Prop 68 - Page 4

Steven · 10-06-04, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamarquez

I believe Crime will go up....DUI's, Abuse, stealing, ect..

Similar things occur when drinking is legal.

jamarquez · 10-06-04, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven

Similar things occur when drinking is legal.

Yeah i know but wouldn't you THINK that more of this will occur if casinos occur more closer to city by our homes and schools?

Steven · 10-06-04, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamarquez

Yeah i know but wouldn't you THINK that more of this will occur if casinos occur more closer to city by our homes and schools?

Perhaps. It is difficult to balance freedom and safety.

jamarquez · 10-06-04, 11:45 PM

I guess Keng didn't know what to say after I asked him....

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamarquez

Keng, can you tell me WHY you are going to vote yes? You heard about 3-4 of us why we will be voting NO on it....I will like to hear a YES man. If you want

And I real wanted to hear what he had to say about the issue.

jamarquez · 10-06-04, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven

Perhaps. It is difficult to balance freedom and safety.

True, i will agree with you a bit with that comment. But on a personal level steve I don't want more casinos being built right now...maybe later but now is not the time, we will have a hard time.... California has alot on it's plate right now

Anyways... as always it was a pleasure talking with you today and I will talk to you later.

Good Night

Steven · 10-06-04, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamarquez

True, i will agree with you a bit with that comment. But on a personal level steve I don't want more casinos being built right now...maybe later but now is not the time, we will have a hard time.... California has alot on it's plate right now

Anyways... as always it was a pleasure talking with you today and I will talk to you later.

Good Night

Good night. I have to study.

Keng · 10-07-04, 06:54 AM

Heh, I don't stay on board 24/7 like you do. Like I said before in other thread, I am all for state government get more income to help with the budget.

xkai · 10-07-04, 08:16 AM

Governor Schwarzenegger's main point of opposition to Proposition 68 is that he recently "signed new Indian gambling compacts with representatives of five California tribes in a deal that's estimated to bring in at least $1 billion for the current budget and annual payments afterward of between $150 million and $200 million a year." (AP)

What does Proposition 68 mean for this agreement? Its annulment.

Coincidentally, has anyone bothered to read the info about Proposition 68 in the voter guide that was mailed out about 2 weeks ago? I have to say, the Proposition 68 opposition is doing a wonderful campaign of fact distortion.

jamarquez · 10-07-04, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keng

I am all for state government get more income to help with the budget.

Ok i see so then you are just looking at one thing ? Money? what about the other issues that will come with it...I suggest you look at it again from a different side. Not just $$$.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xkai

Coincidentally, has anyone bothered to read the info about Proposition 68 in the voter guide that was mailed out about 2 weeks ago? I have to say, the Proposition 68 opposition is doing a wonderful campaign of fact distortion.

What do you think? I think they are doing a great job and I have read the
voter guide. I'm a Poli-Sci major, PLEASE! The people who are distorting the facts are the people working on "yes on 68"

**zoedragon** · 10-07-04, 11:41 AM

Personally it seems like that BOTH sides are distorting things to their advantage. It's what campaigning is all about. The Anti-68 campaign implies that voting yes on this ballot is saying yes to a huge influx of massive gambling sites all over California, right next to schools and parks. On the other hand, the Pro-68 campaign implies that Indian tribes are freeloaders who are sitting on their rich fat asses and doing nothing to help California while they reap the benefits of their casinos. Even the flash intro of the pro-68 website represent the tribal casinos as these quickly expanding buildings that grow into uncontrolled skycrapers.

It's all about exaggeration, and each side is guilty of it. Yes casinos will be allowed in California if 68 passes, but only in the 16 predisgnated areas. Yes the tribes currently have a monopoly on gaming, but they already volunteer a percentage to the state, in addition to helping to support the smaller tribes who have no casinos. Yes some of their casinos are kinda big, but I've seen them and they look more like ranches than towering crowds of Las Vegas-like structures.

Keng · 10-07-04, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamarquez

Ok i see so then you are just looking at one thing ? Money? what about the other issues that will come with it...I suggest you look at it again from a different side. Not just $$$.

Other issues don't really bother me so those don't really matter.

**zoedragon** · 10-07-04, 01:32 PM

Prop 68, if passed, would result in increased revenue for the state, but at what cost? The state has already made agreements and there are ongoing negotiations in progress. This proposition would not only end all negotiations, but also nullify the previously made agreements. Basically this prop is saying, "Forget about all the agreements you made before, THIS is how it's going to be!" What a slap in the face. I personally wouldn't stand for it. There are more civil ways to get things accomplished.

jrdonson · 10-07-04, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoedragon

Prop 68, if passed, would result in increased revenue for the state, but at what cost? The state has already made agreements and there are ongoing negotiations in progress. This proposition would not only end all negotiations, but also nullify the previously made agreements. Basically this prop is saying, "Forget about all the agreements you made before, THIS is how it's going to be!" What a slap in the face. I personally wouldn't stand for it. There are more civil ways to get things accomplished.

I concur! You, Zoe, a gentlewoman and a scholar!

James

xkai · 10-07-04, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamarquez

What do you think? I think they are doing a great job and I have read the voter guide. I'm a Poli-Sci major, PLEASE! The people who are distorting the facts are the people working on "yes on 68"

What does your major have to do with being politically aware?

Keng · 10-08-04, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xkai

What does your major have to do with being politically aware?

Haha exactly...

**zoedragon** · 10-08-04, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrdonson

I concur! You, Zoe, a gentlewoman and a scholar!

Aww shucks, I'm just expressing my opinion like everyone else here.

**PandaMoOo** · 10-08-04, 10:16 AM

Isn't the political science major an oxymoron? Politics seems to be more closely to the arts, and acting, then scientific principles. hehe.

jrdonson · 10-08-04, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoedragon

Aww shucks, I'm just expressing my opinion like everyone else here.

But I agree with you. I'm just glad that you have achieved my state of enlightenment :P

James

**zoedragon** · 10-08-04, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PandaMoOo

Isn't the political science major an oxymoron? Politics seems to be more closely to the arts, and acting, then scientific principles. hehe.

Heh, true. I guess in theory government can be like a science. You have this body controlling that body, elected by these other bodies. I can see that part being scientific. However reality is a completely different story. There's nothing scientific about real life politics!

xkai · 10-08-04, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PandaMoOo

Isn't the political science major an oxymoron? Politics seems to be more closely to the arts, and acting, then scientific principles. hehe.

Actually political science has quite a bit of math...especially game theory...to the extent that it is considered an applied form of it. The discipline really isn't the study of "politics," it's more of a study of power and the balance and means of attaining it, and predicting the future given current information and models. It's kind of the antithesis of history where you study the past to understand the present...rather you study today to predict tomorrow.

10-07-04, 08:16 AM	#68 (permalink)
xkai Newcomer Joined: Oct 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 41	Governor Schwarzenegger's main point of opposition to Proposition 68 is that he recently "signed new Indian gambling compacts with representatives of five California tribes in a deal that's estimated to bring in at least $1 billion for the current budget and annual payments afterward of between $150 million and $200 million a year." (AP) What does Proposition 68 mean for this agreement? Its annulment. Coincidentally, has anyone bothered to read the info about Proposition 68 in the voter guide that was mailed out about 2 weeks ago? I have to say, the Proposition 68 opposition is doing a wonderful campaign of fact distortion. __________________ It is impossible to be pretend to be something without becoming what you pretend to be.

10-08-04, 10:16 AM	#77 (permalink)
PandaMoOo GCP.com Admin Joined: Aug 2004 Location: Mission Viejo, CA Posts: 401	Isn't the political science major an oxymoron? Politics seems to be more closely to the arts, and acting, then scientific principles. hehe. __________________ -PandaMoOo- www.GradeCalPoly.com

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Prop 1D squeaks by, gives millions to Cal Poly	Cal Poly Bot	University Newsletters	0	11-08-06 11:41 AM
Prop. 86 to affect smokers	Cal Poly Bot	University Newsletters	0	10-25-06 11:53 PM
The Lesser-Known Props.	xkai	General Discussions	26	11-04-04 10:51 AM
ASI Special Announcement: Election Day is Nov. 2 (E-Mail)	Admin	Network	0	10-28-04 10:10 PM
Prop 70	jayandbutton	General Discussions	3	10-21-04 03:49 PM

10-07-04, 06:54 AM	#67 (permalink)
Keng Guru Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 597	Heh, I don't stay on board 24/7 like you do. Like I said before in other thread, I am all for state government get more income to help with the budget.

10-07-04, 11:41 AM	#70 (permalink)
zoedragon Fire-breather Joined: Mar 2004 Location: Inglewood, CA Posts: 668	Personally it seems like that BOTH sides are distorting things to their advantage. It's what campaigning is all about. The Anti-68 campaign implies that voting yes on this ballot is saying yes to a huge influx of massive gambling sites all over California, right next to schools and parks. On the other hand, the Pro-68 campaign implies that Indian tribes are freeloaders who are sitting on their rich fat asses and doing nothing to help California while they reap the benefits of their casinos. Even the flash intro of the pro-68 website represent the tribal casinos as these quickly expanding buildings that grow into uncontrolled skycrapers. It's all about exaggeration, and each side is guilty of it. Yes casinos will be allowed in California if 68 passes, but only in the 16 predisgnated areas. Yes the tribes currently have a monopoly on gaming, but they already volunteer a percentage to the state, in addition to helping to support the smaller tribes who have no casinos. Yes some of their casinos are kinda big, but I've seen them and they look more like ranches than towering crowds of Las Vegas-like structures.

10-07-04, 01:32 PM	#72 (permalink)
zoedragon Fire-breather Joined: Mar 2004 Location: Inglewood, CA Posts: 668	Prop 68, if passed, would result in increased revenue for the state, but at what cost? The state has already made agreements and there are ongoing negotiations in progress. This proposition would not only end all negotiations, but also nullify the previously made agreements. Basically this prop is saying, "Forget about all the agreements you made before, THIS is how it's going to be!" What a slap in the face. I personally wouldn't stand for it. There are more civil ways to get things accomplished.