Calling all California of Voting Age

[Nubius]

Reason? Well.. You'll probably get a massive influx of people moving into california to take advantage of the discounted rates. Discounts IMO should be given at the federal level and not the state level. This way, people don't have a reason to just cram into one state where the drugs are cheaper.

that's why I voted no on it....not only that, but it would cost the state tens of millions just to impliment the **** thing! That's money we aint got.

I would have to go with "Yes" on 73 myself, but I don't live in Cali.

I can understand why, considering you have a daughter and all, but the way you come across, and how you make me think of your family, IF that sort of thing was to happen, your daughter would probably be open to you.....however...there are some CRAZY ass parents out there...I know you're voting yes based on the fact you'd want your daughter telling you, however some parents would straight murder their children.

Beyond that, is it something that you really need to know about? It is after all their life....yes I understand you'd want to be like "Not at 16!" or something like that, but I can't say that it'd be something she'd be proud of or want to share with her parents out of shame or possibly guilt, and you'd be willing to force her to tell you just because 'you want her to talk to you' kind of deal.

So although IF they are going to be having sex in the first place they should obviously practice better countermeasures, but I don't think they should be forced into telling their parents.

If I were a parent, of course I'd hope that my daughter would be open enough to tell me, and me be a good enough parent to have that kind of trust with my kid, but if she doesn't then it should be her right and I can understand that (to the best of a males perspective)

Idiotec - yeah regarding 80 I honestly didn't understand it completely lol, but I voted yes on that one.....ehh lets hope it doesn't hurt us

 

[Jeffrock]

Good one Arnold. Way to burn another $50 million with your special election only to fail miserably in all your attempts.
Poor Arnold. If only he had the brains to realize that when he won the recall election that the economic crisis in Calif stems a helluva lot deeper than Pete Wilson's poor choices.
I dont know who his advisors are, but they did him a tremendous disservice by allowing him to infer that teachers, nurses, etc. are special-interest groups that are the cause of the current crisis in Cali.
Here is my opinion on the Props.

Prop. 73- If you are a pro-lifer, this one is a yes, for sure! Kids who dont tell their parents they are pregnant usually do so for a couple reasons: their parents will force them to keep the child, they will be kicked out of the house, or they are just too darn afraid to tell their parents. I would never vote yes on something that limits abortion. This prop seves no logical purpose other than to punish.

Prop. 74- OK, I kind of agree that 2 year tenure is kind of fast. BUT... Less than half of the teachers even make it past two years in California. Raising it to 5 years is insanity. Teachers are already way under-paid. Why vote yes on something that will make less people want to teach in California???
NEWSFLASH: If you want teachers to stay put, you gotta pay them more. You want better class-rooms and schools, you gotta pay for them.

Prop 75- In a nutshell, public employees already have the option to not spend their union dues on political ads. This confusing prop more or less just makes it more difficult and complicated when unions go toe-to-toe with him.

Prop. 76- I cant even believe that this was even proposed. Basically, this prop allows Arnie to bypass the legislature and cut school funding himself. Do you guys voting yes on this really want to give Arnie the power to issue cutbacks without anyone else's approval? If so, thats pretty scary.

Prop 77 - I voted yes on this. I think some dems are up in arms about this cause some might lose their jobs if this passed.

Prop. 78 - Proposed by major pharmaceutical companies. Do I really need to say anymore? Basically, proposed to combat Prop 79. Pharmaceutical companies spent over $80 million on this prop, so that 79 would not pass.

Prop. 79 - I voted no on this prop. Yea, I am a big hippy liberal, but I just think this was poorly written, and would not do everything it claims.

Prop. 80 - Prop. 80 was introduced to repeal de-regulation with regards to the energy market. Remember the big energy crisis a while back. It wasnt Pete Wilson's fault, it was due to de-regulation.
I voted no on this. It is my opinion that repealing de-regulation will not have any immediate effect. Quite the contrary, it might make it more difficult to regulate energy issues.

Funny thing is, that although I am quite liberal, when it comes to Props, I dont just vote wity my party. Usually these props are written so poorly that even when implemented, they have to be struck down by the courts. Also, it is very hard to know exactly what you are voting for. Listening to both sides, you would think they are completely different props (the way they feel on the same prop.)
Here is my philosophy, if you are in doubt, vote NO. I dont like to approve new laws that I do not fully understand.

 

[Chankama]

I don't feel bad for Arnold. He's filthy rich. So he won't become president..

Arnold. You still da man

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/arniepothead.html

 

[horndude]

no, he cant be president cause he's not a native born US citizen

his agenda and policies deserve to be stomped on, he has no business being in office to begin with

 

[idiotec]

^^^^

however, I do not have extreme confidence in the California voter...

 

[Chankama]

no, he cant be president cause he's not a native born US citizen

I was joking man. Wasn't serious when I said "so he won't be president" ..

In anycase, wasn't Senator Kennedy lobbying to have that rule changed? From a US born citizen to a US citizen for 25 years.

 

[keba]

Arnold is cool! great actor too!!!