How bad would the next attack have to be?

[Gunny]

Trobinet

Let’s think about it for a while.

If you think indian casinos are not a bad thing (and most experts in indian casinos agree with you) then you also agree with me when I say these two things:

1 - Indian casinos must continue to be exempted from taxes (totally or partially, this is a minor issue).

2 – They must continue to have exclusive rights to operate in a specific region.

Everybody knows that without these two measures, indian casinos wouldn’t last two weeks against Trump and company.

Most of them would be shut down and, at best, they would barely survive without fulfilling their purpose: the generation of income to improve the lives of indian communities (I agree with you when you say the communities do not take good advantage of the opportunity but bad with them, worse without them).

And, Gunny, don’t give me “these tax exemptions are bleeding the US economy” bullshit cause I’m just a little retarded, but not much, just a little bit : )

This “argument” is demagoguery at its best.

Tax exemptions for indian casinos is peanuts for the richest nation in the history of mankind.

You seem to be assuming quite a bit, and attempting to parallel unrelated topics.

I don't particlarly view Indian casinos as reparations for real or imagined losses a century and a half ago. I consider it entrepeneurialism and capitalism at its finest -- Indians figuring out a way to make do with and take advantage of what they have. Iwould say that is probably close to a polar opposite to "handouts."

My only question would have to be is, when someone who wins money leaves the casino/reservation, are they THEN required to pay taxes on their winnings?

If so, that hardly seems like a fair standard.

 

[José]

Originally posted by GunnyL
My only question would have to be is, when someone who wins money leaves the casino/reservation, are they THEN required to pay taxes on their winnings?

If so, that hardly seems like a fair standard.

Well, I’m not sure I understood who you meant by “when someone leaves the reservation” (don’t know if it is the indians or the gamblers) but assuming it was the indians, the legal justification for the tax exemptions is the semi autonomous status of reservations.

So, IMHO, indians investing their money in businesses located outside the reservations should pay taxes, although a law student like Avatar can give you a more precise answer.

Originally posted by GunnyL
I don't particlarly view Indian casinos as reparations for real or imagined losses a century and a half ago. I consider it entrepeneurialism and capitalism at its finest -- Indians figuring out a way to make do with and take advantage of what they have. Iwould say that is probably close to a polar opposite to "handouts."

The casinos themselves may not be reparations, but the tax exemptions and the exclusive rights to operate in the region are, plain and simple. The decision to exempt them from paying taxes based on the fact their casinos operate in semi autonomous regions is entirely political and designed to give them an “unfair” advantage.

“Entrepreneurialism and capitalism at its finest” would be Trump and Navajos disputing gamblers in equal conditions.

When indians don’t pay taxes like any other american citizen they are receiving an indirect handout.

Let’s not debate semantics here.

Originally posted by GunnyL
You seem to be assuming quite a bit, and attempting to parallel unrelated topics.

You are the one making all the assumptions here.

Your first post portrayed me as an apologist of the nanny state.

It's quite frustrating cause I have said the following at least ten times, first to CSM and then to you:

1) - I do not support historical reparations for blacks.

2) - I do not support welfare handouts for lazy people.

3) - I do not support affirmative action.

The only kind of historical reparation or government handout (for those who prefer a less politically correct expression) I support is tax exemption for indian casinos and other businesses located on reservations, because otherwise, they would lose them all and then they would really depend exclusively on government handouts cuz they wouldn’t be developping any economic activity on the reservations.

Look... if you want to criticise all these other kinds of government handouts go find someone else to debate with... someone who actually support all kinds of historical compensations, unlimited welfare benefits and affirmative action...

Or do you want me to publically support this extreme position I don’t believe in just for your personal pleasure?

Hell... if I did this then I would be what people on the internet call a troll... : )

 

[trobinett]

If you believe in holding on to the past, then I suppose the tax advantages given to the Indian Nations makes sense.

We won a few battles against the white man, but lost the war. The real bitch of the matter, was all the Lie's.

Read, "Custer died for your sins", its explained pretty well in there.

Some Indians are forever tied to the "reservation", they won't put a period on it, and move on.

Others have opened up, and taken advantage of all the opportunity's to be found in this "new world".

The choice has always been there, some see it, others don't.

The Muslims are faced with similar choices, and they too, are having difficulty in making choices.

So far, the choices that their leaders are making for them, are choices that will lead to their elimination from the face of the Earth.

 

[Annie]

They are held 'nations' thus 'untaxable.'

 

[trobinett]

There you are then, a "held Nation".

Thanks.............

 

[Gunny]

Well, I’m not sure I understood who you meant by “when someone leaves the reservation” (don’t know if it is the indians or the gamblers) but assuming it was the indians, the legal justification for the tax exemptions is the semi autonomous status of reservations.

I was referring to non-indian people who win at the casinos. Obviously, the casinos would be self-defeating if the only revenue they had came from other indians.

So, IMHO, indians investing their money in businesses located outside the reservations should pay taxes, although a law student like Avatar can give you a more precise answer.



The casinos themselves may not be reparations, but the tax exemptions and the exclusive rights to operate in the region are, plain and simple. The decision to exempt them from paying taxes based on the fact their casinos operate in semi autonomous regions is entirely political and designed to give them an “unfair” advantage.

“Entrepreneurialism and capitalism at its finest” would be Trump and Navajos disputing gamblers in equal conditions.

Why? Because you have arbitrarily chosen that venue? If they are making money an idea they came up with, it fits into that category without Donald Trump. You're talking fair competition which is not necessarily mutually inclusive to capitalism.

When indians don’t pay taxes like any other american citizen they are receiving an indirect handout.

Let’s not debate semantics here.

Since we are discussing politics, semantics is a MAJOR player. Call it "reparations" and you set precedent. Call it tax exemption that has existed since the 1800s, and nobody pays much attention to the status quo.


You are the one making all the assumptions here.

Your first post portrayed me as an apologist of the nanny state.

It's quite frustrating cause I have said the following at least ten times, first to CSM and then to you:

1) - I do not support historical reparations for blacks.

2) - I do not support welfare handouts for lazy people.

3) - I do not support affirmative action.

The only kind of historical reparation or government handout (for those who prefer a less politically correct expression) I support is tax exemption for indian casinos and other businesses located on reservations, because otherwise, they would lose them all and then they would really depend exclusively on government handouts cuz they wouldn’t be developping any economic activity on the reservations.

Look... if you want to criticise all these other kinds of government handouts go find someone else to debate with... someone who actually support all kinds of historical compensations, unlimited welfare benefits and affirmative action...

Or do you want me to publically support this extreme position I don’t believe in just for your personal pleasure?

Hell... if I did this then I would be what people on the internet call a troll... : )

You should have left off this last little diatribe since you basically just posted in black and white the hypocrisy of your position. You believe in selective reparations. How quaint.

 

[José]

Originally posted by GunnyL
You believe in selective reparations. How quaint.

Of course I do...

Different ethnic groups in the US, have different problems. And different problems demmand different solutions.

As I already stated and the previous posts by trobinett confirm, american indians living in reservations are much less integrated into american society than blacks.

They want to remain in the communities they were born and don’t want to explore the “new world” as trobinett put it.

The end of tax exemptions would mean the complete destruction of all economic life in the reservations except for bows and arrows sold to whites as souvenirs.

Put the american black population in reservations, isolated from the american society and I’ll support tax exemptions for their businesses too.

 

[Gunny]

Of course I do...

Different ethnic groups in the US, have different problems. And different problems demmand different solutions.

As I already stated and the previous posts by trobinett confirm, american indians living in reservations are much less integrated into american society than blacks.

They want to remain in the communities they were born and don’t want to explore the “new world” as trobinett put it.

The end of tax exemtions would mean the complete destruction of all economic life in the reservations except for bows and arrows sold to whites as souvenirs.

Put the american black population in reservations, isolated from the american society and I’ll support tax exemptions for their businesses too.

Unfortunately, your opinion does not hold with the political reality of the day. Once you set legal precedent for one, the rest can dogpile it.

I don't see indian tax exemption as "reparation" since they have never been awarded reparation; which, is compensation for some wrongdoing. The tax exemption has existed by treaty as long as the reservations have.

I think you're mixing the apples and the oranges.

 

[trobinett]

Of course I do...

Different ethnic groups in the US, have different problems. And different problems demmand different solutions.

As I already stated and the previous posts by trobinett confirm, american indians living in reservations are much less integrated into american society than blacks.

They want to remain in the communities they were born and don’t want to explore the “new world” as trobinett put it.

The end of tax exemptions would mean the complete destruction of all economic life in the reservations except for bows and arrows sold to whites as souvenirs.

Put the american black population in reservations, isolated from the american society and I’ll support tax exemptions for their businesses too.

Well Jose', me thinks your applying a "treaty" point, to a law of the land point.

Let me explain.

ALL Indian Nations were independent, they made separate treaty's with the United States, the LAW'S of the United States DID NOT apply to the Indian Nations, only the stipulations of the treaty.

Because the United States twisted, and lied to the Indian Nations, and never lived up to THEIR side of the treaty, we have this "separate, held Nation" interpretation, that the lawyers are making millions off of.

Any way its spun, the Indians got screwed, big deal, the LOSER always gets screwed, get over it, I have.

 

[José]

Originally posted by GunnyL
I don't see indian tax exemption as "reparation" since they have never been awarded reparation; which, is compensation for some wrongdoing. The tax exemption has existed by treaty as long as the reservations have.

I think you're mixing the apples and the oranges.

Gunny

Since the closing of the indian frontier in 1890, american indians couldn’t even live on a territory as a single people, let alone have economic autonomy. They had to live as individual landowners, each one, in his own separate land.

During this period they lived in conditions that reminds me those of israeli arabs.

From 48 to 67 they lived under military government.

Only when the jewish racial dictatorship felt it was already consolidated the military government was suspended (67) and arabs were granted political rights.

Only during the 30’s native americans started getting a series of rights like self government, partial sovereignty, etc etc

By then, the white racial dictatorship was already consolidated in America and the US government started giving them a series of rights, some of them special, not afforded to other american citizens. This process led to the democratisation of the US during the 60's.

Special rights are generally given to specific ethnic groups as reparations.

But since the legislators didn't sign a document explicitly stating that these special rights they got from 1930 on, like tax exemption, were granted as reparations or not we can continue our debate till kingdom comes without convincing each other, so let’s just call it a day.

Originally posted by GunnyL
Unfortunately, your opinion does not hold with the political reality of the day. Once you set legal precedent for one, the rest can dogpile it.

So very true... : )

 

[Gunny]

Gunny

Since the closing of the indian frontier in 1890, american indians couldn’t even live on a territory as a single people, let alone have economic autonomy. They had to live as individual landowners, each one, in his own separate land.

During this period they lived in conditions that reminds me of israeli arabs.

From 48 to 67 they lived under military government.

Only when the jewish racial dictatorship felt it was already consolidated the military government was suspended (67) and arabs were granted political rights.

Only during the 30’s native americans started getting a series of right like self government, partial sovereignty, etc etc

By then, the white racial dictatorship was already consolidated in America and the US government started giving them a series of rights, some of them special, not afforded to other american citizens. This process led to the democratisation of the US during the 60's.

Special rights are generally given to specific ethnic groups as reparations.

But since the legislators didn't sign a document explicitly stating that these special rights they got from 1930 on, like tax exemption, were granted as reparations or not we can continue our debate till kingdom comes without convincing each other, so let’s just call it a day.



So very true... : )

And going nowhere. You keep repackaging the same stuff and trying to resell it.

And speaking of revisionist history, native Americans have ALWAYS had the right to assimilate. They CHOSE to live on barren land and attempt to perpetuate a life that is dead. And as I stated previously, they have had roughly the same amount of time to assimilate as blacks.

If you are going to insist on calling their tax exemption by treaty a "handout," or "reparation" then I will take the stance that they are undeserving of such.

On the other hand, if you wish to call it one of the terms of a treaty between whatever indians officially call themselves and the US gov't, then it is neither a handout nor a reparation.

You just have to decide what's more important .... the indians being able to have the extra money, or your dishonest stance on semantics that I am quite sure has an as yet to be disclosed nefarious political motive behind it.

 

[José]

Originally posted by trobinett
Well Jose', me thinks your applying a "treaty" point, to a law of the land point.

Let me explain.

ALL Indian Nations were independent, they made separate treaty's with the United States, the LAW'S of the United States DID NOT apply to the Indian Nations, only the stipulations of the treaty.

Because the United States twisted, and lied to the Indian Nations, and never lived up to THEIR side of the treaty, we have this "separate, held Nation" interpretation, that the lawyers are making millions off of.

Any way its spun, the Indians got screwed, big deal, the LOSER always gets screwed, get over it, I have.

Trobi

I haven't seen your post when I posted number 70.

If you don't agree with 70's main points feel free to disagree, and I'll bow to your superior knowledge on native american history.

 

[José]

Let's just call it a day. This thread has already run its course.

 

[José]

Originally posted by GunnyL
You just have to decide what's more important .... the indians being able to have the extra money, or your dishonest stance on semantics that I am quite sure has an as yet to be disclosed nefarious political motive behind it.

Just to conclude...

Native americans using the extra money to improve life on reservations is way more important than our semantic debate: reparations vs terms of a treaty.

That's a no brainer.