The Stanford Daily

Opinions





Comments about "No on props 94 through 97"


<< Back to No on props 94 through 97

4 Comments on this article:

Report as: spam offensive Albert Franklin on 2/05/08 at 9am

If you vote "no" on Proposition 94, 95, 96 and 97 then it is actually a "yes" vote. Therefore, if you vote "yes," on the same propositions, then it becomes a "no" vote! Does Stanford have any books which show that California by state constitutional limitations can neither have racetracks lotteries nor casinos becuase those who run them were both caught and admitted to the extermination of the California Superfamily. Say, for instance, the Aztecs wished to expand
their populus they would come to California, and speak with their branch of the Uto-Aztecans and then broaden their base. However, with every branch of the Superfamily exterminated except for those that constituted the 'face' is this why California Native Americans are forced to only dredge up a living via the mafia? Were are the zambos of Palo Alto, Los Altos, Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara County? I plan to vote on everything else, but not these four propositons!

Report as: spam offensive WR on 2/05/08 at 10am

So it's OK for the state government to run a gambling enterprise that has over a hundred thousand "casinos" but not for the Native American tribes who were given the dregs of California's lands on which to live?

If you vote against these then you should also oppose the Lottery.

Report as: spam offensive MW on 2/05/08 at 2pm

The LA times had the opposite endorsement. FYI

Report as: spam offensive Smart Guy on 2/05/08 at 9pm

WR is so dead wrong. California lottery has much higher taxable rate than the new Indian gaming agreements. Those
"self claimed but is actually white" Indians receive hundreds of thousands dollars in check from mail every month by doing absolutely nothing.




(Comments are meant to provide a constructive way for users to interact online. Please keep discussion civil, and refrain from using profanity, personal attacks, potentially libelous language, or hate speech. The Stanford Daily is not responsible for any content that appears in the comment section of its Web site. The Daily is not responsible for monitoring the board or removing comments that could be in violation of the policy. The editors of the non-profit newspaper support a free exchange of ideas, even if beliefs expressed are controversial, but The Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation claims all rights and sole discretion to delete or not delete any post for any reason at any time. If something is posted in the comment section of the Web site, the expressed view should not be understood as an endorsement by The Daily or any of its agents. All comments must comply with the “Terms and Conditions For Use” as set out in the “About us” section of the Web site, or they may be removed. By posting a comment, you attest that the material is not copyrighted and that you are fully relinquishing all rights of ownership to said content exclusively to The Daily while maintaining full responsibility for what you write.)