Then you and your calculator both completely missed the point together.

Obvious because you don't like it when D's are criticized. I'm sure votes have been bought on both sides of the aisle. This time it is, obviously, the dems.

I'm sure they are satisfied, their satisfaction is not the issue. The issue is that the legislation was designed to help Indians, not millionaires. Yet they are using loopholes in the legislation to reap multi-hundred million dollar windfalls. Funny how when the R's "help the rich" through legislation they're evil, but when the D's do it there's all kinds of excuse making. Like here.

Do you see those words typed by me anywhere on the screen? What's that you say? You don't? Then I guess you have your answer.

Come on admit it, you're grasping at straws. What else is new. This has nothing to do with Indians since the legislation would not have impacted their profit margins at all and instead would have prevented multi-miilionaires from getting huge windfalls they weren't designed to get. Something you dems say you support...at least until it's a D doing it. Then it's a complete 180.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

You wish I was a democrat it would make your whole diatribe more honorable. I am not defending anything democrats have done.

Is it so hard for ya'll to understand I have no allegiance to either political party. They are all corrupt in my eyes. They have designed a system where things like this take place on a daily basis.

The fact that lobbying/payola is the norm when a bill is on the floor is only obvious.

So far I got it, democrats stopped legislation that would not make an investment into reservation gambling so appealing and ergo lucrative. Republicans however are kind and generous supporters of the underdog and only concerned about the fact that the investors are getting a larger percentage than the tribe. If they hadn't guaranteed such a high initial investment they (the tribe) wouldn't be getting the amount of profits they are getting now.

What am I missing?

I’m sorry I thought this was about the legislation, if it was just an opportunity for one crooked political party to point at the other then your right I guess I missed the whole point? My bad!

__________________
There are only two things wrong with this great nation of ours, democrats and republicans!

Not necessarily in that order.

Wonder how much Reid has gotten out of it.

Guess I've just missed your attacks on the dems. On the other hand, I did see excuses about R's controlling government when they didn't have enough to override a veto as well as general excuse making.

That the legislation was not created to benefit the investors to that extent. They still make a handsome profit and the line would be long to sign up. But money from D lobbyists prevented that. It was a loophole not meant to be exploited and was prevented from being closed.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

I'm disgusted by yet another example of special interests winning the day, but this is an interesting one.

For instance, why is the deal the government's business? Particularly because Indian tribes are technically sovereign nations -- which is why they can set up casinos in the first place. If this were anyone but Indians or Democratic contributors, wouldn't conservatives be saying the government has no role here?

I would have supported the McCain bill that would guarantee most proceeds go to the tribe. given the terrible history of Indian business arrangements. But there's no escaping the fact that it was more than a little paternalistic. If the tribes want to make bad business deals, isn't that their business?

__________________
Man up.

They are "autonomous" not "sovereign"

Thus the Federal Government had a direct role to play here..

In many respects, they are treated as sovereign nations.

My main point, though, is this: Do you philosophically support the federal government's right to stipulate who can receive the profits of a private business arrangement?

If not, why do you care what deals an Indian tribe enters into?

The only legitimate government roles I can see are:

1. Ensuring that Indians aren't merely being used as a front for non-qualifying individuals to operate a casino under the Indian exemption;

2. Making sure the businesses operate legally and pay their taxes.

__________________
Man up.

Sounds like someone is pissed that the good ole Repubs didn't get their hands in the cookie jar first.

I don't understand why you are upset Reb since Repubs are known for big business and industry.

Peace.

__________________
E.Pluribus Unum

People of power have NO good will and people of good will have NO power.

If you think Education is Expensive try Ignorance.

Its weak too speak and blame somebody else when you destroy yourself.

Since the Federal Government basically decided that they could even run a casino to begin with I think its fair enough that they can also make sure what that casino is generating is used or whatever in the manner assumed.
So #2.


Personally I think all the Reservations should be deemed void. I see no reason for them... never have.

But it wasn't a matter of federal generosity; it was a matter of Indian reservations' unique legal status. Basically, we couldn't legally prevent Indians from running casinos. The best we could do was lay out some rules for their operation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_...Regulatory_Act

They exist because they represent the results of legally binding treaty agreements between sovereign nations: the United States and whatever Indian tribe or federation they were negotiating with. Those treaties are still in effect.

Yes, we have since granted citizenship to Indians, and imposed some rules on how they interact with the rest of the country. And their sovereignity has limits (they can't mint their own money, for instance, and the federal government has law enforcement powers on tribal land). But that doesn't change the fact that reservations are, legally, tiny sovereign nations in many ways.

A lot of people don't understand the background of Indian legal status, and that leads to a lot of ill-conceived ideas about them.

__________________
Man up.