California voters.........if you do nothing else vote NO ON 93!!!!!

[redgtxdi]

91, 92 and 93 look like a "NO", though no matter what (and I don't care how jelly-spined Schwarzenegger has gotten).......93 is an absolute NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


No, No, No on 93!!!!!!


Oh, and you L.A. city folks.........be sure to vote no on "S"!!! That's that 10% telephone tax measure. No, no, no, no, noooooooooooooooooo!!!!


As for the gaming proprs...........94-97. I dunno. That whole Indian gaming mess has become such a fiasco in the last decade, I dunno what the right thing is to do. I'd want to seriously look at their books. I may vote yes, just to discourage new taxation, but I'm about 100% that even if they *DO* pass, it won't put the Indian gaming thing to rest.

 

[SSSnail]

I'm done with voting, I just flat out don't care anymore. I'm gone.

 

[Drakkon]

94-97 are tough ones as they are trying to grab money from the casinos but its a far cry from what should be offered up. It seems like there could be a better agreement struck but if thats what the legislature and tribes have come up with i doubt you would ever see much better. The opposition has a good point to those props but from what I saw in AZ and now NV unless you grab what you can from the casinos its likely the casinos will ultimately win as their pockets are much deeper than legislatures.

 

[senseamp]

I am pretty sure I voted yes on the gaming props and no on everything else.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Drakkon
94-97 are tough ones as they are trying to grab money from the casinos but its a far cry from what should be offered up.

I'm voting no on prop. 93 and all the gambling props on general principles. Gambling is tasteless, predatory bullshit. I'd like to see all the casinos in California closed down.

 

[IronWing]

Inquiring minds want to know: what is prop 93?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ironwing
Inquiring minds want to know: what is prop 93?

ASCII and ye shall RECEIVII.

California Proposition 93 (2008)--also known as the Term Limits and Legislative Reform Act--will be on the February 5, 2008 statewide primary election ballot in California. If it passes, it will allow members of California State Legislature to remain in their current office up to 12 years, but it reduces their overall time in office by 2 years. Currently they can serve 3 terms in the assembly and two terms in the senate for a total of 14 years. This proposition would allow them to spend all 12 years in one seat.

Proposition 93 is one of seven ballot measures that California voters will have a chance to accept or reject on February 5 when they also go to the polls to vote in their party's presidential nominating election. (See California 2008 Ballot Measures.)

U.S. Term Limits is fighting Prop. 93 because it lengthens the time that current legislative incumbents can serve. Current legislative incumbents are the primary sponsors of Prop. 93.

While it cuts the total time legislators can stay in office by two years, it doubles the time they can stay in the same elected position, giving them much greater influence in their later years in office.

 

[moks78]

Definitely No on 93...power grab of the "overstaying" incumbents.:|

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Drakkon
94-97 are tough ones as they are trying to grab money from the casinos but its a far cry from what should be offered up.

I'm voting no on prop. 93 and all the gambling props on general principles. Gambling is tasteless, predatory bullshit. I'd like to see all the casinos in California closed down.

I'm not supposed to do this for you, but :thumbsup:

 

[senseamp]

Actually, I think I also voted Yes on 93. I figure let their voters decide if they've been in the district too long.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Drakkon
94-97 are tough ones as they are trying to grab money from the casinos but its a far cry from what should be offered up.

I'm voting no on prop. 93 and all the gambling props on general principles. Gambling is tasteless, predatory bullshit. I'd like to see all the casinos in California closed down.

I'd like to see your home studio shut down, but we can't always get what we want.

 

[daveymark]

California is well on its way to becoming the next Michigan

that's what happens when you elect a RINO as governor

the hope is people will see Arnold's effect on the state of Cali and realize the same thing will happen should Huckabee get elected

 

[First]

California's in as good shape as it ever has been, but I'd still vote on props 94-97, as I don't see any loopholes (so far).

 

[marincounty]

I'm voting yes on 93. I'm against term limits except those for presidents.
If you don't like a politician, vote them out of office.

 

[LtPage1]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Actually, I think I also voted Yes on 93. I figure let their voters decide if they've been in the district too long.

Absolutely. The reason the legislature can't get anything done is because experienced legislators keep getting termed out.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Harvey

I'm voting no on prop. 93 and all the gambling props on general principles. Gambling is tasteless, predatory bullshit. I'd like to see all the casinos in California closed down.

I'd like to see your home studio shut down, but we can't always get what we want.

:lips: my (_!_), jackass.

 

[BoomerD]

What I don't like about 94-97 are some of the same things they say in the TV ads.
1) It gives all the power to the four SoCal tribes and limits other tribes from getting into the business. (we got ours, so fuck you)
There are no accurate ways of gauging how much money Kahleeforneeya will get from the tribes, what percentages, or even how much they actually take in.
These sound like another shell game to me, with Ah-Nold as the huckster trying to find shills to pay...

I would support allowing more tribes to build casinos. The "Indians" have been screwed pretty badly over the years, and are still trying to get the $$$ the US BIA was supposed to be managing for them...to the tune of several Billion $$$.
While I'm not much of a gambler, as long as they build casinos on tribal lands, NOT on lands that historically belonged to the tribe (BIG difference there) I don't care if every tribe has its own casinos. Let them make some $$$ off of the silly white-eyes if they can...as long as there are controls in place and agreements for revenue sharing.

As for 93, I'm not convinced either way...they stay in one office for 12 years or bounce from office to office for 14 years...I'm actually not convinced it's a bad thing for our elected representatives to stay in office long enough to actually learn how to do the job...but all too often, the job they do is on us anyway...not FOR us...

 

[redgtxdi]

The biggest problem with 93 as of NOW (2008) is that not only is it double-speak, but it actually would extend some incumbent's terms to 20 (yes, TWENTY) years!!!!!!!!!


YIKES!!!


And the folks we're talking about are NOT good.........(the very leeches we're talking about and the reason we want them out NOW!!!!!).

You have the opportunity to rid state government of

?Colostomy Bag? Lloyd Levine,
Mexican Socialist Fabian Nunez,
?1 bill? Gil Cedillo,
Don ?Crackers? Perata and more!

It would be like effectively recalling the bad apples in one fell swoop!!


So remember................NO, NO, NOOOOOOOOOOOO ON 93!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Eeezee]

Care to give your opinion on WHY people should vote no? That may help convince people (like undecided votes who don't even know what you're talking about)

 

[randym431]

Aw, I loved old CA. All you need is a few signatures and you can get almost anything on the ballot up for a vote. You could get a vote to paint every blade of grass blue, just be the cool state.
Then... whatever the outcome... off to the courts it goes for long hard challenge.

I remember seeing hordes of signature collectors strolling grocery store parking lots with little clip boards around every election time. "Wont you please sign this? It doesn?t matter if you're for or against, its just to get it on the ballot".
I remember well...
I guess thats what makes CA "special". I miss it.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Drakkon
94-97 are tough ones as they are trying to grab money from the casinos but its a far cry from what should be offered up.

I'm voting no on prop. 93 and all the gambling props on general principles. Gambling is tasteless, predatory bullshit. I'd like to see all the casinos in California closed down.

According to you; there are a good many people who think different.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Drakkon
94-97 are tough ones as they are trying to grab money from the casinos but its a far cry from what should be offered up.

I'm voting no on prop. 93 and all the gambling props on general principles. Gambling is tasteless, predatory bullshit. I'd like to see all the casinos in California closed down.

According to you; there are a good many people who think different.

Have fun. Come to my casino. I'll enjoy spending your money... sucker! :laugh:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Harvey
I'm voting no on prop. 93 and all the gambling props on general principles. Gambling is tasteless, predatory bullshit. I'd like to see all the casinos in California closed down.

Hard to see any difference between you and those "religious wackos" you hate so much.

I suppose "morals" based on your personal beliefs are OK to impose on others, while those of others based on their religion are intolerable.

Fern