SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Sacramento Area (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=134)
-   -   ---Majin's *Official* November 4th 2008 General Election Recommendations--- (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=160137)

Majin Oct 31, 2008 5:23 PM

---Majin's *Official* Political discussion thread--
 
Use this thread for all random political discussions.

innov8 Oct 31, 2008 6:29 PM

Phew, thanks Majin. I don't know what I would have done if I didn't know that you were voting for :laugh:

Majin Oct 31, 2008 7:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innov8 (Post 3885227)
Phew, thanks Majin. I don't know what I would have done if I didn't know that you were voting for :laugh:

No problem :) :)

Probably the most important thing you guys need to vote for is NO on 1A. I'm kinda sad no leaders in Sac actually publicly stood up against 1A.

Cynikal Oct 31, 2008 8:04 PM

Just what we need, one more ignorant douche tell me how to vote.

:cheers:

Fusey Oct 31, 2008 8:07 PM

Majin, I really need to know your opinion on Proposition 2. It's the only way I'll be able to decide how to vote.

BrianSac Oct 31, 2008 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Majin (Post 3885370)
No problem :) :)

Probably the most important thing you guys need to vote for is NO on 1A. I'm kinda sad no leaders in Sac actually publicly stood up against 1A.

Yeah, where the heck were they. Sacramento can do better.

Personally, by far the most important Prop for me is voting NO on Prop 8. Please, Just say NO to discrimination, disenfranchisment, and Inequality. Please do not write discrimination into our Constitution. It may be Gays today; tomorrow it could be you.

ltsmotorsport Nov 1, 2008 3:24 AM

You really like prop 7 more than 10?

austinjfox Nov 1, 2008 4:13 AM

no on 7. its some loop hole for rich idiots to jack up taxes and get richer. Barr for president (yes, im willing to admit that), of course no on 8, YES on 1a! Why shouldn't it pass? People think its a waste of money, but i think its awesome, personally.

Ryan@CU Nov 1, 2008 4:45 AM

who's Barack Obama?

innov8 Nov 1, 2008 4:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan@CU (Post 3886091)
who's Barack Obama?

Also known as the messiah.

innov8 Nov 1, 2008 5:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by austinjfox (Post 3886078)
no on 7. its some loop hole for rich idiots to jack up taxes and get richer. Barr for president (yes, im willing to admit that), of course no on 8, YES on 1a! Why shouldn't it pass? People think its a waste of money, but i think its awesome, personally.

The State's budget deficit is currently $15 billion and the governor's thinking of
borrowing an additional $7 billion from the federal government, the State can't
afford any more big bond measures right now.

The California Legislature is still wanting for answers to its financial questions
concerning the HSR business plan that was due back on Sept. 1. At the rail
authoritys Oct. 1 meeting, the rail authority staff complained about
legislative pressure and indicated it would not comply. Lehman Bros., the rail
authority's financial adviser, is apparently out of business and unavailable
to write the business plan. How can taxpayers trust the rail authority with
first phase price tage of $10 billion, given this record?

Vote no on Prop. 1A

snfenoc Nov 1, 2008 6:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innov8 (Post 3886101)
Also known as the messiah.


or Karl Marx.


(Before you libcialists get all pissy, MccAncient ain't that much better).


Vote Bob Barr!

Sorry, I am registered in Orangevale, so I have no say in the Mayor's race. Vote McClintock! - Good grief Charlie Brown! Stop hiding behind your military service, etc. You are no conservative. You'll just be another Pelosi Puppet. No, I'll take the libertarian leaning guy, whether he's Travelin' Tom or not.

No on 1A - Obvious reasons

No on 2 - Animals do not have rights. They are property. I will do what I want with my property, whether you like it or not.

No on 3 - Sigh! Bonds!

Yes on 4 - I saw an anti ad the other day telling me to get out of my little world or whatever. Ahhhhh! There's that liberal elitism I've come to know and hate. Well, 1 in 10 girls may get abused by their alcoholic fathers for whoring it up, but that's no reason to deny all parents the right to know.

No on 5 - Rehab?? Screw that! Just make drugs legal. Then they aren't a problem. Hooked? Oh well, they will be less expensive so you can support your habit without resorting to criminal activity. I can't wait for the day when I can go to the store and buy a big bag of pot, some rubbing alcohol and a Coke Zero for like $10 bucks. (Although with these artificially low interest rates and the government printing money out of no where, inflation may make that trip to the store cost about $1000 bucks.)

No on 6 - Again, just make drugs legal - it'll take care of a lot a gang issues.

No on 7 - Not a job for government. You wanna be green? Do it on YOUR own with YOUR own money. Plus, it's a bond!!!! I HATE BONDS!!!

Yes on 8 - I changed my mind. I hate to change the constitution, but I'll be darned if I'm gonna stand by and allow the state seal (which partially - One 37 millionth - belongs to me) to affirm a sham contract. (Let the flaming begin.) I love all my gay peeps, but I have a right as a citizen to decide which contracts I think are right and proper, and I just don't think gays should marry. Sorry. It does not hurt your freedom, you can still sign "partnership" contracts. You can still call yourself married. You can still have your relationship. Proposition 8 does nothing to affect that stuff. It's simply about recognition. In fact, I see voting for 8 as an exercise in my freedom - to decide which contracts I think are proper and which ones I think are crap. We would not have to do this, but some elitist judges decided to overturn the will of 60% of the voters. Evidently, they think they have a right to decide the constitutionality of laws. I don't (I know I'm alone on this one, but I don't care. The citizens should decided constitutionality with the mandate they give those they elect.)

No on 9 - Victims Bill of Rights? Mary's Law? Any time a new law is labeled as a "Bill of Rights" or it's named after someone, I vote No. It'll probably make us less free/give the government power it should not have.

No on 10 - Screw you T. Boone - I'm not falling for your money-stealing scheme. Again, this is not a job for government money. If you can't convince enough people to buy CNG vehicles, then too bad, so sad, you made marry mad. Plus it's a f**king bond.

Yes on 11 - I don't really like this, but I can just see the libs redrawing district after district to screw people like me, so it gets a Yes!

No on 12 - bonds. sigh.

bigd Nov 1, 2008 6:32 AM

I agree with you snfenoc on Bob Barr and have mostly libertarian values. However:

I really believe in animal rights, as a vegetarian. IMO, the problem with that bill is it is only effective in California. This will cause our ag industry to suffer. I wish the national govt could pass a bill like that. I am still undecided on prop 2.

I completely agree with you on legalizing drugs.

I also would definitely vote no on 8.

Phillip Nov 1, 2008 7:20 PM

Majin,

You and the Sacramento Union's Voter Guide agree on 4 of 12 propositions...maybe 5 or 6 if you develop an opinion on Props #2 and #9.

innov8 Nov 1, 2008 8:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phillip (Post 3886706)
Majin,

You and the Sacramento Union's Voter Guide agree on 4 of 12 propositions...maybe 5 or 6 if you develop an opinion on Props #2 and #9.

:haha: :haha: :haha: Majin, you're 40% conservative and possibly 50% or
60%. That's okay, I think you'll still be accepted in most social groups ;)

jsf8278 Nov 2, 2008 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snfenoc (Post 3886166)

Yes on 8 - I changed my mind. I hate to change the constitution, but I'll be darned if I'm gonna stand by and allow the state seal (which partially - One 37 millionth - belongs to me) to affirm a sham contract. (Let the flaming begin.) I love all my gay peeps, but I have a right as a citizen to decide which contracts I think are right and proper, and I just don't think gays should marry. Sorry. It does not hurt your freedom, you can still sign "partnership" contracts. You can still call yourself married. You can still have your relationship. Proposition 8 does nothing to affect that stuff. It's simply about recognition. In fact, I see voting for 8 as an exercise in my freedom - to decide which contracts I think are proper and which ones I think are crap. We would not have to do this, but some elitist judges decided to overturn the will of 60% of the voters. Evidently, they think they have a right to decide the constitutionality of laws. I don't (I know I'm alone on this one, but I don't care. The citizens should decided constitutionality with the mandate they give those they elect.)

In general, you as a citizen have NO RIGHT to decide which contracts are proper. Did you vote on the rental agreement I entered into last month? You have a RIGHT to enter into which contracts you deem fit. The courts then have the RIGHT to decide if those contracts are in accord with many things, one being public policy and another the CA Constitution.

Your ideology and irrational thinking is in accord with those that used to say "its just a contract," and "the state has the right to decide which relationships it will recognize." Those were the arguments used to deny interracial couples the right to marry marrying. Congrats, you're a bigot.

I could go on and on about how wrong you are legally, but I'm sure you don't care. The crap you spill on this forum sounds like you've been reading old Harry Browne Libertarian books. As such, you apparently feel like you know something about the law. Trust me, you don't.

snfenoc Nov 2, 2008 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsf8278 (Post 3886968)
In general, you as a citizen have NO RIGHT to decide which contracts are proper. Did you vote on the rental agreement I entered into last month? You have a RIGHT to enter into which contracts you deem fit. The courts then have the RIGHT to decide if those contracts are in accord with many things, one being public policy and another the CA Constitution.

Your ideology and irrational thinking is in accord with those that used to say "its just a contract," and "the state has the right to decide which relationships it will recognize." Those were the arguments used to deny interracial couples the right to marry marrying. Congrats, you're a bigot.

I could go on and on about how wrong you are legally, but I'm sure you don't care. The crap you spill on this forum sounds like you've been reading old Harry Browne Libertarian books. As such, you apparently feel like you know something about the law. Trust me, you don't.


Ahhhh more of that liberal elitism I've come to know and hate.

What's wrong with being a libertarian?

Look, just because you went to law school does not mean much to me. You're nothing special, buddy. I ain't scared of you.

Irrational? I think not. I've thought about my view a lot. You may not accept them, but your acceptance does not determine rationality.

Am I a bigot? Yes, I am. I am also a racist. But from what I've seen, everyone fits these molds. We are all slaves to our experience, and we tend to prefer those who look like us and think like us. Is that good? Well, yes and no - it depends. Is it common? Absolutely - and YOU are not immune. Your hateful, angry, stereotyping posts are evidence of this.

Do I think it's proper NOT to recognize interracial marriage? No. Would I vote for a constitutional amendment or change in the law to make interracial marriages illegal? No. Race and sex are two different things. Do I need to explain? Do I think same sex marriage isn't marriage and should not be recognized by my state? Yes. Does that make me a bigot? Depends on your definition. But I don't care what your definition of Bigot is.

You are right. I don't give a crap about your opinion of the law. Heck, I don't agree with most of our laws, and I dislike much of our legal system. So, I understand I am at odds with what is accepted. But I have the right to seek and vote for a change (e.g., voting for Bob Barr, voting Yes on Props 4, 8 & 11 and voting No on the rest). You see, in the State of California the public has the RIGHT to directly vote on certain laws and bonds - we call these things propositions. A number of years ago we were given the option to decide whether or not we want to recognize (affirm/normalize) a gay marriage. 60% of the voters decided to define marriage as between a man and a woman (damn, what a strange concept). A while later, the state Supreme Court overturned the will of the voters, saying it was unconstitutional. (I will not go into my anti supreme court ruling on constitutionality views again. You libs tend to go apoplectic when I do this - supreme court opinions and interpretations are the only way you've been able to force your morally void, baby killing ways on the public). Since the Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional, we have to change the Constitution, no big deal. Don't agree? Vote No. Think marriage is between a man and a woman? Vote Yes. If I am out voted, I will accept the outcome. However, when all is said and done, I want to feel confident I stood for my ideals. They are important to me. They may not be important to you, again, I don't care what you think.

Want the best solution? Let's stop all marriage recognition. Marriage is between the people involved, their families and their church. It's not a state function.

By the way, I did vote for the people who vote on laws governing your rental agreement. So in a way, I do/can affect your contract - unless you want the state Supes to overturn my vote.

BrianSac Nov 2, 2008 5:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsf8278 (Post 3886968)
In general, you as a citizen have NO RIGHT to decide which contracts are proper. Did you vote on the rental agreement I entered into last month? You have a RIGHT to enter into which contracts you deem fit. The courts then have the RIGHT to decide if those contracts are in accord with many things, one being public policy and another the CA Constitution.

Your ideology and irrational thinking is in accord with those that used to say "its just a contract," and "the state has the right to decide which relationships it will recognize." Those were the arguments used to deny interracial couples the right to marry marrying. Congrats, you're a bigot.

I could go on and on about how wrong you are legally, but I'm sure you don't care. The crap you spill on this forum sounds like you've been reading old Harry Browne Libertarian books. As such, you apparently feel like you know something about the law. Trust me, you don't.

jsf,
There is no reasoning with someone like that. It’s one thing to simply not like someone just because they are not like you or because their sexual orientation is in the minority. But its another thing to make laws against them singaling them out for discrimination and inequality. It’s blatant and it goes against everything America stands for regarding individual freedom.

By the way he talks, I personally believe, he is on a power trip. It gives him some type of sick satisfaction to discriminate against a group of people. It’s a way of saying no matter how successful you Gays become or how much good you do to contribute to society you will never be equal to me because me and my majority says you will never be equal to me.

These bigots and homophobes figure they will codify discrimination into the highest law of the land, just to make sure that everyone knows no matter how committed and how good gay relationships can be they will never be as "good as ours". Its clearly un-American and hateful.

You would think they would respect what is good about marriage and how it can foster stable relationships of all kinds weather they are homosexual or heterosexual relationships. We all know that stable committed relationships foster healthy happy families of all types. So why not let Gays fully participate in creating healthy happy relationships that are natural to them.

An unjust law is no law at all in my opinion. I am praying that the majority sees what is just, right, and equal and that they see what is discriminatory, wrong and unequal therefore casting a NO vote on Prop 8.

Quest Nov 2, 2008 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianSac (Post 3887332)
jsf,
There is no reasoning with someone like that. It’s one thing to simply not like someone just because they are not like you or because their sexual orientation is in the minority. But its another thing to make laws against them singaling them out for discrimination and inequality. It’s blatant and it goes against everything America stands for regarding individual freedom.

By the way he talks, I personally believe, he is on a power trip. It gives him some type of sick satisfaction to discriminate against a group of people. It’s a way of saying no matter how successful you Gays become or how much good you do to contribute to society you will never be equal to me because me and my majority says you will never be equal to me.

These bigots and homophobes figure they will codify discrimination into the highest law of the land, just to make sure that everyone knows no matter how committed and how good gay relationships can be they will never be as "good as ours". Its clearly un-American and hateful.

You would think they would respect what is good about marriage and how it can foster stable relationships of all kinds weather they are homosexual or heterosexual relationships. We all know that stable committed relationships foster healthy happy families of all types. So why not let Gays fully participate in creating healthy happy relationships that are natural to them.

An unjust law is no law at all in my opinion. I am praying that the majority sees what is just, right, and equal and that they see what is discriminatory, wrong and unequal therefore casting a NO vote on Prop 8.

What's next, it's normal to sleep with dogs? BIG YES ON Prop8 and NO on pervets...

jsf8278 Nov 3, 2008 1:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quest (Post 3888313)
What's next, it's normal to sleep with dogs? BIG YES ON Prop8 and NO on pervets...

Yes, the natural progression from allowing two persons of the same sex to marry is for society to recognize that it's normal to have sex with animals. Its sad that there are people in America stupid enough believe that. What's ironic is that they themselves are the ones that typically engage in that type of behavior.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.