The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Ballot Measures have been voted on. California voters need to go jump in the Pacifc.
Posts
I am skeptical that such a rail system would generate enough money to recoup its losses in either the short term or the long term. And in the short term we're hemmorhaging* money. If it's run anything like a standard CalTrans project, it'll be 2020 and we'll have five miles of track and a bunch of engineers trying to figure out which way to make it turn so as not to plow into the Pacific.
I'm unable to think about this proposal without being reminded of that Simpsons episode. Are you envisioning this rail project as California's own Let's Put a Man On the Moon?
*I can never fucking spell that word correctly.
What, it's not like our constitution has become a cyclopean labyrinth, its endless articles and subarticles driving all who behold them white-haired with madness and despair, or anything. Yeah, sure, there was that one time someone actually read the whole thing cover to cover and a cenobite appeared, but I'm sure that's true of any number of government documents, right?
The California standards on sex education - which any parent can remove their child from at will - say that sex education must talk about sex in the context of marriage. This is language that the religious right - the same people who are now campaigning against Prop 8 - wanted in the law.
Now they are saying that this section of the law - again, the section that they lobbied for - would require that sex education talk about gay marriage too. Which it wouldn't, of course, and even if it did, they could just pull their kids out of it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yeah, they have. What's actually been the big sticking point is that such a system would go between two states, and the regulations and agencies that would handle it are different and can't see eye to eye, especially with who will pay for it (both sides are opposed to simply paying for the part on their side of the border, plus they're power trippin').
If you look into it, then ok.
The commercial I saw for No on Prop 2 focused on how the cost of food in CA would skyrocket and we would need to start import our food from other countries like Mexico, severely increasing the risk of foodbourne illness like salmonella. Not sure how true this is, though.
You know Omaha Steaks? Yeah, that just isn't sitting in the stores around here. Most beef on Omaha shelves is from Canada, if not from another state. Most our beef gets exported to other states/around the world.
This was also a worry that I had regarding Prop 2. I'm kind of behind on reading the actual facts about it (given in this thread and the Prop itself).
A poll just came out that indicates that it is unlikely.
So Question 1 is rightfully going down, Question 2 is leaning towards passing (pot heads have to have terrible turnout #s
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I would think that this would only affect the price of veal, and chickens and eggs. Not worried about the first. But, how much more money does it cost to just let the chickens go free range?
Maybe there will be some costs associated with the actual fixing of cages and whatnot that might affect other meats.
Sounds good to me. So how should I vote on 3?
Would 2 improve food safety in any way?
Because if the safety of the food remains the same, I have a hard time caring about chickens.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Per forum rules and human decency I cannot recommend you run these people over.
But you know, maybe come close to clipping one, just to scare them?
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
With Your Vote
West Hollywood Dept. of Psy-Ops
If anything, the food would not taste as delicious. I guess the less muscle on em the better. At least that is the idea behind cramping the veal calves.
Still it's not necessary, and is already illegal. I mean, we're already going to kill and eat the delicious critters, why must we be extra mean to them before then?
Then again, chickens are pretty stupid, what would they care if they could move around...
Ugh.
I ended up voting no on this one, mainly because the groups that I thought should have some ability to invest in stocks already have the exemptions to do so.
But maybe horse racing is inhumane too, and I'm just missing it because of my father.
Opinions, PA?
Text of the proposal.
The extreme right-wing religious nuts actually got a proposition on the ballot that would act to ban gays from being able to adopt kids. There was a news piece about it on the radio (I believe it was NPR) with the head of the Family Council of Arkansas, which is the group pushing this proposal, as well as opposition. The guy who was promoting it literally stated in his comment that a gay conspiratorial bloc was trying to enforce their lifestyle by using adoptable children as pawns to spread the gay way of life.
Damnit, I live in Arkansas.
On my way back, a demonstration for "No on Prop 8" was crossing the street in front me. At a place with no crosswalk, basically blocking traffic. You know, if you're trying to get people on your side, blocking traffic and pissing people off isn't a good way to do it.
yeah don't they know we're spreading it via bottled water?
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Also, why in the fuck is it legal to bet on horse races and the like, but you can't play poker in 48 states...
Pretty. Odd.
I could understand wanting to have both a positive female and male influence on a child, but... Needing to be married? I suppose then that gay marriage is not legal in Arkansas and is also not recognized if they did it elsewhere?
Apparently, two years earlier, the high court determined that banning on the basis of sexual orientation was discriminatory, so this is literally their attempt to get around a previous ruling of the court.
I wonder they would plan to do about gay couple who just decide to have their own kids, either as a lesbian couple using a sperm donor or gay couple with a surrogate mother. Not that I agree with this ballot measure at all, it's seriously a question of curiosity as that seems a little short-sighted.
Arkansas
Oh I'm sure there are ways to have humane racing. But the amount of money that's involved in it precludes humane treatment.
But hey if two neighbors want to throw a ball and see which dog fetches it first awesome.
Is banning the solution, though, or is this one of those cases where making it illegal will just cause more abuse?
I'm not sure if I'm going to vote yes or leave it blank (Question 3 in MA).
My concern is... if dog racing is illegal what happens to the dogs? I'm not positive the dogs are being abused but it seems likely. However, if we assume that to be the case it seems it is because they don't care about the dogs (just about the profit). It seems to me if the dogs are no longer profitable, they may not be long for this world. To me that suggests that dog racing just being cut off abruptly is not an improvement.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation