Okay, then.
I sure was looking forward to hating Democrats again. Guess I'll have to wait another four years.
On the upside, Californians defeated Prop 72 and approved Prop 64. Unfortunately, they approved some other lousy propositions (61, 63) and missed the chance to approve a good one (66).
[This post was modified to correct an error; I accidentally stated that California defeated 64.]
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I voted mostly like you, maybe because of you (scary, you wanted cloning!). I voted against prop. 64 because I hate to restrict people's ability to sue. The chambers of commerce spent something like 40 million on ads to smear all lawsuits as "frivolous and shakedown." I know a few auto mechanics that I'd like to shake upside down. Where was the consumer opposition to this? I didn't see a single commercial against 64. Of course, I'm in favor of stem cell research but I opposed prop. 71 that will now saddle the penniless state of California with another 3,000,000,000 in debt and give cushy high-paying jobs to more pigs at the trough. All the ex-governors came out of the woodwork to oppose prop. 66 at the last minute. And, a Willy Horton type scare campaign on tv did the trick to defeat it. Where did the money come from to pay for those expensive ads? Most of all, I'm sorry Kerry lost and not for the reasons you think. I was so looking forward to Glen's sarcastic & venemous commentary over the next 4 years. You needn't attack Bush anymore though; I already hate him enough. I was only just starting to hate Kerry though. Too bad it was nipped in the bud.
Yup, i'm happy about Californians defeating prop 72. But I thought that 64 was a yes.
I agree with Glen on stupid Californians missing the chance to approve 66. People just did not think this out. Wasn't Arnold a total advocate for No on 66? I once saw a 20/20 show about a man who was an unfortunate victim of the three strikes law. He stole disney dvds from some store for his nephew and neice for christmas, but unfortunately it was his 3rd time getting caught stealing. The punishment that he had to bear for something non-violent was just terrible. I really thought people would vote for a more common-sensical way to punish criminals. I am REALLY dissapointed.
On another note, I am saddened that Glen thinks that prop 63 was a lousy one. It's one thing to fund capable people with our tax dollars b/c they are perfectly capable to get a job, but I think that the mentally ill are not capable of holding a steady job and thus need help from the general population. I almost feel like it's a social responsibility of mine since i was born without a defect (actually, that can be argued). I don't really know the extent of the measure, but I thought that it would expand services for the mentally ill children, adults, and seniors-which i think is desperately needed. Maybe i'm not seeing the smokescreen here, but I thought this was a good measure and one with heart.
But people that vote 'no' on this prop, does it just mean that they want the source of funding to come from somewhere else? I am not sure why people would be so against this measure that seems to really provide for a desperate need out there. Is it b/c it does nothing to actually heal the illnesses?
susan
oh, and didn't Arnold pardon several people in prison who were petty theives? His reason he gave for doing that was that he beleives people can change.
Him 'defeating' prop 66 is an irony or ironies.
I mean, did he really thinks this proposition out?
I am really confused.
susan
Oops -- I meant Californians *approved* 64 (and that's good). I'll correct that. In general, I'm skeptical of limiting people's ability to sue. But 64 reversed people's ability to sue for practices that did not even harm them. I do think you should actually have to be harmed in order to sue.
On Prop. 71 (stem cell research), the NY Times said:
"The measure ... was backed by an assortment of wealthy business people, Hollywood personalities, scientists and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ..."
Well, the rich were will to open up their pocketbooks to pay for the nauseating, maudlin ads to convince the voters of California to saddle the state with more debt. The rich, a sly and tricky bunch, just sold us a bill of goods! Why should they pay for anything when they can get others to pay for it for them. What can I say that will make any difference to anyone about the rich? Perhaps a bumper sticker sums it up: Eat the Rich. Do we have to wait until we are all starving to do so?
--I sell stem cells at the sea shore.
Susan,
Glen is a Libertarian and as such doesn't believe in "positive rights" such as a right to food, shelter, or health care. If you don't have these things then either someone has to give you these things out of the kindness of their heart or you have to get a job. I feel safe in saying that is why he voted against Prop. 63; if I'm wrong, I'm sure Glen will clarify matters. I voted against 63 for a different reasons. First, there's already is a Federal/State program for sick & disabled people that can't work called SSI. Second, I don't believe in a full-employment act for psychiatrists and another windfall for the pharmaceutical companies. Also, I don't believe in western medicine in general, especially when it comes to their toxic neuroleptic drugs. I would have voted for (temporary) shelters for the homeless though IF the State of California had the money to pay for it. But, the State is broke so no more freebies! Personally, I would give almost anything to keep the homeless from shitting & vomiting in my bushes (gross!) and throwing their beer cans & bottles in my backyard but 63 only gives them pills. Susan, if want the government to give you just about everything, you could move to oil-rich Kuwait. As a woman, you'd suddenly find yourself as a second class citizen--not too appetizing. Or, you could learn Swedish!
-Safety Nuts
safety nuts,
thanks for clarifying some of the issues.
and living in sweden doesn't sound half bad.
susan
Post a Comment