Fairweather

Seek help, asshole.

So you think government-approved churches are the way to go, eh? Kinda like...China?

Probably their 501©3 status.

Huh? The people of CA passed an initiative against allowing gay marriage. The CA supreme court threw it out. Judicial activism, IMHO. I would like to see the issue stand on its own merit.

If he tortures the constitution long enough, it will tell him what he wants to hear.

OLYMPIA -- Gov. Chris Gregoire is benefiting from more than $650,000 in campaign contributions from Indian tribes that hit the jackpot in 2005 when she killed a gambling compact potentially worth more than $140 million a year to the state. Unlike 22 other states that collect millions from revenue sharing agreements for tribal gambling, Washington gets no money from tribal casinos under the compact that Gregoire renegotiated with the Spokane Tribe. Gregoire backed away from the 2005 agreement that included revenue sharing in an attempt to keep gambling from expanding too quickly and after listening to concerns from a wide range of groups, including other tribes, said her spokesman, Pearse Edwards. But gambling experts say the state's arrangement, which gives the governor power to approve or reject gambling agreements with the tribes and allows those same tribes to contribute to political campaigns, is ethically problematic but not illegal. "It's a payoff," said University of Nevada-Las Vegas professor William Thompson, who has been studying tribal gambling since 1988. "She shouldn't take any campaign money, nor should her political party, and it smells too quid pro quo for my liking." Even Gregoire's fellow Democrats in the Legislature question the deal. "Why would you give someone a monopoly without taking a cut?" asked Sen. Ken Jacobsen, D-Seattle. The bulk of the tribal campaign contributions came from tribes that opposed the 2005 agreement Gregoire killed. The governor's spokesman said "there is no quid pro quo." "We are required under federal law to negotiate with the tribes on a government to government basis," Edwards said. "Regarding the potential revenue, the tribes employ tens of thousands of people across the state, mostly non-Indian, who are providing nearly a billion dollars in wages and benefits. They've contributed millions to local governments for local infrastructure programs. They contribute millions to charities. The list goes on and on," he said. "They contribute over $100 million to health and education programs around the state." The final compact negotiated by Gregoire included a provision that allowed other tribes to expand casino operations without revenue sharing. Twenty-seven of the state's 29 federally recognized tribes signed on to the Spokane compact's provision. Not all of them operate casinos. State tribes have pumped more than $600,000 in campaign contributions into the state Democratic Party since 2004, which in turn contributed to Gregoire's campaign. Tom McCabe, executive vice president of the Building Industry Association of Washington, which has contributed heavily to Gregoire's Republican challenger, Dino Rossi, said the incentive is obvious. "Politically, they can't afford to have her lose," McCabe said. "So they are going to have to spend whatever it takes to have her win. They know if Rossi wins, all bets are off." Tribes have also contributed to Republican candidates but at a tiny fraction of the level they have given to Democrats. In 2005 the state Gambling Commission and the Spokane Tribe reached an agreement that would have allowed more than 7,000 video gambling machines and a six-tiered revenue sharing structure. The renegotiated deal without revenue sharing allowed only 4,700 machines. If the original compact had been approved, other tribes would be entitled to similar levels of expansion under the same terms. Depending on the number of tribes participating, the state could have received from $40 million to more than $140 million annually. The money would have been dedicated to projects of "mutual importance to the state and tribes" such as Puget Sound cleanup, salmon protection, culvert expansion and transportation projects. But in an Oct. 27, 2005, letter, before the deal was submitted for nonbinding legislative review, Gregoire asked the Gambling Commission to renegotiate. In a 2006 letter recommending the renegotiated agreement, Gregoire said she had "asked the parties to reconsider the provisions related to the off-reservation facilities ... and revenue sharing." Attorney Scott Crowell, who represented the Spokane Tribe, said Gregoire's staff was actively involved in the new negotiations. "The state had a formal negotiation team through the Gambling Commission but they were in fairly regular contact with (Gregoire's then-Chief of Staff) Tom Fitzsimmons in her office because ultimately the agreement is between the governor of the state and the tribe," Crowell said. "It is true that a number of tribes did come out and announce their opposition to that first compact. The Spokane took some offense to that because the Spokane did not interfere with the compacts negotiated by the other tribes with the state. We felt it improper for them to take issue with ours. "That said, some of them expressed concern that the agreement with the Spokanes was setting a new template that would impact them, particularly in the area of revenue sharing." . Crowell said the compact would impact other tribes only if they chose to sign on to the agreement. Signing the existing compact was the most expedient way to obtain state permission to expand tribal gambling. Gregoire saw that as a problem and called for a renegotiation of the 2005 compact with the Spokane Tribe after receiving input from interested parties, including other tribes and local law enforcement officials, Edwards said. "It was almost like triggering a gambling arms race in the state," he said. "What would occur under the revenue sharing is that it would have led to an almost unlimited expansion of gambling -- unlimited tables, unlimited betting -- and that is something that the governor wanted to avoid." Other states provide a model of what happens when tribal casinos enter into revenue sharing arrangements, Edwards said. "It opens up a Pandora's box on gambling and where does it stop?" Edwards said. Gregoire was protecting the state's interest, he said. "It's not about who gives and doesn't give, it's about good public policy," Edwards said. "This is a free country and if someone wants to make a donation to any party, to any group, they are free to do so. The governor and the tribes have the relationship they have because of the mutual respect they have for each other." The governor sees no need for a firewall to prevent the contract negotiations from crossing over into the expectation of campaign contributions, Edwards said. "There's not a legislative vote but there are public hearings. ... There is a process (in place) where other representatives of state government look at that," he said. But Jacobsen, the Seattle state senator, said there wasn't enough transparency. "By the time anybody in the Legislature heard about it, it was a done deal. There are a lot of people, Democrats and Republicans, who were a little bit grumpy about that because, God, that's a lot of money we gave them without getting anything back." Asked if there should there be a firewall between groups that negotiate with elected leaders, Jacobsen said: "When you start talking money, people are getting tempted," adding that even if there isn't outright corruption, it looks bad. Thompson, the UNLV professor, agreed. "The (federal) 1988 Indian Gaming Act dictates how the tribes may spend the money they get from gambling," he said. "There is nothing in there that allows them to spend the money on political campaigns ... the tribe will say it's not casino money, it's tribal money -- they've laundered it -- but the money is coming out of casinos." Thompson said he is not aware of any state laws that would prohibit political contributions to campaigns but said the solution is clear. "Number one, the Legislature should participate in every compact." BY THE NUMBERS: INDIAN CASINOS AND COMPACT WITH STATE Twenty-one tribes in Washington operate 27 casinos under a compact with the state. Unlike some states where the tribes and the state have agreed to share revenue, Washington state receives no tax money from Indian gambling. Annual revenue of tribal casinos in Washington state: 2005 $1.02 BILLION 2006 $1.19 BILLION 2007 $1.34 BILLION FROM 18,225 TO 27,300 Total number of gambling terminals allowed in Indian casinos before latest compact and then afterward. FROM $5 TO $20 Wagering limit on certain machines before latest compact and then afterward (15% of machines). $604,131 Contributions to state Democratic Party from tribes since 2004. $1.6 MILLION Contributions to Gov. Chris Gregoire's campaign from Democratic Party since 2004. $49,000 Direct contributions from tribes to her since 2004. Sources: Washington state; Public Disclosure Commission

Many churches still refuse to marry previously divorced couples, or couples of a different faith. Again; churches enjoy special constitutional protections--including many that the vast majority of Americans would find objectionable. Are libs ready to take on the Catholic Church with this debate, or just the born-again denominations?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/366900_gregoire13.html

And yet your emissions are the highest of anyone here!

Religion enjoys special protection under the constitution that the restaurant does not, so your comparison is ridiculous. (Of course, you already know this being an ACLU guest speaker and all. ) I support gay marriage, but if you really want to know why the idea doesn't gain wide acceptance, it is because of a militancy that wants to impose itself on others. Forcing churches to marry gays when it is against their doctrine is just such a case. Why else would someone want to do it?

Climbed Colchuck yesterday. Conditions are perfect. Trail to the lake is snow free and the glacier is not showing any bare ice.

Look at the new Yamaha XT250. A little more power and a new digital display. Front and rear disc brakes.

Excuse me sir?

Not shooting straight again ?

Speaking of true moderates, Tim Russert just died. I really liked the guy. He threw hardballs at both sides. Sad day for the media. Sad day for America.

1loyjm4SOa0

Geeeezz. Alright...gulp/sigh...I'm sorry Tvash. (But I still think the honey bear thing was pretty good.)

On second thought, make it unleaded.

VC Grande?

Meant to be funny. Please read you man handbook: Moms, sons, and daughters are off limits--wives are fair game. Besides, I wasn't bashing on her at all.

Huh? Gun laws are uniform throughout the state. Per the state constitution, no county or municipality is permitted to pass their own gun laws beyond what is permitted in the state constitution. Seattle's mayor is about to find this out. (Exceptions for stadiums, courthouses, taverns.)

yeah, WA lets people with mental and drug problems get CCW permits so they can shoot people at festivals What a simpleton. facts are ugly, aren't they? owning a gun doesn't make you important Facts? Your premise isn't factual at all. You even attempted to boost it with lies. What a tool.

yeah, WA lets people with mental and drug problems get CCW permits so they can shoot people at festivals What a simpleton.

Um...not exactly true... "Washington Washington is one of the original "shall issue" states, in which a concealed pistol permit must be issued to any applicant, age 21 or older, who meets certain requirements, including no felony convictions, no misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, and no outstanding warrants.[93][94] Furthermore, a concealed pistol license is not required to carry a concealed pistol if the person carrying the firearm is in route to, in route from, or actively participating in a "legitimate outdoor activity".[95] Open carrying of firearms is not prohibited by law although trouble with some law enforcement agencies has been encountered while open carrying in the past, most notably in a case in Ellensburg, Washington.[96] Currently, there is a growing movement towards open carry in Washington. In Washington, there was a tremendous amount of disinformation among law enforcement officers, gun store employees, and firearms instructors about RCW 9.41.270. In December 2005, activists Lonnie Wilson and Jim March went to the state archives in Olympia to research the origins of the law. March, with his experience in researching gun control laws created out of racial discrimination and strife in California, surmised during a conversation between himself and Wilson that due to year it was passed, it was likely due to "Panther paranoia". March was proven correct. The law, passed in 1969, was passed in response to incidents involving the Seattle Chapter of Black Panther Party at Rainier Beach High School and the Protest of the Mulford Act by the main organization in the California Assembly. Due to the fact that Washington State Constitution has an individual right to keep and bear arms provision (Article 1, Section 24), the Washington Legislature revised the bill that was debated to remove the "within 500 feet of a public place" provisions and left the current statute as is. There were points of debate about whether this could be interpreted as an open carry ban, to which the sponsors of the bill replied that it was a ban against the type of intimidation that the Black Panther Party engaged in at Rainier Beach and the California Assembly, not an open carry ban. Many law enforcement, a generation removed from the events and discussions of the Legislature when the law was created, and without much guidance interpreted the law passed as an open carry ban that is situational to someone making a 911 phone call. This interpretation spread to gun store employees and firearms instructors, who have a lot of personal interaction with law enforcement. Using the information from the state archives, Wilson pursued the issuance of guidance and memorandums to individual officers by police administrators. After one of these bulletins was issued by one department, Wilson acquired the bulletin by a public records request, used the training bulletin as a template and approached most police departments throughout the state. To this day, over a dozen major departments, including the King County Sheriff's Department and the Seattle Police Department, have issued advisories and roll call training to their officers that peaceable open carry of a handgun in a holster is legal. As a general rule, a person may legally open carry in Washington State in any place it is legal to possess a loaded handgun. To open carry in a vehicle (i.e., car, bus, etc...) a person must have a valid concealed pistol license. Some police agencies can be unfriendly towards open carry, so it is important that before a person exercises their right to bear arms in this fashion they acquaint themselves with relevant laws. Prohibited areas for firearms are contained in RCW 9.41.300, RCW 9.41.280, and RCW 70.108.150. Per RCW 9.41.290 (state preemption of firearm laws), divisions of local government (city, county, town, or other municipality) cannot regulate firearms more restrictively than the state does. Exceptions to state preemption — that is, areas in which local governments are allowed to regulate firearms — are contained in RCW 9.41.300. These exceptions include: * "Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others." * "Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, except that such restrictions shall not apply to [concealed pistol license holders, law enforcement officers, or any] showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms." * "Restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold." Several localities (including transit agencies) who had wrongfully enforced preempted local ordinances and rules have been challenged by activists in the open carry movement (who are most directly affected by the enforcement of such ordinances) and have since backed down from enforcement and directed their police departments to no longer enforce the ordinances and rules. Washington allows ownership of a firearm silencer, but using one is prohibited by RCW 9.41.250(3) which makes it a gross misdemeanor to "Use any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm." Washington is a "Stand Your Ground" state, in which there is no duty to retreat in the face of what would be perceived by an ordinary person to be a threat to themselves or others by another person that is likely to cause serious injury or death. It is a Class C felony for a non-citizen to possess a firearm in Washington without an Alien Firearm License. Washington is not currently issuing Alien Firearm Licenses. [97] It is a gross misdemeanor to aim a firearm "whether loaded or not, at or towards any human being". [98] Washington State accepts the concealed weapons permits from the following states: Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah.[99]

Thanks for the link! I just used it to express my support for this rules change.