|
11 Nov 06 - 11:48 AM (#1883132) Subject: BS: National Initiative & Referendum Results From: GUEST Some of us have been talking about the need for healing our country, instead of just beating the ass of the other team, and seizing power. I'm one of those looking for healing. One of the best ways to work for true social, political, and economic justice and change, is to work on non-partisan citizen ballot issues. Here is a link to the USC's Ballotwatch page, which gives results and information on all the ballot issues nationwide this year. Shows a different sort of picture than the duopoloy driven picture given by corporate media pundits, doesn't it? |
|
11 Nov 06 - 12:04 PM (#1883146) Subject: RE: BS: National Initiative & Referendum Results From: pdq When issues like legalized marijuana, homosexual marriage, socialized medicine, tax increases and other issues identified as 'liberal' appear as ballot measures, they go down to defeat. Often by margins approaching 80/20. Most of the current celebration by Democrats is over House and Senate races that were decided by less than 5,000 votes each. That is a fact. Anything after that is spin, speculation, opinion...essentially BS... |
|
11 Nov 06 - 12:20 PM (#1883154) Subject: RE: BS: National Initiative & Referendum Results From: GUEST pdq, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. |
|
11 Nov 06 - 12:39 PM (#1883171) Subject: RE: BS: National Initiative & Referendum Results From: pdq Oh, is that true. Well, here is a statement from the article you posted. Just one issue: "Seven states approved constitutional amendments that restrict marriage to a man and a woman (Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin), bringing the total number of states that have approved such an amendment to 23." |
|
11 Nov 06 - 12:47 PM (#1883182) Subject: RE: BS: National Initiative & Referendum Results From: GUEST That's right, pdq. Every single state that has put that ridiculous time and money wasting stupid ballot initiative has won the day, except one. Arizona rejected it on Tuesday. But you are the one trying to give this the Republican spin. You choose the Republican wedge social issue of the month, to use as an example to prove your point. Some of us can actually read, and know where to look to find out what is really going on in the nation--you know, life as actually lived by real human beings far beneath yours and Rush Limbaugh's radar. How'd everyone vote on the Republican Supreme Court decision on eminent domain, pdq? How about the minimum wage? How about the challenge to the most repressive anti-abortion law since Rowe v Wade being struck down by one of the most anti-abortion friendly, conservative states in the Union? What that tells us is the citizens of the US are fed up with right wing assholes, trying to shove these retarded "family values" issues down our throats, so we don't notice how the corporations are robbing the US treasury blind. And pdq, those are the citizen's tax dollars sitting in the US treasury, don't forget. Your boy band of bandits made sure corporations didn't have to pay their share, don't forget. And folks are getting mighty fed up with corporate welfare. |
|
11 Nov 06 - 01:12 PM (#1883197) Subject: RE: BS: National Initiative & Referendum Results From: pdq Please, GUEST, let's discuss this in a rational manner. You have started a topic thread that is more important than any other (so far) in this election cycle. The state ballot measures are THE barometer of political trends in this country. We hear 'drilling in ANWR' instead of real conservation issues. We hear 'homophobe!' shouted instead of discussing the real reason behind the gay marriage proposals: transferring the rights to pensions, medical coverage and Social Security benefits to homosexual partners. We hear about 'medical marijuana' when the people behind the measures really want legal pot for recreational purpose. Etc, etc. We need to have a discussion involving facts, not spin. |
|
11 Nov 06 - 01:14 PM (#1883198) Subject: RE: BS: National Initiative & Referendum Results From: GUEST So stop spinning. |
|
11 Nov 06 - 01:41 PM (#1883212) Subject: RE: BS: National Initiative & Referendum Results From: pdq Spin is in the eye of the beholder. Lets go 'one issue at a time'. FACT: the famous eminent domain decision handed down by our current US Supreme Court changed the traditional standard of 'for public use' to 'for public benefit'. That opens the door for seizing private property by the government for any exuse they can invent. Your land can be taken and given to a housing developer because the new use will produce righer tax revenue, a 'public benefit' in the eyes of those confiscating the property. Look at names who supported the seizures: Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Stevens and Kennedy. A 5 to4 decision. Here is a quote from last summer when the ruling was handed down: "Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use, since the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue. "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community. He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing — David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit. The four-member liberal bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects." Repeat: the four-member liberal bloc was joined by wishy-washy Kennedy to render this decision. Conservatives universally oppose it and they were behind the numerous ballot measures seen in this recent election. |
|
11 Nov 06 - 01:48 PM (#1883218) Subject: RE: BS: National Initiative & Referendum Results From: Rapparee The Eminent Domain issue on the ballot in Idaho went down to a blazing defeat for two very simple reasons: 1. It wasn't necessary, as the State Legislature had dealt with the problem last Summer, and, 2. It was funded, pushed and backed by VERY out-of-state interests (specifically a New York developer), and buddy, that's the kiss of death in Idaho. With a 76%+ margin defeating the issue you can assume that Democrats, Republicans, Constitutionalists, and Libertarians (Idaho's "Big Four") all voted against it. |
|
11 Nov 06 - 01:55 PM (#1883228) Subject: RE: BS: National Initiative & Referendum Results From: pdq When you say "The Eminent Domain issue on the ballot in Idaho", you do not make it clear what the measure stood for. Was a 'yes' vote in support the the Supreme Court decision or was it in opposition? |
|
11 Nov 06 - 05:15 PM (#1883389) Subject: RE: BS: National Initiative & Referendum Results From: pdq To recap the initiative results: US Supreme Court eminent domain decision (2005) was rejected from one end of the country to the other. Homosexual marriage was likewise rejected. Marijuana legalization had to be disguised as 'medical marijuana' in order to pass, which it did in several states. Close votes. Maybe the proponents will try telling the truth next time so we can get an honest answer. Racial preferences - here is a quote from the link in the initial post: "Michigan voters approved Proposal 2 that prohibits public institutions such as the University of Michigan from giving preferential treatment on the basis of race. This endorsement by voters could give new life to the campaign to ban racial preferences that seemed to have stalled after early successes in California and Washington. The Michigan measure was opposed by political leaders of both parties, including both gubernatorial candidates. The passage of the measures in California, Washington, and now Michigan, in all cases against the recommendations of bipartisan coalitions of political leaders, suggests that political leaders may be out of step with voters on this issue." Can someone point out the issues where Liberalism won? |
|
11 Nov 06 - 08:24 PM (#1883533) Subject: RE: BS: National Initiative & Referendum Results From: GUEST Jeez yer a dumb wittle partisan bunny, ain't ya, pdq? |
|
11 Nov 06 - 08:33 PM (#1883543) Subject: RE: BS: National Initiative & Referendum Results From: pdq A standard response from a fool who has no facts and no answers. You have just admitted defeat. Bye bye. |
|
11 Nov 06 - 09:37 PM (#1883575) Subject: RE: BS: National Initiative & Referendum Results From: Bee-dubya-ell From the Ballotwatch page: In Florida, voters approved Amendment 3 that requires future constitutional amendments to receive 60% approval to pass. Florida becomes the only initiative state with a supermajority requirement.... What Ballotwatch doesn't mention is that, ironically, the 60% majority requirement was only approved by 58% of voters. |