Hey Arlos

[Narrock]

I'm voting against the death penalty. Guess why. I'm sittin on the fence in regards to changing the "three strikes and you're out" law to being applicable to serious crimes only. Oh and I'm also voting to force food making companies to add a warning label to packaging if it contains genetically modified food. Those are the 3 hotbutton issues I'm really interested in.

[Tossica]

Fuckin' commie.

[Narrock]

Nope. California spends millions of dollars executing one shitbag on death row. It would be much less expensive keeping them locked up for life without the possibilty of parole. With the 3 strikes law, our prisons are overcrowded and understaffed. It would make sense on one hand to change it to being applicable to violent crimes only. However, if you burgle a house 3x or steal a car 3x or distribute dangerous drugs 3x etc etc etc, it is quite clear that you're not fixable so fuck off and rot in prison. So best case scenario is for Cali to build more jails and prisons, but we don't have the funding for it. As far as the GMO labeling... it doesn't matter what side of the political fence you sit on. We deserve to know what we're ingesting.

[brinstar]

what the

who are you and how'd you hack mindia's account

[Narrock]

what the

who are you and how'd you hack mindia's account

Eh? Here let me fix it then... I'm also for overturning Roe v Wade, and stopping government subsidies to planned parenthood. There, now you can hate me again.

[brinstar]

phew

PS you know federal funding to PP only pays for cancer screenings, right?

PPS and you know god suggested abortion in the old testament, riiiight?

[Narrock]

To your first point... No, it also includes abortion services. Go ahead and post Scripture where God says to have abortions.

[brinstar]

i'm sorry you choose to deny fact. federal funding is not used for abortions. period.


check out Numbers 5:11-31, with emphasis on 21 and 27.

21: here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.

27: If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.


anyway, SERIOUSPOST:

1. death penalty - i think there are better reasons than "it costs too much" to be against it (flawed courts, barbarism, etc) but i am glad you have found one that works for you.

2. three strikes - i don't like it, but i haven't thought about it enough to really figure out why. probably something to do with crime's correlation with poverty.

3. GMO labeling - spot on, good for you. i only wish you cared as much about what goes into your lungs (airborne industrial waste) as you do about what is in your food, but thumbs up either way.

[Narrock]

To call that "God says abortion is ok" is a stretch, based on that Scripture. And the refineries in California are heavily regulated by the EPA. The pollutants coming out of the smoke stacks can only be a certain percentage per ppm so it's ok to breathe (most of it is steam anyway). The water they pull out of the bay they use for cooling purposes has to be treated before it's returned to the bay so that it's cleaner than when they pumped it out.

[Tossica]

To call that "God says abortion is ok" is a stretch, based on that Scripture. And the refineries in California are heavily regulated by the EPA. The pollutants coming out of the smoke stacks can only be a certain percentage per ppm so it's ok to breathe (most of it is steam anyway). The water they pull out of the bay they use for cooling purposes has to be treated before it's returned to the bay so that it's cleaner than when they pumped it out.

WHY do you think the California laws are such? Is it because the corporations all got together and decided that they'd put profits aside and do what's right for the community? Or was it because the government made them do it?

I'll give you a hint. It's not the former.

[Narrock]

Dude, the EPA sticks it's fingers in every pie imagineable, whether a dem or repub is in office. Don't make the mistake thinking that the EPA is just a liberal organization. A government has the responsibility to make sure it's citizens are safe, and that our basic rights are protected.. Liberals always overstep that boundary with wackiness.

[Tossica]

You're a fucking commie. Admit it.

[Arlos]

Yeah, I'm voting against the death penalty too. Some for the reasons you list, some because I feel that we should never have a death penalty so long as there is some possibility we might be executing an innocent person. Given how many people recently have been exonerated after years and years on death row, with things like DNA evidence proving they were innocent, it shows just how close we've gotten to having the state kill someone who had done nothing whatsoever wrong.

I also am in agreement for easing the 3-strike laws. I don't think society gains anything by locking up people for life for 3 relatively minor crimes. Doesn't serve any useful purpose, and costs the state shitloads of money.

I'm on the fence about 37. While I certainly support the basic premise, from what I understand there's a lot of gaps in how things are or aren't labeled, and it something of a confused muddle. While I'd definitely support a better-written initiative designed to do this same thing, I'm not sure about this one.

In other initiatives:

30 - Yes. Not the most pleasant package, but I think it's necessary. Yes, it raises some taxes, but actually, because of other taxes expiring, even with this measure, taxes will overall be LOWER than they were in 2010. Even with the extra money, the state's spending as a percentage of the state's GDP will be at the same level it was in 1972-73, so hardly an ultra-inflated level of any kind.

31 - Yes, definitely. Good reforms, including requiring bills to be posted online at least 3 days before they're voted on. No more cramming things through at the last minute without people getting a chance to read them.

32 - Hells no. Funded by giant corporations who want to change campaign funding rules, supposedly to cut down on big money spending to try and buy elections. Yet the way it's put together, the same giant corporations that are sponsoring it are EXEMPT from rules in the bill. So, they can still freely try and buy elections, just no one ELSE can. Unfair, badly put together, is an attack on unions, and all around a huge resounding no. Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE a bill that doesn't let ANYONE throw huge sums of money around, and would vote for it, but one that kills one side, but leaves the ones sponsoring the bill free reign to spend however they want? Hells no.

33 - Absolutely not. Same thing we rejected 2 years ago. It's an auto-insurance company spending tens of millions on the campaign, so that they will be able to legally gouge the fuck out of anyone who has a lapse in their auto insurance coverage for any reason. Happened all the time before it was outlawed in this state in 1988, there's no reason to let them start up again. And call me cynical, but when an insurance company spends 15-20 million on something, then claims its doing it so that they can charge me less for their services, my bullshit-o-meter goes into PANIC ALARM mode at the volume of incoming bullshit.

35 - Tighter laws against human trafficking: I'll be voting yes on this for sure.

38 - No. Attempts to do the same thing as 30, but in a stupider fashion. If 30 wasn't on the ballot, I'd vote yes for this, but since it is, this gets a no.

39 - Absolutely yes. Closes the loophole that gives companies INCENTIVES to move jobs out of California. They ship jobs out, and get a tax break for doing so. This closes that loophole. Damn straight I'm voting yes.

40 - Absolutely yes. This will maintain the re-drawn districts that were done by a citizen panel, instead of the old districts that were completely gerrymandered to maximize the chances for any 1 party's candidates in the districts. The citizen panel was 5 Dems, 5 Republicans and 4 independents, and since both major parties have whined about the new districts, it seems to me they must be doing a good job. Voting yes on this preserves the new districts. Voting now would send us back to the old politician-drawn ones. So, yeah, definitely voting yes.

Oh, and I will, of course, be voting for Obama and Feinstein.

-Arlos

[brinstar]

To call that "God says abortion is ok" is a stretch, based on that Scripture. And the refineries in California are heavily regulated by the EPA. The pollutants coming out of the smoke stacks can only be a certain percentage per ppm so it's ok to breathe (most of it is steam anyway). The water they pull out of the bay they use for cooling purposes has to be treated before it's returned to the bay so that it's cleaner than when they pumped it out.

a stretch? god is telling the priest to feed her some tabernacle mud in order to cause a miscarriage

and again, it's good to hear you talking sense about pollution levels and the EPA's responsibility to protect citizens

[Narrock]

Uh Arlos, burglarizing a home is not a violent crime, but it sure does have a major negative effect on victims, including the psychological aspect. If a guy does that 3x, lock him up for life... That and other such non-violent crimes that affect people's lives. I was on the fence on this one, but it doesn't make sense to keep giving them a pass where they are back on the streets terrorizing families again. So I voted against that prop.