California Voting Guide

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 41 - 60 of total 63 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Nefarius

Big Wall climber

somewhere without avatars.........

Oct 17, 2008 - 03:14pm PT

I found the article (concerning prop 8) ironic. "I don't have anything against them (gays)", yet he supports legislation that discriminates against and oppresses them. Lame. Whether you want to admit it or not, it *is* discriminatory.

In my mind, the only options for being a supporter are: you're a religious fanatic, a homophobe or simply "jumping off a bridge" cause your friends did. Pathetic, really.

bluering

Trad climber

Santa Clara, Ca.

Oct 17, 2008 - 03:28pm PT

"religious fanatic, a homophobe or simply 'jumping off a bridge'"

Well, there must be a lot of those in California because the voters disapproved of gay-marriage by a 61% to 38% margin before, only to have it overturned by a 4-3 court decision...which is pretty close.

Hence the constitutional amendment to skirt the judges and have the 'dicriminatory/hateful' Californian's votes actually count.

Nefarius

Big Wall climber

somewhere without avatars.........

Oct 17, 2008 - 03:30pm PT

Apparently so. Regardless, doesn't change what it is. It's too bad separation of church and state isn't a real thing.

dirtbag

climber

Oct 17, 2008 - 03:32pm PT

Many of the finest court decisions in history have run counter to the hateful/discriminatory majority of the time.

klk

Trad climber

cali

Oct 17, 2008 - 03:33pm PT

Once again, California voters have a chance to vote themselves more services without paying for them. The successful initiatives will become essentially unfunded mandates that then compete against other unfunded mandates and constitutionally mandated services. Then we will go even deeper into the red.

For thirty years, California voters have been voting themselves more services and lower taxes. This election will be no different. But due to our irrational tax structure and the collapse of the housing/paper bubble, next year's revenue will be catastrophically lower than projections and lower than this year's. But we will have mandated that the state provide us with more services.

bluering

Trad climber

Santa Clara, Ca.

Oct 17, 2008 - 03:43pm PT

I agree klk, we have a budget problem in Cali right now and often times people don't read what financial impacts certain Props will have on our already overly inflated budget.

I heard about this non-partisan site that summarizes Props but I haven't thouroughly checkid it out yet.
http://citizenvoiceblog.wordpress.com/

klk

Trad climber

cali

Oct 17, 2008 - 03:57pm PT

blue-- tx for the link. gary dietrich's been around for awhile (he's a regular on one of the bay area radio stations), but i hadn't seen his website.

Karl Baba

Trad climber

Yosemite, Ca

Oct 17, 2008 - 04:14pm PT

Just think, if Gay Marriage is legalized, so many previously moral men might leave their wives and marry guys instead. Watch all the sports you want, all the sex you want, I'm sure it will tempt them grievously.

Everybody who wants to go gay once you can marry a guy, raise your hand!

peace

Karl

Chaz

Trad climber

So. Cal.

Oct 17, 2008 - 05:06pm PT

See what happens when The Government gets involved in something that's none of it's business?

We have folks, who would otherwise get along fine, at each other's throats, burning and stealing sh#t, etc.

But you're going to trust The Government to make it all better. Good luck!

Nefarius

Big Wall climber

somewhere without avatars.........

Oct 17, 2008 - 05:20pm PT

I think people who believe in others', rather than just their own, freedoms probably look at it a bit differently.... The government is already involved and they are trying to remove the government's involvement so that they can live their lives how they see fit and with whom they choose.

I know the weak sauce argument will come up that "no one is saying they can't be gay", "no one is saying they can't be with whom they choose", etc... Weak sauce! About as weak as the belief/argument, back in the day, that "we're not hurting the coons, we're keeping our kids safe by sending them to their own schools" or "we're not doing anything to them, we're exercising our right to do our own thing..." The list could go on and on and on........ Discrimination in this country is simply an abomination, considering the fact that this country was founded on beliefs stemming from the desire to not be discriminated against.

klk

Trad climber

cali

Oct 17, 2008 - 05:30pm PT

We don't have any recent public polling data on most of these. Field and Public Policy institute haven't published anything this month. The September numbers are here:

http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/

http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=839

The "No on 8" folks have really pushed hard in fundraising and ads the last few weeks, which suggests that their internals aren't as reassuring as the summer numbers.

Incredibly, the Obama campaign has enough money that its doing media buys in the Bay area-- TV ads! --even though there's zero chance of McCain getting anywhere close om Ca. Presumably the campaign is trying to help out downticket Dems in close races, along with key Proposition votes.

HighDesertDJ

Trad climber

Arid-zona

Oct 17, 2008 - 05:55pm PT

I agree Chaz. Like most of our problems, Supertopo bickering is pretty much the government's fault.

looking sketchy there...

Social climber

Latitute 33

Oct 17, 2008 - 06:05pm PT

"Hence the constitutional amendment to skirt the judges and have the 'dicriminatory/hateful' Californian's votes actually count."

The Constitutional Amendment route is necessary because the prior attempt at a ban was in fact Un-Constitutional. And last time I looked, it is the Judicial Branch that is charged with making those determinations (not the voters).

What is particularly bizarre about this isn't really what side you take, but rather a simple majority vote (50% + 1 vote) is sufficient to alter basic Constitutional Rights (in Calif), yet to raise taxes takes a 66.6% majority.

Doesn't that strike you as backwards?

Who needs Constitutional Rights if you always find yourself in the majority?

dirtbag

climber

Oct 17, 2008 - 06:21pm PT

Yes, it is backwards.

Flashlight

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Oct 17, 2008 - 06:24pm PT

This is fun. :)

Re: Prop 8...if someone doesn't understand the history and sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, then what is the point in discussing homosexual "marriage" with them?

Sorry you folks think it means I hate homosexuals...that is your problem, deal with it.

Flashlight

climber

Topic Author's Reply - Oct 17, 2008 - 07:34pm PT

Ooops!

I have to change my vote on Prop 7.

Look who is against it:
California League of Conservation Voters
Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies
Coalition for Clean Air
Environment California
Environmental Defense Fund
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club California
Union of Concerned Scientists

Hey Kleinhopper, you ripped me for opposing 7, how do you feel about it knowing you were also ripping those in the above list?

bluering

Trad climber

Santa Clara, Ca.

Oct 17, 2008 - 07:48pm PT

I don't think you guys realize that for a Prop calling for a constitutional amendment has to pass certain legal hurdles to even QUALIFY for the Prop to be allowed on the ballot.

It's not you can just make sh#t up, and it qualifies with a certain number of signatures...that's the normal Prop process.

klk

Trad climber

cali

Oct 17, 2008 - 07:55pm PT

blue--

actually, an initiative doesn't have to pass much scrutiny at all. california voters have on numerous occasions voted for propositions that were clearly unconstitutional and thus had no chance of making it into actual law.

the main requirement for putting something on the ballot is money: the last time i checked, five million could get just about anything you wanted on the ballot. a number of cali firms specialize in the packaging and signature-gathering. then, for the votes, since cali is a media-buy state, you need a lot more dough.

there is considerable fighting over the precise wording of the summary that will appear on the ballot-- money alone can't buy that.

god, i can remember the newspapers calling me to give them some historical context about horsemeat as a table delicacy back when that horsemeat prop was on the ballot. just about anything is game.