Time may come when this happens but right now, the fast food industry doesn't look at uber-evil as the tobacco and people still haven't made the connection that eating fast food is hazardous to their health.
Maybe "Fast FOod Nation" will change that.
(Unlikely).
I thought NYC outlawed trans-fats in restaurant food last week???
With some national fast-food chains to follow (trying to stay ahead of the trend)??
Taxing cigs and keeping abortion legal are not quite the same issue. Personally, and I don't expect everyone else to cosign on this, but the first is a health care issue. The latter has to do, first and foremost, with gender rights.
O, I feel confident I know what you're getting at but you still haven't spelled out your opinion on the abortion issue aside from saying 'Yes' to parental consent which I gathered was what you were opposed to...
Taxing cigs and keeping abortion legal are not quite the same issue. Personally, and I don't expect everyone else to cosign on this, but the first is a health care issue. The latter has to do, first and foremost, with gender rights.
O, I feel confident I know what you're getting at but you still haven't spelled out your opinion on the abortion issue aside from saying 'Yes' to parental consent which I gathered was what you were opposed to...
Oopsie, I had no clue what the confusion was until just now. I meant to say, I'll be voting NO on 85, not yes.
I find parental consent laws to be just another attempt to subvert Roe vs. Wade. SO yeah, just so we're clear: I'm VOTING NO.
I am voting against the parental consent measure here in Oregon. It needlessly endangers young women. If you have a good communication this won't add to it. IF you cant truss the rentals this could lead to carrying unwanted pregnancies to term or illegal/unsafe. Like the lady says, keep you laws off my body.
So wait - you guys don't have taxes on cigs out in Cali? Just cause we've had all kinds of taxes on them in MA for at least a decade. I think the tax on a pack of smokes is around $1.70 in this state. It was crazy how much I noticed the loot after quitting smokes - that $30 a week is pretty sweet.
The truly dedicated buy them by the carton just across the border in New Hampshire. LIVE FREE OR DIE and all.
So wait - you guys don't have taxes on cigs out in Cali? Just cause we've had all kinds of taxes on them in MA for at least a decade. I think the tax on a pack of smokes is around $1.70 in this state. It was crazy how much I noticed the loot after quitting smokes - that $30 a week is pretty sweet.
The truly dedicated buy them by the carton just across the border in New Hampshire. LIVE FREE OR DIE and all.
What deplorable little statists so many of you are. Thinking that the government exists as an instrument with which to impose your will on the rest of society.
Fuck taxing junk food. Why should an athletic, firmly toned man such as myself who enjoys the occasional burger be forced to pay extra because a few of you willless lard asses feel you could use an extra incentive not to stuff your fat grubby faces. The same goes for cigarettes. No-one should pay a premium for something simply because moralising bitches disaprove of it. A women's body is none of the governments business unless the bitch wants to put smoke or high calorie food in it right?
Fuck taxing oil companies. Its a tragedy that even after socialism and its bastard child keynesiam have both been exposed as sophistry this 'soak the rich' nonsense is still kept alive by the force of envy alone. The fact that oil companies make alot of money is seen as reason enough to club them over the head and plunder them. Unfortunately the money will not be looted from the top hat wearing plutocrats that exist in your head but from the pockets of consumers or else blue collar oil company employees. Its even worse that the money taken is sure to be squandered on gesture politics like funding for worthless biofuels which hold no long term promise.
finally what is it with you supposedly erudite homoqueers not even understanding the argument against abortion? do you really think its motivated by some pathological desire to deprive women of rights? how you flatter yourselves! their position is not of depriving rights but of affording them to the still devloping child. I understand you for not tackling it though since a) 'where does life begin?' is a tough question to grapple with and b) its nourishing for the ego to convince yourselves youre standing up against oppressive mysoginists.
The joy I have today is reading a little screed like this knowing that Dolo can vote his logic/conscience whatever way he wants but I'm still voting to tax cigarettes, tax oil companies and defend access to abortion. Ah, the beauty of democracy.
EVERYONE, GO VOTE! (Even Dolo)
What deplorable little statists so many of you are. Thinking that the government exists as an instrument with which to impose your will on the rest of society.
Fuck taxing junk food. Why should an athletic, firmly toned man such as myself who enjoys the occasional burger be forced to pay extra because a few of you willless lard asses feel you could use an extra incentive not to stuff your fat grubby faces. The same goes for cigarettes. No-one should pay a premium for something simply because moralising bitches disaprove of it. A women's body is none of the governments business unless the bitch wants to put smoke or high calorie food in it right?
Fuck taxing oil companies. Its a tragedy that even after socialism and its bastard child keynesiam have both been exposed as sophistry this 'soak the rich' nonsense is still kept alive by the force of envy alone. The fact that oil companies make alot of money is seen as reason enough to club them over the head and plunder them. Unfortunately the money will not be looted from the top hat wearing plutocrats that exist in your head but from the pockets of consumers or else blue collar oil company employees. Its even worse that the money taken is sure to be squandered on gesture politics like funding for worthless biofuels which hold no long term promise.
finally what is it with you supposedly erudite homoqueers not even understanding the argument against abortion? do you really think its motivated by some pathological desire to deprive women of rights? how you flatter yourselves! their position is not of depriving rights but of affording them to the still devloping child. I understand you for not tackling it though since a) 'where does life begin?' is a tough question to grapple with and b) its nourishing for the ego to convince yourselves youre standing up against oppressive mysoginists.
A women's body is none of the governments business unless the bitch wants to put smoke or high calorie food in it right?
Dang, DoYeungBoys, you are an angry mofo. However I actually agree with the above statement (but not with the way you stated it).
So yeah.....
Here's how it went....
Prop 1A - Transportation Funding Protection. YES! If they are going to tax my gas for transportation improvements, then yeah, I want them to actually use it for transportation improvements.
Prop 1B - Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality Etc Bond Act. NO. Fuck these bonds, go use my gas tax goddamit.
Prop 1C - Housing And Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act - NO. A bond for shelters for battered women and their kids? Sounds nice, but don't we already have this? I don't like anything that has to do with bonds. Use our taxes for this instead paying some knucklehead desk jockey a few mil a years to sharpen pencils or some shit.
Prop 1D - Kindergarten facilities bond. No. I never went to kindergarten and I turned out fine. and I don't like bonds. except for james. except the new james bond looks like a fucking herb. its like they picked the dorkiest dude they could find. mr. bean must have been busy.
Prop 1E - Disaster preparednes and flood prevention bond. NO. Nobody wants a katrina in california, but really... when do we ever have flood disasters? we have earthquakes but those don't do much. and i don't like bonds.
Prop 83 - The Sex Offender Prop. YES!!!! Increases penalties for violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters. yes yes yes yes.
Prop 84 - Water Quality, Flood Control, Park Improvements Blah Blah Blah Bond. NO.
Prop 85 - The abortion one. I changed my mind at the last minute and voted NO on this one. Part of me said 'yes' but my gut said no, and if you've ever seen my gut its pretty big, so i listen to it.
Prop 86 - Tax on Smokes. FUCK NO, ASSHOLES! STOP TAXING FUN SHIT! TAX ROLLERBLADES. THEM SHITS IS STUPID!
Prop 87 - Oil Tax for alt energies. NO. I'll wind up paying for it at the pump and chances are the state would fuck it up anyways and nothing would get done.
Prop 88 - Education Funding from 50 dollar tax on propterty. I voted no, but now that I think about it, maybe I should have voted yes. oops.
Prop 89 - Political campaigns contribution and expenditure limits. YES. I read this as people running for office can get some gov money for their campaign, which is fine, and then put limits on campaign contributions, which is also good. This wasn't a strong yes, but a yes it was.
Prop 90 - Goct acquisition of private property. YES. Bars state/local govts from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects.
Then we had some local props which nobody probably cares about. I'd like to hear how other people voted.
The way I voted was pretty much 90% OPPOSITE of you. We agreed on Prop 85 and the election $ prop and that's about it.
This should be a fun evening.
I want to hear reasons! I still can't quite decipher your first post about the one where the govt can't take your land from you. It sounded like you agreed with me, but then I think you said you were voting no...?
Break down your reasons. I usually respect your opinion, so I'd like to hear your views on these. Although I guesss its too late to change my mind
I won't go through all the props, just the major ones (in my mind):
83 (Sex Offenders): I'm all for increased penalties on sex offenders but this, to me, was reactionary legislation that plays more to people's paranoia than it does rational social policy. For one thing, it basically pushes ALL sex offenders (which includes many people are guilty of things that have nothing to do with abuse, molestation or rape) out of urban centers and into rural towns. There's nothing in the legislation, however, that deals with PREVENTION, at least not adequately enough. It's strictly about punishment and in California, sex offenders - especially molestors and rapists - already face dire penalties. It's not like we've been "soft" on hardcore sex offenders. I'm more interested in legislation that take on a greater preventative angle, especially one that helps protect children by strengthening the social network to protect them. Not that removing offenders from their neighborhoods can't help with that but what about those who have yet to commit? This was a prop with good intentions but was simply a poorly constructed piece of legislation. Suffice to say, I voted no.
85 (Parental notification): I voted no on this for reasons I stated earlier - I mistrust parental notification laws since really, to me, they're just an attempt at subverting Roe vs. Wade and more to the point, you can't legislate good family communication, at least - not this way. If gov'ts were serious about cutting down on youth abortion they should fund better sex education classes rather than bullshit abstinence only (non)education.
86 (Smoking tax): I voted yes. Explanations already stated above.
87 (Alt energy tax): I voted yes. Fuck coddling Big Oil.
90 (Homeowners/Eminent Domain R): Ok - here's what this legislation does effectively: any time the government does ANYTHING that could possibly be construed as lowering home values, either individual or corporate bodies could sue the gov't over the lowered cost of their property. It's a disastrous piece of legislation with long-term harm for most people, even most homeowners, especially given the rise in potential lawsuits that would now be directed at local, state or the federal gov't. HELL NO.
Thinking that the government exists as an instrument with which to impose your will on the rest of society.
As do you (as though demanding that government aoutlaw abortion isn't attempting to use government to impose your will on the rest of scoiety--specifically the women of society). Although I'm sure you've got a long on anger/short on veracity song and dance about how you don't want government to impose your will on the rest of society and that anybody claiming otherwise is a commie islamofacist homerseksual mandatory-gay-marriage-pushing recreational-abortion-performing Osama-fellator.
I just want to say I hate you all and all that peer pressure you guys gave me to vote. No I got a dumb ass sticker on my t-shirt that lets everyone know just how easily pressured I truly am
I just want to say I hate you all and all that peer pressure you guys gave me to vote. No I got a dumb ass sticker on my t-shirt that lets everyone know just how easily pressured I truly am
I just want to say I hate you all and all that peer pressure you guys gave me to vote. No I got a dumb ass sticker on my t-shirt that lets everyone know just how easily pressured I truly am
Vote yes on 87
I wanna hear how other people voted too......
voted yes on all propositions except 85 & 90 Senator = I voted for the Jew
Congressman = I went with the Jew (H.Waxman)
Governor = I went with Angelides
Lt. Governor I went with the republican
Judges = I didn't know shit about any of them so I left it blank
Sec of State = Debra Bowing
Controller = left unchecked
Atty General = Jerry Brown
the rest you dudes probably don't really care about.
Jerry Brown Democratic 1,278,684 51.9% Chuck Poochigian Republican 1,057,731 43.0% Kenneth Weissman Libertarian 50,377 2.0% Michael Wyman Green 49,481 2.0% Jack Harrison Peace and Freedom 26,192 1.1%
25% of precincts reporting Updated 11/07 10:19PM
Proposition 85 Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy
Yes 1,142,155 48.1% No 1,232,624 51.9%
25% of precincts reporting Updated 11/07 10:19PM
Proposition 86 Tax on Cigarettes
Yes 1,092,203 45.5% No 1,309,059 54.5%
25% of precincts reporting Updated 11/07 10:19PM
Proposition 87 Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on California Oil Producers
Yes 986,317 41.2% No 1,410,132 58.8%
24% of precincts reporting Updated 11/07 10:19PM
Proposition 90 Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property
Yes 1,223,118 51.3% No 1,160,368 48.7%
24% of precincts reporting Updated 11/07 10:19PM
San Francisco Proposition J, Call for Bush/Cheney Impeachment
San Francisco Proposition J, Call for Bush/Cheney Impeachment
Yes 82,851 59.3% No 56,864 40.7%
88% of precincts reporting Updated 11/07 10:19PM
OH shit... hahahaha.... You guys are awesome..... I never heard about that one!
Proposition - 1A Transportation Funding - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting Name Votes Pct Yes 4,801,859 76.58 [/b] No 1,468,357 23.42
yay!!!!!!
Proposition - 1B Highway Safety - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting Name Votes Pct Yes 3,849,546 61.26 [/b] No 2,434,255 38.74
Proposition - 1C Housing Shelter - California 23533 of 25231 Precincts Reporting Name Votes Pct Yes 3,614,062 57.49 [/b] No 2,672,894 42.51
Proposition - 1D Kindergarten University - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting Name Votes Pct Yes 3,559,490 56.47 [/b] No 2,743,708 43.53
Proposition - 1E Levee Repairs - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting Name Votes Pct Yes 3,989,123 64.01 [/b] No 2,242,795 35.99
ghey. This isn't the south. has nobody noticed how hot and dry its been this week? its worse than summer! fuck levees, I need some AC in my house.
Proposition - 83 Sex Offenders - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting Name Votes Pct Yes 4,466,141 70.45 [/b] No 1,872,909 29.55
I guess nobody gives a shit about child molesters after all. hooray! (sorry oliver)
Proposition - 84 Parks and Water - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting Name Votes Pct Yes 3,347,841 53.84 [/b] No 2,870,440 46.16
I guess I want water thats actually drinkable coming out of my sink. I just don't like bonds. So thats cool.
Proposition - 85 Notify Parent - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting Name Votes Pct No 3,445,675 54.15 [/b] Yes 2,918,081 45.85
I was really interested to see how this would turn out. I voted no, but only at the last minute, and HJ would have voted yes, but she isn't registered to vote yet.
Proposition - 86 Cigarette Tax - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting Name Votes Pct No 3,360,473 52.06 [/b] Yes 3,095,046 47.94
I was terrified that this was gonna pass. I don't want Drewn to ban me for gloating so I won't tell everybody to smoke my muffuggin pole and then I won't go 'HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH'.
Proposition - 87 Alternative Energy - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting Name Votes Pct No 3,497,273 54.61 [/b] Yes 2,907,185 45.39
This one really suprised me. California is so eco-friendly and all. I guess people are tired of gas prices already being higher than everywhere else in the country because we already have higher gas standards. So we all want alternative energy, but get your money from somewhere else? That must be what people are thinking.
Proposition - 88 Education Funding - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting Name Votes Pct No 4,837,008 76.89 [/b] Yes 1,453,639 23.11
huh. usually anything with 'education' in the title gets passed, i thought.
Proposition - 89 Campaign Financing - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting Name Votes Pct No 4,634,581 74.42 [/b] Yes 1,593,367 25.58
Interesting. I voted yes. I must have been missing something.
Proposition - 90 Eminent Domain - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting Name Votes Pct No 3,273,704 52.52 [/b] Yes 2,959,860 47.48
I still don't understand what this 'dangerous loophole' is all about. I know odub tried to explain it, but I don't get it. I just don't want the government taking peoples houses away to build strip malls, so I voted yes.
Well interesting results. All in all, I'm pretty happy with how things turned out. Especially in the house. no, not the house of reps, I mean my house... my smokes safe! har har.
Proposition - 83 Sex Offenders - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting Name Votes Pct Yes 4,466,141 70.45 [/b] No 1,872,909 29.55
I guess nobody gives a shit about child molesters after all. hooray! (sorry oliver)
Voting against this wasn't a vote FOR child molesters. What people have basically said is this: so long as predators are forced to live in rural cities, fine by me. I have a student who works with probation officers who deal SPECIFICALLY with sex offenders and they voted against this law. Why? Because they know it doesn't actually do much to make kids safer, that's it's going to cost a shitload of money to boot. That said, it's not like I'm bummed this passed. But I also live in urban Los Angeles. If I were living in some rural town in CA? I'd be pretty fucking scared for my kids because this law might have the effect of creating entire communities of sex offenders.
Woo hoo, progress.
Proposition - 87 Alternative Energy - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting Name Votes Pct No 3,497,273 54.61 [/b] Yes 2,907,185 45.39
This one really suprised me. California is so eco-friendly and all. I guess people are tired of gas prices already being higher than everywhere else in the country because we already have higher gas standards. So we all want alternative energy, but get your money from somewhere else? That must be what people are thinking.
It also helped that the anti-87 campaign ran ads with firemen and policemen saying, "we don't support this." That goes a long way too. It's just a pity they didn't read the small print where Chevron and Texaco funded the anti-campaign.
I'm not crying over this either - California is already moving in the direction of the green movement with or without the prop.
Proposition - 88 Education Funding - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting Name Votes Pct No 4,837,008 76.89 [/b] Yes 1,453,639 23.11
huh. usually anything with 'education' in the title gets passed, i thought.
This proposition ended up becoming such a disaster that even the people who put it on the ballot abandoned it. Yeah, that bad.
Proposition - 90 Eminent Domain - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting Name Votes Pct No 3,273,704 52.52 [/b] Yes 2,959,860 47.48
I still don't understand what this 'dangerous loophole' is all about. I know odub tried to explain it, but I don't get it. I just don't want the government taking peoples houses away to build strip malls, so I voted yes.
Well, maybe you should have read the proposal closer.
I'm all for putting more limits on the gov't use of eminent domain. I think it's a power that's been abused time and time again in the past. Had this proposition ONLY been about limiting the ability of the gov't to seize private property under eminent domain, I would have voted FOR it and I'm not even a home owner.
But the other half of the proposition was this: "This measure requires government to pay property owners if it passes certain new laws or rules that result in substantial economic losses to their property."
This is incredible (and perhaps purposefully) vague language. What it basically says is that ANYTIME the gov't passes a law that COULD decrease the value of private property, those owners (whether individuals or corporate) can sue the gov't for the loss in value.
So let me give you an example: let's say you own a home next to a forest that originally was going to get torn down by developers in order to build a larger subdivision of homes. Your home, because it's located in this up-and-coming neighborhood, grows in value. However, a spotted owl family is found in the forest. The gov't passes a law that protects the forest from getting torn down, the subdivision development stalls as a result and your home value declines as a result. Under this law, you could sue the gov't for the loss of value in your property. I find this problematic: buying a house is a RISK. Home owners don't deserve some kind of special blessing that removes them from the market forces that drive increases or declines in home value. And by the token, I don't think it's a smart idea to suddenly make the gov't liable for any laws they may pass that MAY have an effect on your property value.
Why? Because let's say you sue the gov't and you win. Who pays for your win? WE ALL DO, as taxpayers in the state of California. And why should I have to bail out the decline in value in your house? My tax money shouldn't be used as an insurance policy against the potential for loss in your property value.
So that's the loophole. I'm glad this prop is going down to defeat.
ahhhhh..... OK I see what you are saying about the eminent domain one. Sounds reasonable, actually. Maybe they will re-write a more reasonable version that will pass.
So... are you happy with the way things turned out?
The props that I was most concerned about went the way I wanted them too. Most of the bonds ones passed, but I'm not really upset about them. Its my kids that will have to pay that shit off, not me.... hahahaha.
I wish more people would chime in on this shit. Only a few of us are talking about it.
On a side note, whats going down in LA this weekend? Me and HJ might be heading up on Saturday. Might be down for some Karaoke action with the usual crew. Let me know what going on LA folls.....
I'm ok with it. I can understand why folks on the Left aren't happy about Arnold being re-elected and sure, that would have been my pref too but 1) it was clear from jump that Phil's campaign wasn't going to get the job done and I honestly can't blame a lot of swing voters for going with Arnold and 2) I find the Governator a lot more palatable as a Republican leader than other options I could have been given. Realpolitik.
As for the props, there's nothing I'm too bummed over. I do think the sex offender prop was poor legislation and I think, as a state, we're going to realize this over time.
One of my students made what I thought was a very reflective observation about the problem with California's proposition system: it's all or nothing. SHe voted "no" on practically everything b/c she disagreed with at least some portion of each prop. ANd I don't blame her. A lot of these props had some good parts but also some questionable ones and in that case, it's better to vote the whole thing down and hope legislators can put in the "good" parts through the conventional legislative process.
Frankly, I think the proposition system in California has been a fucking disaster in trying to idealize democracy but really, instead, enforcing a small-minded mob rule and tyranny of the majority. Look at 187, 209, and of course, prop 13. Not that I think the State Senate are magical elves of good government but what's the point of a representative democracy if we don't actually allow our representatives to do their job and instead, trying to do backdoor legislation vis a vis propositions every year?
ahhhhh..... OK I see what you are saying about the eminent domain one. Sounds reasonable, actually. Maybe they will re-write a more reasonable version that will pass.
So... are you happy with the way things turned out?
The props that I was most concerned about went the way I wanted them too. Most of the bonds ones passed, but I'm not really upset about them. Its my kids that will have to pay that shit off, not me.... hahahaha.
I wish more people would chime in on this shit. Only a few of us are talking about it.
On a side note, whats going down in LA this weekend? Me and HJ might be heading up on Saturday. Might be down for some Karaoke action with the usual crew. Let me know what going on LA folls.....
I'm ok with it. I can understand why folks on the Left aren't happy about Arnold being re-elected and sure, that would have been my pref too but 1) it was clear from jump that Phil's campaign wasn't going to get the job done and I honestly can't blame a lot of swing voters for going with Arnold and 2) I find the Governator a lot more palatable as a Republican leader than other options I could have been given. Realpolitik.
Realpolitik and real talk. The Democratic campaign was kinda weak--I thought it was rather stupid to spend so much time trying to mark Arnold into Bush's buddy when Arnold has rather famously clashed with Bush over many issues. I know some people who think Arnie is Satan incarnate, but like O-Dub, I find him much more palatable than many other GOP options. Arnie's a social moderate, whereas the GOP these days is largely dominated by hardcore social cons. He's much more apt to triangulate and play toward the middle than he is to do like Bush and aboslutely insist he get his way. I'm not exactly an Arnold fan, but I don't think he's atrocious either.
I'm ok with it. I can understand why folks on the Left aren't happy about Arnold being re-elected and sure, that would have been my pref too but 1) it was clear from jump that Phil's campaign wasn't going to get the job done and I honestly can't blame a lot of swing voters for going with Arnold and 2) I find the Governator a lot more palatable as a Republican leader than other options I could have been given. Realpolitik.
Realpolitik and real talk. The Democratic campaign was kinda weak--I thought it was rather stupid to spend so much time trying to mark Arnold into Bush's buddy when Arnold has rather famously clashed with Bush over many issues. I know some people who think Arnie is Satan incarnate, but like O-Dub, I find him much more palatable than many other GOP options. Arnie's a social moderate, whereas the GOP these days is largely dominated by hardcore social cons. He's much more apt to triangulate and play toward the middle than he is to do like Bush and aboslutely insist he get his way. I'm not exactly an Arnold fan, but I don't think he's atrocious either.
Angelides whole campaign was "I HATE BUSH!!"
Every interview I heard, every time he gave a speech, he came off like the biggest duechebag ever. I started to wonder if he wasn't mildly retarded. Arnie's not a bad choice, and still better than Grey Davis.
Proposition - 86 Cigarette Tax - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting Name Votes Pct No 3,360,473 52.06 [/b] Yes 3,095,046 47.94
I was terrified that this was gonna pass. I don't want Drewn to ban me for gloating so I won't tell everybody to smoke my muffuggin pole and then I won't go 'HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH'.
dude, you needn't have feared. this was like the Cali version of the gay marriage bans. it prolly brought people to the polls who had never voted before in their lives!
Comments
I thought NYC outlawed trans-fats in restaurant food last week???
With some national fast-food chains to follow (trying to stay ahead of the trend)??
O, I feel confident I know what you're getting at but you still haven't spelled out your opinion on the abortion issue aside from saying 'Yes' to parental consent which I gathered was what you were opposed to...
Oopsie, I had no clue what the confusion was until just now. I meant to say, I'll be voting NO on 85, not yes.
I find parental consent laws to be just another attempt to subvert Roe vs. Wade. SO yeah, just so we're clear: I'm VOTING NO.
cigs out in Cali? Just cause we've had all kinds
of taxes on them in MA for at least a decade.
I think the tax on a pack of smokes is around $1.70
in this state. It was crazy how much I noticed the loot
after quitting smokes - that $30 a week is pretty sweet.
The truly dedicated buy them by the carton just
across the border in New Hampshire. LIVE FREE OR DIE and all.
We have taxes. This just increases them more.
Fuck taxing junk food. Why should an athletic, firmly toned man such as myself who enjoys the occasional burger be forced to pay extra because a few of you willless lard asses feel you could use an extra incentive not to stuff your fat grubby faces. The same goes for cigarettes. No-one should pay a premium for something simply because moralising bitches disaprove of it. A women's body is none of the governments business unless the bitch wants to put smoke or high calorie food in it right?
Fuck taxing oil companies. Its a tragedy that even after socialism and its bastard child keynesiam have both been exposed as sophistry this 'soak the rich' nonsense is still kept alive by the force of envy alone. The fact that oil companies make alot of money is seen as reason enough to club them over the head and plunder them. Unfortunately the money will not be looted from the top hat wearing plutocrats that exist in your head but from the pockets of consumers or else blue collar oil company employees. Its even worse that the money taken is sure to be squandered on gesture politics like funding for worthless biofuels which hold no long term promise.
finally what is it with you supposedly erudite homoqueers not even understanding the argument against abortion? do you really think its motivated by some pathological desire to deprive women of rights? how you flatter yourselves! their position is not of depriving rights but of affording them to the still devloping child. I understand you for not tackling it though since a) 'where does life begin?' is a tough question to grapple with and b) its nourishing for the ego to convince yourselves youre standing up against oppressive mysoginists.
EVERYONE, GO VOTE! (Even Dolo)
Dang, DoYeungBoys, you are an angry mofo. However I actually agree with the above statement (but not with the way you stated it).
So yeah.....
Here's how it went....
Prop 1A - Transportation Funding Protection. YES! If they are going to tax my gas for transportation improvements, then yeah, I want them to actually use it for transportation improvements.
Prop 1B - Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality Etc Bond Act. NO. Fuck these bonds, go use my gas tax goddamit.
Prop 1C - Housing And Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act - NO. A bond for shelters for battered women and their kids? Sounds nice, but don't we already have this? I don't like anything that has to do with bonds. Use our taxes for this instead paying some knucklehead desk jockey a few mil a years to sharpen pencils or some shit.
Prop 1D - Kindergarten facilities bond. No. I never went to kindergarten and I turned out fine. and I don't like bonds. except for james. except the new james bond looks like a fucking herb. its like they picked the dorkiest dude they could find. mr. bean must have been busy.
Prop 1E - Disaster preparednes and flood prevention bond. NO. Nobody wants a katrina in california, but really... when do we ever have flood disasters? we have earthquakes but those don't do much. and i don't like bonds.
Prop 83 - The Sex Offender Prop. YES!!!! Increases penalties for violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters. yes yes yes yes.
Prop 84 - Water Quality, Flood Control, Park Improvements Blah Blah Blah Bond. NO.
Prop 85 - The abortion one. I changed my mind at the last minute and voted NO on this one. Part of me said 'yes' but my gut said no, and if you've ever seen my gut its pretty big, so i listen to it.
Prop 86 - Tax on Smokes. FUCK NO, ASSHOLES! STOP TAXING FUN SHIT! TAX ROLLERBLADES. THEM SHITS IS STUPID!
Prop 87 - Oil Tax for alt energies. NO. I'll wind up paying for it at the pump and chances are the state would fuck it up anyways and nothing would get done.
Prop 88 - Education Funding from 50 dollar tax on propterty. I voted no, but now that I think about it, maybe I should have voted yes. oops.
Prop 89 - Political campaigns contribution and expenditure limits. YES. I read this as people running for office can get some gov money for their campaign, which is fine, and then put limits on campaign contributions, which is also good. This wasn't a strong yes, but a yes it was.
Prop 90 - Goct acquisition of private property. YES. Bars state/local govts from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects.
Then we had some local props which nobody probably cares about. I'd like to hear how other people voted.
The way I voted was pretty much 90% OPPOSITE of you. We agreed on Prop 85 and the election $ prop and that's about it.
This should be a fun evening.
I want to hear reasons! I still can't quite decipher your first post about the one where the govt can't take your land from you. It sounded like you agreed with me, but then I think you said you were voting no...?
Break down your reasons. I usually respect your opinion, so I'd like to hear your views on these. Although I guesss its too late to change my mind
I won't go through all the props, just the major ones (in my mind):
83 (Sex Offenders): I'm all for increased penalties on sex offenders but this, to me, was reactionary legislation that plays more to people's paranoia than it does rational social policy. For one thing, it basically pushes ALL sex offenders (which includes many people are guilty of things that have nothing to do with abuse, molestation or rape) out of urban centers and into rural towns. There's nothing in the legislation, however, that deals with PREVENTION, at least not adequately enough. It's strictly about punishment and in California, sex offenders - especially molestors and rapists - already face dire penalties. It's not like we've been "soft" on hardcore sex offenders. I'm more interested in legislation that take on a greater preventative angle, especially one that helps protect children by strengthening the social network to protect them. Not that removing offenders from their neighborhoods can't help with that but what about those who have yet to commit? This was a prop with good intentions but was simply a poorly constructed piece of legislation. Suffice to say, I voted no.
85 (Parental notification): I voted no on this for reasons I stated earlier - I mistrust parental notification laws since really, to me, they're just an attempt at subverting Roe vs. Wade and more to the point, you can't legislate good family communication, at least - not this way. If gov'ts were serious about cutting down on youth abortion they should fund better sex education classes rather than bullshit abstinence only (non)education.
86 (Smoking tax): I voted yes. Explanations already stated above.
87 (Alt energy tax): I voted yes. Fuck coddling Big Oil.
90 (Homeowners/Eminent Domain R): Ok - here's what this legislation does effectively: any time the government does ANYTHING that could possibly be construed as lowering home values, either individual or corporate bodies could sue the gov't over the lowered cost of their property. It's a disastrous piece of legislation with long-term harm for most people, even most homeowners, especially given the rise in potential lawsuits that would now be directed at local, state or the federal gov't. HELL NO.
As do you (as though demanding that government aoutlaw abortion isn't attempting to use government to impose your will on the rest of scoiety--specifically the women of society). Although I'm sure you've got a long on anger/short on veracity song and dance about how you don't want government to impose your will on the rest of society and that anybody claiming otherwise is a commie islamofacist homerseksual mandatory-gay-marriage-pushing recreational-abortion-performing Osama-fellator.
Vote yes on 87
I wanna hear how other people voted too......
voted yes on all propositions except 85 & 90
Senator = I voted for the Jew
Congressman = I went with the Jew (H.Waxman)
Governor = I went with Angelides
Lt. Governor I went with the republican
Judges = I didn't know shit about any of them so I left it blank
Sec of State = Debra Bowing
Controller = left unchecked
Atty General = Jerry Brown
the rest you dudes probably don't really care about.
Arnold Schwarzenegger (i) Republican 1,584,916 60.3%
Phil Angelides Democratic 919,101 34.9%
28% of precincts reporting Updated 11/07 10:19PM
U.S. Senate
Dianne Feinstein (i) Democratic 1,458,846 56.2%
Dick Mountjoy Republican 995,448 38.4%
26% of precincts reporting Updated 11/07 10:19PM
Attorney General
Jerry Brown Democratic 1,278,684 51.9%
Chuck Poochigian Republican 1,057,731 43.0%
Kenneth Weissman Libertarian 50,377 2.0%
Michael Wyman Green 49,481 2.0%
Jack Harrison Peace and Freedom 26,192 1.1%
25% of precincts reporting Updated 11/07 10:19PM
Proposition 85 Waiting Period and Parental Notification
Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy
Yes 1,142,155 48.1%
No 1,232,624 51.9%
25% of precincts reporting Updated 11/07 10:19PM
Proposition 86 Tax on Cigarettes
Yes 1,092,203 45.5%
No 1,309,059 54.5%
25% of precincts reporting Updated 11/07 10:19PM
Proposition 87 Alternative Energy. Research, Production,
Incentives. Tax on California Oil Producers
Yes 986,317 41.2%
No 1,410,132 58.8%
24% of precincts reporting Updated 11/07 10:19PM
Proposition 90 Government Acquisition, Regulation
of Private Property
Yes 1,223,118 51.3%
No 1,160,368 48.7%
24% of precincts reporting Updated 11/07 10:19PM
San Francisco
Proposition J, Call for Bush/Cheney Impeachment
Yes 82,851 59.3%
No 56,864 40.7%
88% of precincts reporting Updated 11/07 10:19PM
OH shit... hahahaha.... You guys are awesome..... I never heard about that one!
Proposition - 1A Transportation Funding - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting
Name Votes Pct
Yes 4,801,859 76.58 [/b]
No 1,468,357 23.42
yay!!!!!!
Proposition - 1B Highway Safety - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting
Name Votes Pct
Yes 3,849,546 61.26 [/b]
No 2,434,255 38.74
Proposition - 1C Housing Shelter - California 23533 of 25231 Precincts Reporting
Name Votes Pct
Yes 3,614,062 57.49 [/b]
No 2,672,894 42.51
Proposition - 1D Kindergarten University - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting
Name Votes Pct
Yes 3,559,490 56.47 [/b]
No 2,743,708 43.53
Proposition - 1E Levee Repairs - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting
Name Votes Pct
Yes 3,989,123 64.01 [/b]
No 2,242,795 35.99
ghey. This isn't the south. has nobody noticed how hot and dry its been this week? its worse than summer! fuck levees, I need some AC in my house.
Proposition - 83 Sex Offenders - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting
Name Votes Pct
Yes 4,466,141 70.45 [/b]
No 1,872,909 29.55
I guess nobody gives a shit about child molesters after all. hooray! (sorry oliver)
Proposition - 84 Parks and Water - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting
Name Votes Pct
Yes 3,347,841 53.84 [/b]
No 2,870,440 46.16
I guess I want water thats actually drinkable coming out of my sink. I just don't like bonds. So thats cool.
Proposition - 85 Notify Parent - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting
Name Votes Pct
No 3,445,675 54.15 [/b]
Yes 2,918,081 45.85
I was really interested to see how this would turn out. I voted no, but only at the last minute, and HJ would have voted yes, but she isn't registered to vote yet.
Proposition - 86 Cigarette Tax - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting
Name Votes Pct
No 3,360,473 52.06 [/b]
Yes 3,095,046 47.94
I was terrified that this was gonna pass. I don't want Drewn to ban me for gloating so I won't tell everybody to smoke my muffuggin pole and then I won't go 'HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH'.
Proposition - 87 Alternative Energy - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting
Name Votes Pct
No 3,497,273 54.61 [/b]
Yes 2,907,185 45.39
This one really suprised me. California is so eco-friendly and all. I guess people are tired of gas prices already being higher than everywhere else in the country because we already have higher gas standards. So we all want alternative energy, but get your money from somewhere else? That must be what people are thinking.
Proposition - 88 Education Funding - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting
Name Votes Pct
No 4,837,008 76.89 [/b]
Yes 1,453,639 23.11
huh. usually anything with 'education' in the title gets passed, i thought.
Proposition - 89 Campaign Financing - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting
Name Votes Pct
No 4,634,581 74.42 [/b]
Yes 1,593,367 25.58
Interesting. I voted yes. I must have been missing something.
Proposition - 90 Eminent Domain - California 23601 of 25231 Precincts Reporting
Name Votes Pct
No 3,273,704 52.52 [/b]
Yes 2,959,860 47.48
I still don't understand what this 'dangerous loophole' is all about. I know odub tried to explain it, but I don't get it. I just don't want the government taking peoples houses away to build strip malls, so I voted yes.
Well interesting results. All in all, I'm pretty happy with how things turned out. Especially in the house. no, not the house of reps, I mean my house... my smokes safe! har har.
Voting against this wasn't a vote FOR child molesters. What people have basically said is this: so long as predators are forced to live in rural cities, fine by me. I have a student who works with probation officers who deal SPECIFICALLY with sex offenders and they voted against this law. Why? Because they know it doesn't actually do much to make kids safer, that's it's going to cost a shitload of money to boot. That said, it's not like I'm bummed this passed. But I also live in urban Los Angeles. If I were living in some rural town in CA? I'd be pretty fucking scared for my kids because this law might have the effect of creating entire communities of sex offenders.
Woo hoo, progress.
It also helped that the anti-87 campaign ran ads with firemen and policemen saying, "we don't support this." That goes a long way too. It's just a pity they didn't read the small print where Chevron and Texaco funded the anti-campaign.
I'm not crying over this either - California is already moving in the direction of the green movement with or without the prop.
This proposition ended up becoming such a disaster that even the people who put it on the ballot abandoned it. Yeah, that bad.
Well, maybe you should have read the proposal closer.
I'm all for putting more limits on the gov't use of eminent domain. I think it's a power that's been abused time and time again in the past. Had this proposition ONLY been about limiting the ability of the gov't to seize private property under eminent domain, I would have voted FOR it and I'm not even a home owner.
But the other half of the proposition was this: "This measure requires government to pay property owners if it passes certain new laws or rules that result in substantial economic losses to their property."
This is incredible (and perhaps purposefully) vague language. What it basically says is that ANYTIME the gov't passes a law that COULD decrease the value of private property, those owners (whether individuals or corporate) can sue the gov't for the loss in value.
So let me give you an example: let's say you own a home next to a forest that originally was going to get torn down by developers in order to build a larger subdivision of homes. Your home, because it's located in this up-and-coming neighborhood, grows in value. However, a spotted owl family is found in the forest. The gov't passes a law that protects the forest from getting torn down, the subdivision development stalls as a result and your home value declines as a result. Under this law, you could sue the gov't for the loss of value in your property. I find this problematic: buying a house is a RISK. Home owners don't deserve some kind of special blessing that removes them from the market forces that drive increases or declines in home value. And by the token, I don't think it's a smart idea to suddenly make the gov't liable for any laws they may pass that MAY have an effect on your property value.
Why? Because let's say you sue the gov't and you win. Who pays for your win? WE ALL DO, as taxpayers in the state of California. And why should I have to bail out the decline in value in your house? My tax money shouldn't be used as an insurance policy against the potential for loss in your property value.
So that's the loophole. I'm glad this prop is going down to defeat.
So... are you happy with the way things turned out?
The props that I was most concerned about went the way I wanted them too. Most of the bonds ones passed, but I'm not really upset about them. Its my kids that will have to pay that shit off, not me.... hahahaha.
I wish more people would chime in on this shit. Only a few of us are talking about it.
On a side note, whats going down in LA this weekend? Me and HJ might be heading up on Saturday. Might be down for some Karaoke action with the usual crew. Let me know what going on LA folls.....
As for the props, there's nothing I'm too bummed over. I do think the sex offender prop was poor legislation and I think, as a state, we're going to realize this over time.
One of my students made what I thought was a very reflective observation about the problem with California's proposition system: it's all or nothing. SHe voted "no" on practically everything b/c she disagreed with at least some portion of each prop. ANd I don't blame her. A lot of these props had some good parts but also some questionable ones and in that case, it's better to vote the whole thing down and hope legislators can put in the "good" parts through the conventional legislative process.
Frankly, I think the proposition system in California has been a fucking disaster in trying to idealize democracy but really, instead, enforcing a small-minded mob rule and tyranny of the majority. Look at 187, 209, and of course, prop 13. Not that I think the State Senate are magical elves of good government but what's the point of a representative democracy if we don't actually allow our representatives to do their job and instead, trying to do backdoor legislation vis a vis propositions every year?
Realpolitik and real talk. The Democratic campaign was kinda weak--I thought it was rather stupid to spend so much time trying to mark Arnold into Bush's buddy when Arnold has rather famously clashed with Bush over many issues. I know some people who think Arnie is Satan incarnate, but like O-Dub, I find him much more palatable than many other GOP options. Arnie's a social moderate, whereas the GOP these days is largely dominated by hardcore social cons. He's much more apt to triangulate and play toward the middle than he is to do like Bush and aboslutely insist he get his way. I'm not exactly an Arnold fan, but I don't think he's atrocious either.
Angelides whole campaign was "I HATE BUSH!!"
Every interview I heard, every time he gave a speech, he came off like the biggest duechebag ever. I started to wonder if he wasn't mildly retarded. Arnie's not a bad choice, and still better than Grey Davis.
dude, you needn't have feared. this was like the Cali version of the gay marriage bans. it prolly brought people to the polls who had never voted before in their lives!