Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

 
 

View User's Journal

Gee, that's just peaches and cream.
Okay Sean ...
I'm doing as you asked.

Why am I doing what the cookie-thief asked me to do? o.O

Prop 1: Yes. Good think. Some people say that it's just a big waste of money while California is doing poorly with money, but that's simply not true. It will bring in a lot of money for the state, as well as being useful for many people. (including myself, but that's not why I support the bill)

Prop 2: Gee, I'm not sure about this one. I should do some more research. I was pretty dead set on "yes", because the only argument I had heard against it was that food could cost more. I think I'm still "yes". Both sides claim there are safety issues with the other side, but the no on 2 people are claiming facts as if they were free range, which they are not. I'm not dead set on yes anymore, and I'm definitely going to do some more research on the subject.

Prop 3: No. Prop. 61 is a clear sign that California isn't good with bonds. Better hospital conditions are always a good thing ... but California is in debt and more debt is not going to solve that problem.

Prop 4: No. Having a good relationship with your parents is not something that should be government mandated. It's bad in a lot of ways.

Prop 5: Yes. It's a good thing. Drug users don't need to be in jail nearly as much as violent criminals do, and since we are having a problem with fillin' the prisinz up, this will help. Individualized treatment is pretty good ... other states have prisons who've tried getting the drug users into rehab and it works.

Prop 6: No, it's too expensive and would have more people in prison for longer - which is not something we want right now.

Prop 7: No ... only large companies will be able to meet it's standards. It's a great idea, but it's not done right at all. It could actually stifle the development of new renewable energies.

Prop 8: Nope. People don't have any right to mandate how others live (as long as how somebody wants to live doesn't hurt anyone). I don't care if it's against somebody's religion or individual values ... it's not right to make /your/ (speaking to a yes on cool values law. If gay couples can't marry, straight couples should be barred from marriage also. Brown vs. Board of Education, people. Also, you're calling it the Marriage Equality Act! What? If you really think that you're act is right and good, you shouldn't have to try to deceive people in order for it to pass.

Prop 9: No. Criminals are still U.S. citizens, and they deserve rights. I don't care what crime they committed, Prop 9 is in no way cool.

Prop 10: No. This is similar to prop 7, and still bad. I'd be glad to support a bill for clean energy once it's done right.

Prop 11: No. It's overly complicated, ripe for abuse, and, in my opinion, unnecessary.

Prop 12: No. Veterans are awesome, but that's the feds job and California can't afford it right now.






User Comments: [1] [add]
Grind Mutant
Community Member
avatar
commentCommented on: Fri Oct 24, 2008 @ 08:01am
I've expressed myself on 2, but I disagree with 5 too.
I think shortening terms is a bad idea. "Drug offenders" is too large of an umbrella term that includes too many groups.
I mainly have a problem with drug dealers. A meth dealer can get off in 6 months instead of 3 years? I'm not okay with that.
And I do not believe rehab programs have high enough of a success rate for us to put so much money into them. The pro-5 group only claims a 1:3 success rate. I'd bring that down to a true 1:4.5 average.


User Comments: [1] [add]
 
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum