CA DUers. Where do you stand on Props # 68 & 70. The gambling

[maveric]

initiatives. The bombardment TV ads have me confused.
Whats hidden in these propositions?

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

1. I'm voting for both.

That's on principle (I am a gambling, drugs, and prostitution legalizin' fool). 68 seems a bit "sleazier" to me than 70, but I don't think either will pass. It's a good idea IMO to reject Ahhnold's endorsements across the board.

[mitchtv]

6. biggest funder of 68 is a canadian

race track owner- I say keep gambling and Indian owned thing and on the reservations

[fob]

2. I vote straight opposite the gropenator! Especially since ahnold

likes to talk about getting a "fair share" from the "indian special interests" yet has not a fucking thing to say about the real special interests that he deals with. Can you say Enron?

Edit: I like the way you think Sh0rtbus!

[Sequoia]

4. No, and No

because Ahnold, you brainless freak, the "Indians are not ripping up off". Read OUR history because you can't even get your's right...commie tanks rolling through Austria indeed.

He wants us to vote for these Props because he said in his dopey ads "let me deal with them", like we're as brainless as he.

[mitchtv]

7. he is against both

.

[mitchtv]

3. I am for #70 it allows expansion on reservations

68 is a dead no . it allows card rooms and racetracks to have casinos(non indian) Groper is against both " the Indians are ripping us Off" said he. He hopes to extort more money from the Indians in order to expand. He is not against expansion, he just wants to pay our debt off the Indians' hide

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

16. My identity is tearing me to shreds over this

As a person with clear but undocumented Indian ancestry (as well as an honorary tribe member in Mexico) I am all for keeping the monopoly on the rez. I love to see the indigenous people having a crack at destroying white society, be it through gambling or the coca leaf. It is simply poetic justice that the white man's own weaknesses may eventually lose him this half-millennium-long struggle. This side of me says yes on 70, no on 68.

But, as the grandson of a Jewish poolhall owner and cardroom-runner who was run out of business by anti-Semitic, corrupt Chicago cops in the fifties--pushing my family into a state poverty that most never escaped--I say TO HELL with all laws based on Protestant morality. Let the goody-goodies eat poker chips. There should be a liquor store with slots on every corner, right in their face. If gaming is what you are good at you should be able to run your business. (What exactly do they do on Wall St., by the way, if not gambling?) If the business does so much supposed damage, tax it extra to fund homeless services, like polluters fund clean-ups. As I said in reply #1, I am staunchly libertarian on the gambling issue. This side of me says yes on both, even though it seems contradictory.

In any case, my vote is a protest vote, since I am assuming neither proposition will pass.

[Gregorian]

5. Prop 68 supporters abandoned it. See my link

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/07/GAMING.TMP

The backers abandoned it.
As for prop 70, SFGate suggests a NO vote, and that's what I'm doing. Another link-
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/13/EDGRV98MOH1.DTL

In fact, check out their stance on all of the issues-

http://www.sfgate.com/endorsements/

[Jack_Dawson]

8. SF Chronicle is Repuke

SJ Mercury is Dem

[Gregorian]

11. It is? With Mark Morford as a columnist?

I thought the Chron was repub, as well. But having read Morford, I have to say, I am a bit confused. It doesn't get much more liberal than Morford.



Thanks. I forgot about SJ Merc.

[Jack_Dawson]

12. Even the SD Union-Trib has a Liberal columnist or two...

gotta keep it interesting, after all. But trust me SJ Merc is the liberal paper of record in the Bay Area.

[maveric]

14. Is the Examiner the liberal paper in SF?

I always thaought that the Chronicle was a left leaning paper.

[David__77]

9. No on 68, yes on 70.

68 is a ruse by non-Native American gambling interests. 70 would uphold the sovereign rights of Native Americans to run their reservations as they see fit, and provides that they pay a tax equal to the corporate tax rate, no higher.

[John BigBootay]

10. No on both--

CA Democratic Party says No on both-- and I believe while they lossen some restrictions they also reinforce monopolies.

I think the first poster has it wrong in voting yes-- if he's a legalizing fool, he should vote no so as to disallow the provision that if you pay 25% of your net wins, you can maintain your monopoly.

[orwell]

13. No on both - n/t

[idiosyncratic]

15. I already voted No on both of them n/t