Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/29/2004 1:52:34 PM EDT
I'm strongly opposed to Prop 66 which would roll back the Three-strikes law.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 4:55:25 PM EDT
I am against gambling.

I am against expanding gambling in order to garner more tax revenue.

I am against gambling (Lottery) and borrowing money (Bonds) to fund schools.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 5:19:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mike_Mills:
I am against gambling.

I am against expanding gambling in order to garner more tax revenue.

I am against gambling (Lottery) and borrowing money (Bonds) to fund schools& social programs.


I personally don' have any problem with the indians having casinos on their territory - it's their soverign land and we shouldn't have any say in what they do there, just like how the UN, the indians and Mexicans shouldn't have any say in what we do on our land. However once they moved their casinos off their owned land, I feel they should be open for taxing like any other business in CA.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 10:11:48 PM EDT
I'm voting against anything that is revenue raising.
I'm voting to keep the 3-strikes law the same.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 10:28:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2004 10:41:35 PM EDT by Raynman83]
Hey folks, correct me if I'm wrong, and understand that I totally respect the culture of the American Indians here.


As far as I know, they are the only people who were conquered by force, and yet, somehow, they were not forced to blend with our people. We gave them land back even though it's american soil. I'm not upset, I'm just a little confused at how we can conquer a people so we can take land, and yet, after the conquest, we didn't really take the land.

Other than that, I think they should pay taxes like every other business, reservation or not. They aren't a separate country, but they are given more rights and better privilages than US citizens.

At the same time, I think CA should make it legal to have casinos without needing them to be run by Indians. If people can't handle thier money, they deserve to lose it.

Understand that my views are generally very right wing. If no one else agrees, I understand.


three strikes law...let me get this straight, if it passes,
1. You only get another strike if the crime is violent or serious as opposed to a non-violent felony?
2. Sex-offenders specifically pedophiles would have harsher sentences?

If this is correct, I don't think it's good. It looks like gun legislation, on the good side, harsher punishment for child sex offenders, on the down side, it's harder for someone to get 3 strikes.

this is a gun board, so I'm allowed to make the statement that we have crime trouble not because we let guns roam the streets, but cause we let criminals. punishment for crime should be harsh, that way, people won't want to do it. Holding people ultimately responsible for thier actions seems to be the only real way for people to realize that committing crime is wrong. It's not the gun's fault that person was shot, it was the shooter.

Link Posted: 9/30/2004 10:05:59 AM EDT
At this time, I plan to vote NO across the board. I still need to do my research though, so that may be a bit premature. But so far I haven't heard of one ballot measure that I like.

However in San Diego I will be voting Yes on the local proposition to form a "strong mayor" government, instead of the wishy-washy, take-no-responsibility city council system we currently have. Someone's got to be in charge. Ruling by comitee rarely works, and especially with our labor-packed shitty council.
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 11:48:11 AM EDT
We NEED a "Proposition 86"! Short title: Would you like to FIRE our current state legislators?
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 12:51:14 PM EDT
If you want to read up on them here ya go.

Link Posted: 9/30/2004 1:19:19 PM EDT
The Prop. that rolls back the 3-Strikes Law was funded by a millionare
who's son would be released if it passes.

NO on this one!

Prop. 68 will allow more Casinos to be built NO on this one, too!

NO on manditory health-care paid for by corp's...!
Link Posted: 9/30/2004 1:49:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/13/2004 1:23:56 AM EDT by leelaw]
NO on 68 and 70. Both would contradict and damage current agreements that Arnold has worked out with the indians regarding casinos. We don't need to make a deal then break it, which could provoke the Indians to play hardball (see: possible hundreds of millions of losses to the state)

ETA: basically no across the board, except for the public information act.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:27:46 AM EDT
63 No
64 Yes
66 Hell No!
67 No
69 Hell Yes.
71 No
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 8:05:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 8:07:00 PM EDT by Paul]
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:58:10 PM EDT
No on 3 strikes "reform", if they haven't figured it out after two strikes then good riddance on #3.

No on mandatory health care, company should be free to make it's own business decisions to be competitive in it's field, if the need bennies to atract the right people so be it, if the bennies price them out, or make them non-competitive then that's going to be more jobs lost. You notice most of the push behind this is from Unions it won't apply to? Trying to make non-union jobs more expensive and/or make union jobs appear less non-competitive. In any case any government action that mandates an involuntary increase in total compensataion tends to move jobs out of state. may I suggest that we look at Hughes A/C gone, Lockheed mostly gone, most manufacturing gone,

No on open primaries. Hey if you aren't a Democrat, Republican or Commie or whatever, you shouldn't be voting in that parties elections.
Link Posted: 10/13/2004 12:47:28 AM EDT
I used to vote NO across the board, but for the last couple of years have been voting YES on every bond measure I can. Of course, I'm moving soon.
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 10:31:53 AM EDT
Repealing the 3 strikes law does not sit well with me. I was in a "discussion" here at school yesterday with a few of my more liberal friends. Their claim is that the 3 strikes law is unfair because it punishes people without allowing them the chance to rehabilitate. So let's see here....They committed a felony and got out, then decided to commit another one, did their time, and then got out. Any rational person, at this point, would say to themselves " Hey, those two stints in prison wasn't too cool, I think I won't commit any more crimes" If they do not have this conversation with themselves, then it seems to me that they are inherently irrational and cannot/will not rehabilitate themselves.

I have met a few people who went to prison for stealing cars and had such a good time that when they got out they moved 5 hours away from their old neighborhoods, got jobs, didn't even give their new phone numbers and addresses to their family, got off of probation, and got themselves into college. These people are classmates of mine and grew up poor in pretty bad areas, and are the strongest proponents of tough crime legislation that I have met on campus. They have told me that if they had not made the tough choices that they did when they were released from prison, they probably would have gone back to crime, and that is why they made the choices that they did, even though it was extremely difficult. Everyone has the same choices that these guys did, and deciding not to make them is their choice, and they will have to suffer the consequences as such
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 8:59:05 PM EDT
1A Tribal Gaming Pays it's Share---YES
59 Public Records Open Meetings-public access to meetings and writings of government bodies--YES
60 Election Rights of Political Parties--Requires that a candidate from each political party advances from the primaries (IOW requires separate Primaries)--YES ---not ready to give up separate primaries.
60a Selling surplus State Property--YES
61 Children's Hospitals Bonds--NO -- I generally feel if these items are a priority with the legislature they will include them in the budget and let something else slide.

62. Voter Choice Open Primaries--Permits all voters to vote for candidates regardless of party registration--NO--not ready to give up separate primaries.

63. Increase income taxes on certain Californians to fund expanded mental Health Programs--NO--Again, if this is not priority for government then why ask us.

64. Reduce Frivolous Lawsuits--YES--Hell, YES.
65. Local Govt Funds and State Mandates--NO--this competes with Prop 1A which gets a YES

66 Limits on 3 Strikes--Weakens 3 strikes laws--NO
67. Telephone Surcharge for Emergency Medical Services--NO--it doesn't even allow for equal distribution of funds so likely will fund big city services.

68. Non-Tribal Gaming--NO
69. DNA Collection from Felons and suspects.YES
70. Tribal Gaming Compacts.-NO
71 Stem Cell Bonds--NO--$3 billion for research = $200 million addition to yearly budget that's already in deficit.
72 Health Car Coverage Refererndum--NO--Another Bureaucracy that forces Californians into state health care and forces employers to pay for health care.
Top Top