Online Ballot Preview
- Serious Paul
- Devil
- Posts: 6644
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm
Online Ballot Preview
Here is something new to me: online ballot. In Michigan you cannow view the ballot you'll be voting on come November.
That's the ballot I will be voting on.
That's the ballot I will be voting on.
- AtemHutlrt
- Bulldrekker
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 11:27 pm
- Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan
- Serious Paul
- Devil
- Posts: 6644
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm
In Florida they have electronic vooting booths this time around. [url=mms://streamingmedia.cyso.nl/cyso.nl/Voting_Machine.wmv]Here's an example.[/url] And here's an example in QuickTime.
- Serious Paul
- Devil
- Posts: 6644
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm
The best answer I have as to why is this: I don't care if homosexuals get equal rights or not. I do not believe it to be a genetic trait, anymore than I believe alcoholism to be one, or drug usage.mrmooky wrote:I was going to let it drop, but I couldn't resist asking why.
While I am making myself look real right and bigoted, I don't believe in affirmative action, welfare, government assistance of most types, or the ERA. Feel free to send me a fire bomb via email.
- Elldren
- Bulldrek Junkie
- Posts: 568
- Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2002 4:39 pm
- Location: The Desert Sands of Left Tennessee
Why the hell not? It might not make much sense, but it's the best single measure of just how good a pitcher is.Serious Paul wrote:I don't believe in... the ERA.
Eagles may soar, but Weasels don't get sucked into jet engines
<font size=-2 color=#5c7898><i>For, to seek for a true defence in an untrue weapon, is to angle on the earth for fish, and to hunt in the sea for hares.[/i] -- Robert Silver, <i>Paradoxes of Defence</i>, 1599</font>
<font size=-2 color=#5c7898><i>For, to seek for a true defence in an untrue weapon, is to angle on the earth for fish, and to hunt in the sea for hares.[/i] -- Robert Silver, <i>Paradoxes of Defence</i>, 1599</font>
- MissTeja
- Wuffle Grand Master
- Posts: 1959
- Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 3:25 am
- Location: Grand Rapids
- Contact:
That first link doesn't work.
There's no way I could vote yes on 2. Regardless of my feelings towards homosexuals (though my position just furthers my yes on two), this would be creating the first section in the entire Constitution that actually denies something to a certain group of individuals. I thought it was supposed to grant us our rights, not say "Well, this group can do this, but this group can't." Bloody ridiculous, in my opinion, and lays out a welcome mat that says "Bring it on, Slippery Slope!" I just cannot support something like that.
There's no way I could vote yes on 2. Regardless of my feelings towards homosexuals (though my position just furthers my yes on two), this would be creating the first section in the entire Constitution that actually denies something to a certain group of individuals. I thought it was supposed to grant us our rights, not say "Well, this group can do this, but this group can't." Bloody ridiculous, in my opinion, and lays out a welcome mat that says "Bring it on, Slippery Slope!" I just cannot support something like that.
To the entire world, you may be one single person, but to one person, you may be the entire world.
My point of view has always been that if you don't like gay marriages, don't have one.
I think marriage needs to be divided in two ways: "state," and "church." Churches should have the right to approve or deny the marriage of anyone they choose, but this church marriage has no legal force; it's a contract between some people [usually two] and their god.
State marriages should be a contract between two [or more, whatever] people, which grants you the legal rights marriage deserves. [Whatever those may be.]
I don't understand why it can't be this simple.
I think marriage needs to be divided in two ways: "state," and "church." Churches should have the right to approve or deny the marriage of anyone they choose, but this church marriage has no legal force; it's a contract between some people [usually two] and their god.
State marriages should be a contract between two [or more, whatever] people, which grants you the legal rights marriage deserves. [Whatever those may be.]
I don't understand why it can't be this simple.
- Serious Paul
- Devil
- Posts: 6644
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm
- Serious Paul
- Devil
- Posts: 6644
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm
Elledren wrote:Why the hell not? It might not make much sense, but it's the best single measure of just how good a pitcher is.
Seriously, I am against the government regulating our thoughts on anything. Perosnally I am bit surprised anyone would want to legislate our thoughts on any thing-if you have to make a law making people be nice then there's a fundamental problem in your society no law will cure.
Frankly I think this is no where as off the deep end as advocating armed force to remove religion form society. I just want people to be responsible for themselves, and their government to be there for only those things necassary, absolutely necassary.
- Serious Paul
- Devil
- Posts: 6644
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm
Cash: Check the France thread.
Because apaprently I misunderstood Proposal one, as well. I was under the impression it was to work like this:
People in county X want gambling, people in county X vote, and if it passes, county X gets Keno or whatever. And each county could make its own choice.
Instead, I guess it is to work like this:
Joes Bar wants Keno, they need to get a state wide vote to have it, each and every time. The state as a whole makes choices for individual communities.
Which of course means a few religous groups that weild a lot of voter turn out will run this proposal, and who gets gambling.
I think thats silly.
Because apaprently I misunderstood Proposal one, as well. I was under the impression it was to work like this:
People in county X want gambling, people in county X vote, and if it passes, county X gets Keno or whatever. And each county could make its own choice.
Instead, I guess it is to work like this:
Joes Bar wants Keno, they need to get a state wide vote to have it, each and every time. The state as a whole makes choices for individual communities.
Which of course means a few religous groups that weild a lot of voter turn out will run this proposal, and who gets gambling.
I think thats silly.
As it turns out, actually, my father appears to be wrong. It appears that the prospective gambling venue must pass both a state /and/ a local vote. Still seeking more information. A link to the proposal would help, since I'm real lazy. I mean, /real/ lazy. I'm so lazy that, even though during the time I spent writing this, I could have gotten the answer, I /still/ won't look it up for myself. It's like spending five minutes picking something up with your foot instead of bending over and using your hands. Which I also do.
- Serious Paul
- Devil
- Posts: 6644
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm
Proposal One and links to Proposal Two, and the ballot guide. I am not sure why that first link quit working.
Well, then you said it yourself, in your post in the Prop. 1 thread: the proposal does the following:
What I think is most interesting is bullet four: "up to three" casinos in Detroit? Why are "up to three casinos" in Detroit legal /without/ voter approval?
I also find the wording of bullet one interesting, when contrasted with bullet two: "Require voter approval of any form of gambling..." versus, "Require voter approval of any new state lottery games..." I also think specifying only "state lottery games utilizing 'table games' or 'player operated mechanical or electronic devices'" leaves a gap I could drive a truck through: basically, the state is free to dream up any kind of lottery that /isn't/ table or mechanic/electrical, and not require a vote on that. Notice also any mechanical or electrical game that /isn't/ player operated doesn't require a vote.
- Require voter approval of any form of gambling authorized by law after January 1, 2004.
- Require voter approval of any new state lottery games utilizing "table games" or "player operated mechanical or electronic devices" introduced after January 1, 2004.
- Provide that when voter approval is required, both statewide voter approval and voter approval in the city or township where gambling will take place must be obtained.
- Specify that the voter approval requirement does not apply to Indian tribal gaming or gambling in up to three casinos located in the City of Detroit.
What I think is most interesting is bullet four: "up to three" casinos in Detroit? Why are "up to three casinos" in Detroit legal /without/ voter approval?
I also find the wording of bullet one interesting, when contrasted with bullet two: "Require voter approval of any form of gambling..." versus, "Require voter approval of any new state lottery games..." I also think specifying only "state lottery games utilizing 'table games' or 'player operated mechanical or electronic devices'" leaves a gap I could drive a truck through: basically, the state is free to dream up any kind of lottery that /isn't/ table or mechanic/electrical, and not require a vote on that. Notice also any mechanical or electrical game that /isn't/ player operated doesn't require a vote.
- Johnny the Bull
- Bulldrek Pimp
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:16 am
- Location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
- Contact:
At a guess I'd say he means the Equal Rights Amendment.lorg wrote:What is ERA?Serious Paul wrote:While I am making myself look real right and bigoted, I don't believe in affirmative action, welfare, government assistance of most types, or the ERA. Feel free to send me a fire bomb via email.
--------------------------------------------
No money, no honey
No money, no honey
- Serious Paul
- Devil
- Posts: 6644
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:38 pm
- Jeff Hauze
- Wuffle Trainer
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 10:31 pm
- Anguirel
- Freeman of the Crimson Assfro
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 12:04 pm
- Location: City of Angels
I don't see the ERA as regulating thoughts at all.Serious Paul wrote:Seriously, I am against the government regulating our thoughts on anything. Perosnally I am bit surprised anyone would want to legislate our thoughts on any thing-if you have to make a law making people be nice then there's a fundamental problem in your society no law will cure.
Frankly I think this is no where as off the deep end as advocating armed force to remove religion form society. I just want people to be responsible for themselves, and their government to be there for only those things necassary, absolutely necassary.
Seriously.
It says the government can't start legislating that women need to wear skirts unless men are equally required to wear skirts. It doesn't say that you personally need to allow women into your men club, and it doesn't apply to anything outside of sex (which is not gender). If Alabama has some law on the books barring women from serving in some position, then the national government can pass legislation forcing Alabama to change their laws.ERA wrote: Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
Interestingly enough, it has been ratified by 35 out of a required 38 states. List of remaining states:
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Utah
Virginia
Teehee.
complete. dirty. whore.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
- Anguirel
- Freeman of the Crimson Assfro
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 12:04 pm
- Location: City of Angels
In 1923, when the Amendment was first proposed, it clearly did not exist in either law or Constitution. The Constitution has not been altered to include such verbiage since then (i.e. by including this Amendment). Therefore, it does not explicitly exist. I don't see that we need the ERA now... but I also don't see any good reason to prevent it from being put in if people want to have it there explicitly.3278 wrote:That protection already exists in our law, and in our Constitution, and doesn't merely apply to gender. Seems like a waste of time and money, to me.
complete. dirty. whore.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
You're quite right that such protection did not exist in the Constitution; on the other hand, equality for all is explicitly given as one of our founding principles. What's more, it's no longer 1923, and such provisions have been made in law since, making the ERA effectively only windowdressing. There's no constitutional provision against murder, either, but we don't need an amendment for it, since it's already illegal. A constitutional amendment granting equality to women, when it's already illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender, is unnecessary and purely cosmetic. [I think.] So much time and money has already gone into this that, in a way, we'd probably be better off ratifying it and moving on, but I hesitate to throw good money after bad.
[edit: Are you sure it's 1923? I thought the ERA was first proposed to legislature in 1972.]
[edit: Are you sure it's 1923? I thought the ERA was first proposed to legislature in 1972.]
- Anguirel
- Freeman of the Crimson Assfro
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 12:04 pm
- Location: City of Angels
No, I'm not. But the linked website is. And I'm too lazy to look it up anywhere else.3278 wrote:[edit: Are you sure it's 1923? I thought the ERA was first proposed to legislature in 1972.]
complete. dirty. whore.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.