the legal drugs (tobacco, alcohol) - other than caffeine.

jamesob
01-26-2008, 4:25 PM
well the way i see it let them make money without all the taxes. you restrict indians and are trying to tell them what to do. its none of our business what they do and how they do it. california put themselves in a financial crisis and are trying to get the indians to help bail them out. let the state suffer and let the business get taxed and force them to shut down and move out of state. the state needs to be in trouble to force change. people will soon realize that theres nothing but a bunch of idiots running this state straight into the ground. i pay my taxes along with millions others in this craphole, the indians shouldnt be forced to pay more so the polititions can keep their jobs.
whoo that felt good to say that.

elSquid
01-26-2008, 7:56 PM
Good point. Let's sell drugs in vending machines at High Schools.
The kids gotta learn responsiblity sometime!


Adults should be allowed to make decisions about how they live their own lives.

Some people have a problem with excessive gambling. Others do drugs. Some eat too much and never exercise. I've even heard of cases where folks amass huge caches of firearms and ammunition. :eek:

-- Michael

Pthfndr
01-26-2008, 8:42 PM
Tom McClintock is in favor of them. From his web blog.

Propositions 94-97 Indian Gaming Compacts: YES! These propositions ratify the compacts that allow four tribes to expand their casinos. I’m not a gambler, but it’s none of government’s business how people spend their money. I’m tired of government restrictions on enterprise, and I’m tired of government telling us what we can and can’t do. And our economy desperately needs the new jobs and investment.

WokMaster1
01-26-2008, 9:17 PM
You think the Indians are building this "American" gambling empire themselves? They are killing themselves with booze and gov't cheese. I get pissed when I see commercials full of obese, diabetic Indians asking for more gambling. A fellow named Lim Goh Tong began an international gambling empire that is infecting America. Your money on the black jack table isn't paying for John Redcorn's courses at a junior college; no, its going to enrich some Chinese thugs in Kuwala Lumpur. Google "Lim Goh Tong," then track the ownership of the controling interests in Indian gaming.

Cato, leave my father out of this. He's not a thug. He's just a hell lot smarter than you'll ever be........
















Kidding about the father part:D I just went to school with his G son-in-law.

Mssr. Eleganté
01-26-2008, 9:32 PM
BINGO the man gets it.

100% my views.

I hope you're not talking about Indian BINGO there Sam.

socalguns
01-28-2008, 1:17 AM
if it wasn't our business, we wouldn't be voting to ALLOW them to have more slots
they have plenty of slots, we're not nevada, thats the way i see it

FortCourageArmory
01-28-2008, 9:27 AM
If that F'ing RINO in the Governor's Mansion is for it, we should probably be against it just on principle.

SemiAutoSam
01-28-2008, 10:28 AM
My thought here is that if Indians get to own/ operate gambling businesses then everyone gets to do it or none do to make it fair.

And you will note that its not just the reservations that they own and operate these businesses on / at.

Any piece of land they own they seem to be able to operate a casino at and if this is true they could populate the state with casinos.

Do you all want California to become like Las Vegas and or Reno ?

IMO Gambling brings crime, Prostitution and Poverty I don't know about you guys but I don't want to raise a family in this kind of environment.


I hope you're not talking about Indian BINGO there Sam. BINGO the man gets it.

100% my views.

Because I believe in equal rights, if native Americans are allowed to make money by running gambling establishments in California, so should all other Californians regardless of race. This is not the case but really is just modern day affirmative action.

Otherwise, it would be hypocritical to claim that the do-over for SB23 AW registration that only LEO received several years after the registration closed for everyone else.

Equal rights for all, no exceptions.

mblat
01-28-2008, 12:17 PM
My thought here is that if Indians get to own/ operate gambling businesses then everyone gets to do it or none do to make it fair.

And you will note that its not just the reservations that they own and operate these businesses on / at.

Any piece of land they own they seem to be able to operate a casino at and if this is true they could populate the state with casinos.

Do you all want California to become like Las Vegas and or Reno ?

IMO Gambling brings crime, Prostitution and Poverty I don't know about you guys but I don't want to raise a family in this kind of environment.

I don't know.... Let's see.... Nevada is shall-issue, NFA , no AW ban nonsense state...........

BTW, question, why gambling brings poverty? I always thought it brings jobs into the service sector, including prostitution?

In general I go to Vegas probably 10 times a year (business) and most I gamble is $20 in airport while waiting for my flight. I would prefer all that billions of dollars Californians spend in Nevada be spent here, locally.

Not to mention it would save gazillion gallons of gas and free up traffic on 15 and adjacent areas.


But I do agree with statement that if Indians are allowed casinos, non-Indians should be allowed to build them too. Otherwise it is just one more affirmative action nonsense.

SemiAutoSam
01-28-2008, 12:25 PM
I guess I'm just not that greedy.

I'm not concerned about where the gambling dollars are spent.

How many kids between 10-20 years of age do you have that are growing up in the vicinity of a casino ?

Anyhow I just don't like the idea of the Crime and other negative elements that tends to come with casinos and hence am voting against these measures.

I don't know.... Let's see.... Nevada is shall-issue, NFA , no AW ban nonsense state...........

BTW, question, why gambling brings poverty? I always thought it brings jobs into the service sector, including prostitution?

In general I go to Vegas probably 10 times a year (business) and most I gamble is $20 in airport while waiting for my flight. I would prefer all that billions of dollars Californians spend in Nevada be spent here, locally.

Not to mention it would save gazillion gallons of gas and free up traffic on 15 and adjacent areas.


But I do agree with statement that if Indians are allowed casinos, non-Indians should be allowed to build them too. Otherwise it is just one more affirmative action nonsense.

troyus
01-28-2008, 12:29 PM
Gambling is a terrible vice: it destroys lives and families. It promises people that they can get rich quick with little or no work.

Enriching Indians by getting non Indians to dump their hard earned cash into a slot machine or on a roulette wheel is just wrong.

These casinos are really owned and run by Chinese folks in Malaysia and similar places: they get the bulk of the profits. The Indians are just being thrown a bone. The Indians are just getting more cash for alcoholism and idleness. We are just facilitating their extinction.

That's why we should vote no in Indian gaming.

Dude, if two people want to do something... like gamble... how does this harm you? Who are you to declare it is a terrible vice or a sin. Didn't your jesus or god say let the one without sin cast the first stone?

People displaying the kind of thought process you display here are the reason you cannot own a .50 BMG in California or an AR-15 without a bunch of junk tacked onto it. Think about that.

Satex
01-28-2008, 5:36 PM
My thought here is that if Indians get to own/ operate gambling businesses then everyone gets to do it or none do to make it fair.

I agree with that 100%

IMO Gambling brings crime, Prostitution and Poverty I don't know about you guys but I don't want to raise a family in this kind of environment.

Again, I find it funny how so many of you 2A and "freedom" supporters are so big on that but you find it easy to regulate things that are not related to 2A and "your" freedoms.

Why does gambling bring crime and prostitution? No one is ever forced to gamble, and if you think we need to regulate it because people can't control themselves - them we should regulate all firearms to the fullest extent for the exact same reasons.

Pepper
01-28-2008, 10:32 PM
It just seems fishy to me that the tribes want to pay more taxes to the state. A better solution is to cut wasteful gov spending instead of look for ways to raise more money to spend. I always vote no against any of these indian props. They get a ton of money every month from the casinos and they just blow it on diamond rings and necklaces and $200 champagne

bbc26
01-28-2008, 11:19 PM
That's odd, I use my money every month to feed my family, put a roof over their head, and put the old lady through school.

So don't pretent you know all of us Indians and where our money goes.

randy
01-29-2008, 2:01 AM
In the short term the increase in tax money will help us out of the problems the Dems have created in this state. In the long run you've just given a junkie more drugs to screw stuff up with.

I like Tom McKlintock but I don't want to give Sacramento any more $$$.

I wouldn't mind so much if they collected our tax $$ and burned it as I do the fact they are using it against us.

jumbopanda
01-29-2008, 3:14 AM
I guess I'm just not that greedy.

I'm not concerned about where the gambling dollars are spent.

How many kids between 10-20 years of age do you have that are growing up in the vicinity of a casino ?

Anyhow I just don't like the idea of the Crime and other negative elements that tends to come with casinos and hence am voting against these measures.

I find it odd that you feel this way, Sam. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you all about personal liberties and keeping the government out of people's lives and out of business? That's the reason you support Ron Paul isn't it? I would have expected you to say that it should be a parent's responsibility to raise their kids properly rather than have the government regulate potential threats to the wellbeing of children. Along with something about letting the free market determine where and how many casinos are built maybe? Never thought I'd see you post a "for the children" type comment. :confused:

ibanezfoo
01-29-2008, 8:38 AM
What is wrong with indians making more money from gambling?

I voted no on all of those, simply because the fine print spelled out the truth. The whole explanation said a bunch of crap about how the state could get more money and then in the very small print at the bottom it said something about a chance that the state would receive no money due to this bill.

-Bryan

45DAVID1
01-29-2008, 8:49 AM
Wow, I guess I have some serious questions to ask tommorrow at my tribe's meeting then.

As far as I knew that money does exactly that, pays for college, healthcare, the building of our community rec center, payroll for the entire administrative staff, including our own tribal enforcement officers, repairs to the roads on the reservation that neither the city, county, nor the feds maintain, and plenty of donations to local schools and the recreation and parks district.


Thanks for the heads up. I gonna have to ask for all the financials from the casino, which is availabe to any tribal member.

I used to work at an indian casino for 7 years. They do give alot to the surrounding communities and local schools. I for one will vote yes on these props. All the tribes had the opportunity to get in on the deal. Some chose to go with it while others chose not to. As fas as the indian casinos being run by the chinese thats a bunch of BS. They are actually being infiltrated by the Mexican Mafia with the younger tribe members. Unlimited money to invest in the drug trade. Google San Manuel and Mexican Mafia.:D

Forever-A-Soldier
01-29-2008, 9:17 AM
A quick background on these props. The tribes in question that are putting this Props up had already nogotiated a compact with the Governor. The agreement was done, but is being challenged because of the interest of a couple of race tracks, Vegas powers and some Unions. (It's always about the money folks, no matter what side you are on.) The Union issue was one of the big sticking points of this. That's why San Manuel's compact was approved and not challenged. S.M.'s Casino has union workers there, the other casinos, effected by this Prop, do not. I'm always suspicious when it comes to Unions shoving their noses into ANY business when the workers themselves are NOT asking them to. Now these couple of groups want to stop what our State government has ALREADY agreed to.

So California .gov had negotiated an agreement with these tribes. Voting "No" will not stop the tribes from having gaming, nor is it going to keep the "Indians" from getting richer. (That is already happening as is.) Voting "Yes" will essentially say that what California .Gov negotiatiated with these tribes is fine with you.

Voting "No" will only delay and reduce the amount of gaming revenue the tribes can generate and share both with the State through taxes (millions of dollars) and also the goodwill they provide for the surrounding communities.

F.A.S. Out

45DAVID1
01-29-2008, 9:21 AM
A quick background on these props. The tribes in question that are putting this Props up had already nogotiated a compact with the Governor. The agreement was done, but is being challenged because of the interest of a couple of race tracks, Vegas powers and some Unions. (It's always about the money folks, no matter what side you are on.) The Union issue was one of the big sticking points of this. That's why San Manuel's compact was approved and not challenged. S.M.'s Casino has union workers there, the other casinos, effected by this Prop, do not. I'm always suspicious when it comes to Unions shoving their noses into ANY business when the workers themselves are NOT asking them to. Now these couple of groups want to stop what our State government has ALREADY agreed to.

So California .gov had negotiated an agreement with these tribes. Voting "No" will not stop the tribes from having gaming, nor is it going to keep the "Indians" from getting richer. (That is already happening as is.) Voting "Yes" will essentially say that what California .Gov negotiatiated with these tribes is fine with you.

Voting "No" will only delay and reduce the amount of gaming revenue the tribes can generate and share both with the State through taxes (millions of dollars) and also the goodwill they provide for the surrounding communities.

F.A.S. Out

San Manuel does have union workers but not as many as you think. The union workers are only the janitors, plumbers and electricians. Just because they say they have union workers doesn't mean that they have a substantial amount of them.

xrMike
01-29-2008, 10:59 AM
Voting "No" will only delay and reduce the amount of gaming revenue the tribes can generate and share both with the State through taxes (millions of dollars) and also the goodwill they provide for the surrounding communities.All good reasons for voting "NO" in my opinion.

1. The govt. doesn't need more money, regardless of where it comes from. If you want a monster to stay small, you don't feed it very much.

2. Free handouts never do anybody any good in the long run.

3. When I am allowed to legally open a casino on my property, I might change my mind about all this, but until then, no special favors for anybody.

Vote NO on all 4 of those buggers.

FortCourageArmory
01-29-2008, 11:03 AM
When I see the RINO Governator pimping a "Yes" vote for these props, it makes me stop and wonder. I don't think it's a good idea to give billions more tax dollars to a state that has proven itself fiscally irresponsible with my money already. Vote "No" all around.

Forever-A-Soldier
01-30-2008, 2:30 PM
Ok.. I can see your point about not giving the State any more money to waste. That is certainly fair. However, you have to remember that the more machines the casinos have (which is what this is about) the more people, like you and me, they can employ. Casino workers get good pay (even the low level employees), benefits, etc. The benefit to the community is quite a bit in grants and donations from the tribes who have casinos. I won't debate the gambling issue, but to just say it is like anything else that can be abused/addicting. Some people can handle it, others can't.

Passage of this bill doesn't effect me personally at all BTW, as my family is not tied to the tribes that will benefit. The tribe we have a connection with already got there compact approved and implemented. So I guess a "No" vote actually helps eliminate the competition... :D

F.A.S. Out

DrjonesUSA
01-30-2008, 6:46 PM
Question:

Since indian tribes are considered sovereign nations/people and the Constitution specifically delegates the right to deal with other countries to the FEDERAL government, isn't CA violating the Constitution by entering into any sort of agreement or negotiating with the tribes?

bohoki
01-30-2008, 6:49 PM
yea whos willing to bet that they wont pony up the 9 billion over 20 years and there is nothing requiring them to comply with that as a minimum figure although i say sure let them pass i dont care if they make it legal to just have the indians pick up visitors to the reservation by the ankles and shake all the money they can out

Satex
01-30-2008, 7:00 PM
Question:

Since indian tribes are considered sovereign nations/people and the Constitution specifically delegates the right to deal with other countries to the FEDERAL government, isn't CA violating the Constitution by entering into any sort of agreement or negotiating with the tribes?

That's a good point which no one that I know really understands. If they have sovereignty, than they don't have to pay the state a single penny. But it doesn't work that way. Are there any members here that understand the framework of Indian sovereignty?

Forever-A-Soldier
01-31-2008, 7:03 AM
That's a good point which no one that I know really understands. If they have sovereignty, than they don't have to pay the state a single penny. But it doesn't work that way. Are there any members here that understand the framework of Indian sovereignty?

Actually I'm probably one of the closest you'll get on this issue. My wife has over 10 years of working with the local tribes down here including deep understanding of gaming laws, federal and state level interaction with tribes including details of sovereignty. We have many discussions on the issue because the independence of the tribes (sovereignty) I find directly related to "our" (non-Native Americans) unalienable rights as declared by our Founding Fathers. To me this issue is all about those rights and the right of self-determination with "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" at the forefront of those goals.

In the 1980s IGRA the "Indian Gaming Regulatory Act" was passed by Congress stating the Native American tribes must negotiate compacts with the respective State Governments as out lined in the Constitution. The Constitution stating that Tribes, States and the Federal Governments are the three sovereign entites. (Article 1, Section 8; US Constitution.) So "Yes" tribes do have the right to negotiate with the State Governments. That is the crux of the issue with the Props, but California law does allow a referendum to attempt to halt ANY law passed by the State Government. (IE we should have gotton off our colective asses and stopped the anti-gun laws, but then we don't have the big money like the racetrack owners and the Unions who are bankrolling the No on 94-97.)

I hope this helps clarify more of the issue for those who are interested. I'm getting more info from my wife later as I want to be accurate in what I post here.

F.A.S. Out

45DAVID1
01-31-2008, 8:29 AM
That's odd, I use my money every month to feed my family, put a roof over their head, and put the old lady through school.

So don't pretent you know all of us Indians and where our money goes.

What tribe are you from and how much is this monthly check you are talking about? San Manuel Indians get $100,000 a month. I believe Morongo gets $20,000 but im not 100% certain. I am positive that San Manuel indians do get $100,000 because I used to work there. I re-read up on these pacts and I will now vote NO. Based on the fact that even with more monies coming in with new machines they still will not pay their employees medical benefits 100%. Supervisors and up get 100% of all their benefits paid for. The average employee starts off at around $9.50 an hour. I worked in the Count Room and an average daily amount that San Manuel brought in was in excess of $4,000,000. Weekends/holidays around $7,000,000. That doesn't count payouts or anything else. One of the Funds that the tribes already contribute to only costs them $300,000 yearly. That is significantly less than what they make in 1 day. Non and small casino's get a $1.1 million yearly check from the profits of the larger casino's. That is still less than what the larger casino's make in 1 day. These agreements need to be rewritten. NO on 94-97!

45DAVID1
01-31-2008, 8:33 AM
Casino workers get good pay (even the low level employees), benefits, etc.

I'm going to call you out on that. BULLSH*T! I worked for 7 years at an Indian Casino. I started off at $8 an hour. After 7 years I was only at $12.39. One year I got a $.07 cent raise. YES, 7 freaking cents! Don't sit here and throw out lies about low level casino workers getting good pay and great benefits! I was going to apply to be a supervisor but I was politely told not to bother because they would not promote me due to the fact that I was in the military. Some BS about me getting delpoyed sometime and them being short a supervisor. They ultimately promoted a hispanic girl. The Manager was black, 2 supervisors were black, and supervisor 1 was hispanic. I'm not saying they denied me because I'm white but it seems that way to me and they just used to military as an excuse. I know I could have fought it because of the Soldier Sailor Relief Act, ETC..., but why fight the same people who put food on my table who can fire you for any reason anytime they want.

GenLee
01-31-2008, 8:42 AM
Man you guys are buying right into the propaganda. They still get audited and they still have to comply with the rules. Read the voter pamphlet. The nice thing is they will not have to go through so many environmental hurdles to build their new casinos. That there makes me want to help them out, screw the tree huggers and the massive amounts of red tape business has to go through to get anything done in this state.

Also the revenues that go into the RSTF (Revenue Sharing Trust Fund) will increase and that money gets spread out to the little tribes that don't have casinos (again, you would know this if you read the voting pamphlet.

So basically the Indians will make out like bandits, the state will get more money, and new jobs will be created without having to go through so much environmental red tape.

So of course liberals want to see this thing get voted down. What else is new? I guess just the fact that so many of you on here are so liberal. :p

My Thoughts exactly......... Well Done!!

bbc26
01-31-2008, 10:35 AM
What tribe are you from and how much is this monthly check you are talking about? San Manuel Indians get $100,000 a month. I believe Morongo gets $20,000 but im not 100% certain. I am positive that San Manuel indians do get $100,000 because I used to work there. I re-read up on these pacts and I will now vote NO. Based on the fact that even with more monies coming in with new machines they still will not pay their employees medical benefits 100%. Supervisors and up get 100% of all their benefits paid for. The average employee starts off at around $9.50 an hour. I worked in the Count Room and an average daily amount that San Manuel brought in was in excess of $4,000,000. Weekends/holidays around $7,000,000. That doesn't count payouts or anything else. One of the Funds that the tribes already contribute to only costs them $300,000 yearly. That is significantly less than what they make in 1 day. Non and small casino's get a $1.1 million yearly check from the profits of the larger casino's. That is still less than what the larger casino's make in 1 day. These agreements need to be rewritten. NO on 94-97!


I am a member of the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians in the Hemet/San Jacinto Valley. First I think you should understand a few things. San Manuel gets so much money because of the amount of members that are recieving checks is so low (less than 100 I believe). And I don't know how their distribution plan is set up. Ours is set up like this. 100% of the profit every month goes to the tribe. Now this is profit, meaning after all the bills and payroll at the casino is taken care of. From that 100%, 75% of it gets distributed evenly to members that are 18 and over with a high school diploma or GED. The other 25% goes into multiple accounts. SOME of which are ecomonic development, higher education, to pay for healthcare (Aetna), payroll for tribal employees (admin, lawyers, public works, tibal security, etc.), youth programs, adult programs, senior programs, all the bills from the tribal offices, rec center, and the lights at our softball and baseball fields.

We've got roughly 650 members recieving checks. So depending on how the casino did that month we usually get anywhere between 12 and 15k.

xrMike
01-31-2008, 10:48 AM
We've got roughly 650 members recieving checks. So depending on how the casino did that month we usually get anywhere between 12 and 15k.That's pretty sweet. Do you have to do any work whatsoever in the Casino, or anywhere else, to get a piece of that pie?

bbc26
01-31-2008, 10:53 AM
Nope. But we do have some policies in place to have it taken away for being less than a "model citizen" while on tribal land.

45DAVID1
01-31-2008, 12:44 PM
Nope. But we do have some policies in place to have it taken away for being less than a "model citizen" while on tribal land.

What percent native american are you?

bbc26
02-01-2008, 3:07 AM
50%

Forever-A-Soldier
02-01-2008, 6:46 AM
I'm going to call you out on that. BULLSH*T! I worked for 7 years at an Indian Casino. I started off at $8 an hour. After 7 years I was only at $12.39. One year I got a $.07 cent raise.

Call BS all you want, but if you compare the Casinos for entry level jobs to such businesses as hotels, fast food, Walmart, theaters, etc.... you'll find that the Casinos pay well on average.

As for your redistribution of wealth plan, well, yes I'm sure the Indians could pay more to their employees. The RICH can always pay more, however, I won't subscribe to that plan. Sorry to hear after 7 years you didn't get far financially. Our experience, and my wife has worked for the tribes for over 10 years, is employess get farther in financial benefits working for Casinos than they would get paid with many other local businesses.

As for your discrimination about being a soldier, you would have been best to have protested that. SM was more than supportive to our family and my wife's need for time off while I was deployed for 18 months. Besides, if the pay is nothing to care for and the benefits suck, you would have had nothing to lose. I bet if you compared your W2s for the year to your counterparts at Target, any major hotel chain, fast food, Best Buy, etc., etc.... you probably made out better than them. If not, well then I concede my point and I'll consider all the dozens and dozens of Casino employees that make GOOD money the anamoly.

F.A.S. Out

AngelDecoys
02-01-2008, 7:11 AM
1) I do not believe that Indians should be recognized as sovereign tribes/countries/whatever. We came here, kicked their butts and took their dirt. If they do not like it, they can either try to take it back from us, move to another country, or STFU and be good Americans. I'm voting against all of the gaming propositions for those two reasons.

+1000 on this. We need to stop catering to conquered people. As quickly as possible they need to integrate themselves into the rest of society. Multi-generations of pandering out of guilt, is not good in my view. Special treatment for any group is bad. Maybe that makes me cold, so be it.

While I could care less about gambling in general, if CA is going to have it, it should be open to anyone to start that type of buisiness. Not just the one special group.

Except for 91, I already voted NO on everything.

xrMike
02-01-2008, 11:04 AM
I don't know about the rest of you, but the TV stations around here have been plastering us with commercials in FAVOR of those 4 props. They're spending lots of bucks to get these props passed. Which of course means they have lots to spend.

Forever-A-Soldier
02-01-2008, 2:21 PM
1) I do not believe that Indians should be recognized as sovereign tribes/countries/whatever. We came here, kicked their butts and took their dirt. If they do not like it, they can either try to take it back from us, move to another country, or STFU and be good Americans.



Well that pesky thing called the Constitution will get in your way. Besides if ANY of you want gambling in California, then get a bunch of people to sign a petition and get it on the ballot so other than Native Americans can have casinos. Then Vegas can go back to being a bus-stop in the middle of nowhere.

F.A.S. Out

DrjonesUSA
02-01-2008, 2:41 PM
+1000 on this. We need to stop catering to conquered people. As quickly as possible they need to integrate themselves into the rest of society. Multi-generations of pandering out of guilt, is not good in my view. Special treatment for any group is bad. Maybe that makes me cold, so be it.

While I could care less about gambling in general, if CA is going to have it, it should be open to anyone to start that type of buisiness. Not just the one special group.

Except for 91, I already voted NO on everything.


Glad you agree!!!

DrjonesUSA
02-01-2008, 2:41 PM
Well that pesky thing called the Constitution will get in your way.


How so?

bohoki
02-01-2008, 4:10 PM
why cant the state just set up toll boths on the entrances of the reservations

pepsi2451
02-01-2008, 8:47 PM
Special treatment for any group is bad. Maybe that makes me cold, so be it.

While I could care less about gambling in general, if CA is going to have it, it should be open to anyone to start that type of buisiness. Not just the one special group.


+1

Native or not we are all Americans and should be treated the same. I'm sick of people *****ing about what my ancestors did to their ancestors.

stator
02-03-2008, 4:50 PM
My thought here is that if Indians get to own/ operate gambling businesses then everyone gets to do it or none do to make it fair.

And you will note that its not just the reservations that they own and operate these businesses on / at.

Any piece of land they own they seem to be able to operate a casino at and if this is true they could populate the state with casinos.

Do you all want California to become like Las Vegas and or Reno ?

IMO Gambling brings crime, Prostitution and Poverty I don't know about you guys but I don't want to raise a family in this kind of environment.


No, I do not want California to become a state dependent on gambling industry like NJ and NV. Equal rights for all, but if we do not want a gambling industry, then no casinos for all.

Pont
02-04-2008, 2:42 AM
+1000 on this. We need to stop catering to conquered people. As quickly as possible they need to integrate themselves into the rest of society. Multi-generations of pandering out of guilt, is not good in my view. Special treatment for any group is bad. Maybe that makes me cold, so be it.

While I could care less about gambling in general, if CA is going to have it, it should be open to anyone to start that type of buisiness. Not just the one special group.

Except for 91, I already voted NO on everything.

You're ignoring the treaties we signed when we took their land. Sure, we could have kicked their asses. Sure we could have killed every last one of them. But we didn't. The government of the USA recognized their tribal independence and generously gave them their own independent land on the *** end of nowhere. Well, at the time it was the *** end of nowhere. Then we found something there that we wanted, so we just took that too.

I'm amazed that pro-2nd amendment people would be so ignorant of our history with the native tribes. They were the original Ruby Ridge. The government wanted their land and took it by force. Many of them actually did what the internet badass brigade talks about -- took up arms against the US government and fought for what was theirs.

Now, not all tribes signed such treaties. But I happen to think that the US government should honor its treaties.

AngelDecoys
02-04-2008, 6:50 AM
You're ignoring the treaties we signed when we took their land. Sure, we could have kicked their asses. Sure we could have killed every last one of them. But we didn't. The government of the USA recognized their tribal independence and generously gave them their own independent land on the *** end of nowhere. Well, at the time it was the *** end of nowhere. Then we found something there that we wanted, so we just took that too.

I'm amazed that pro-2nd amendment people would be so ignorant of our history with the native tribes. They were the original Ruby Ridge. The government wanted their land and took it by force. Many of them actually did what the internet badass brigade talks about -- took up arms against the US government and fought for what was theirs.

Now, not all tribes signed such treaties. But I happen to think that the US government should honor its treaties.

I'm well aware of treaties made, I just don't think they are particulary relevent for the 21st century. Holding onto treaties, many of which were made in the 19th century, does not foster integration for the future of American/indian citizens. Instead it has created/fostered a situation of guilt and dependance with the rest of us, and less upward mobility with members of tribes. It can be argued reservations made sense initially, with many in tribes culturally outside the norm, however that is not the case anymore.

While I do not have an issue with those who generationally choose to live within tribal land, or those who decide to remain purely indian, or choose to stay purely within its own 'cultural distinction,' I do take issue with continuing 'special status' to any group, and then subsidizing it forever.

Ruby Ridge is not a good example as that was over a shotgun 3/8 of an inch too short, and in not honoring a warrant made on Randy Weaver. (Millions spent to enforce a law over essentially $3-400 minor infraction. Gross federal muscle flexing). It was not over land. The Wako compound would have been a better example, if you want to point to a federal power exercise with too much zeal. However, that too was not over land. Regardless, I don't feel guilty over what my ancestors may, or may not have done. Moreover, any guilt (if there is any) should not last forever. 100+ years is plenty.

I recognize you mean to suggest an over aggressive 'federal zeal' towards indian tribes. I don't suggest burning the indians out, or taking their land, or anything else of the sort. I simply suggest we stop giving special status, and stop giving essentially welfare to the group. We can honor treaties, change treaties, or get rid of them for that matter. Whatever makes them EQUAL, or moves them towards 100% integration. Let indians (or any group for that matter) live anyway they like, but without my taxes subsidizing it.

Casinos, if CA is to have them, should be a business ANY person can own, operate, and start-up. And as a business, it should be taxed the same as any other. Otherwise, that is not equal, and I have issue with it. Hense I voted NO on all the bunch except 91.

DrjonesUSA
02-04-2008, 6:36 PM
You're ignoring the treaties we signed when we took their land.

No I'm not. I'm referring directly to the treaties we have with the indians and I believe that they SHOULD BE ignored and declared null and void by us.


Sure, we could have kicked their asses.

We did.


I'm amazed that pro-2nd amendment people would be so ignorant of our history with the native tribes. They were the original Ruby Ridge. The government wanted their land and took it by force. Many of them actually did what the internet badass brigade talks about -- took up arms against the US government and fought for what was theirs.

I'm not ignorant of anything. I'm fully aware of our history with the indians. I simply do not believe that they should be treated as sovereign nations within American borders.

Your Ruby Ridge comparsion is not at all accurate: the govt. didn't want Weavers' land, they suspected him of illegally possessing a short-barreled shotgun.

Further, the indians were not American citizens at the time that we came here & kicked their butts.
Weaver and his family were all American citizens.

I respect the fact that some indians might have fought for their dirt, but at the end of the day, we won.

It may not be "nice" or "fair", but the world is rarely nice or fair.


But I happen to think that the US government should honor its treaties.

So do I, but only when said treaty is in the best interests of the United States of America.

I do not believe that having a bunch of "sovereign nations" within the borders of the US is in our best interest.