The California Propositions

Below is my bland, standard, and exceptionally formulaic recitation of the propositions on the California ballot, and the stand that the Tygrrrr Express is taking.

There are two things that need to be clear from the outset. If you have no idea what the proposition actually says, vote no. That way you are not changing anything. I know that liberals are obsessed with change, but what they call change, conservatives call, “screwing things up and making them worse.” It is less attractive because it does not fit on a bumper sticker. The Founding Fathers wanted things left well alone, which is why they did not have direct election of legislators or the President. They are still right today.

The second thing that must be understood is that liberals will issue bonds for everything, and then say that the measure does not involve raising taxes.

(Grabbing a megaphone): BONDS…ARE…TAXES.

Issuing bonds means issuing debt, which means taxpayers are on the hook. Liberals like to use the word “invest” when they really mean “spend.” They do like to say they favor higher taxes, so they say that are just issuing bonds. They will then say that these bonds are for the children, because after all, who could possibly be against money fo children?

I can. So with rare exceptions, such as issuing bonds to fund mercenaries to kill Bin Laden, Assad, and Armageddonijad, anything that involves issuing bonds should get a vote of “no.” Voting yes, again, is akin to making things worse.

With that brings a dozen attempts at most likely making things worse.

1A) Safe, Reliable, High Speed Passenger Train Bond Act

NO. This is 20 billion to build trains connecting all of California. Amtrak already exists.

2) Standards for Confining Farm Animals, Initiative Statute

NO. Regulates the living space of cows and pigs. Animal cruelty is already illegal. This is a waste of time bigger than most animal waste.

3) Children’s Hospital Bond Act, Grant Program, Initiative Statute

NO. A billion dollars? It will most likely go to hospital bureaucrats, with very little ever helping the children themselves.

4) Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy, Initiative Constitutional Amendment

YES. Abortion is an issue I struggle with. I generally am pro-choice. I am against consent laws, but notification is not consent. I favor parental and spousal notification. I understand that some parents are downright vicious. Nevertheless, the state has to stop raising our children and let parents fill the role. Again, if it required consent, I would vote no.

5) Non-violent Drug Offenses, Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation, Initiative Statute

NO. This is left wing bleeding heart syndrome at its very worst. Rather than let drug addicts run wild, we should shoot drug dealers in the town square. Kill the dealers, and build more prisons.

6) Police and Law Enforcement Funding, Criminal Penalties and Laws, Initiative Statute

NEUTRAL. I am leaning yes, because it provides more money for police officers and district attorneys. However, the costs seem high, and I would like to see who is for and against this before saying yes.

7) Renewable Energy  Generation, Initiative Statute

NO. I wish we could take the Greeniacs and drill in their foreheads. While we could make the planet beautiful by destroying every American business, I will decline to end America as we know it.

8) Eliminates Right of Same Sex Couple to Marry, Initiative Constitutional Amendment

NEUTRAL. I am very torn on the gay marriage issue. I think the extremists on both sides are bigots. I also detest activists.To me marriage is a religious ceremony. I think everybody should have civil unions, and that civil unions should be the binding ceremony for matters of law. Then the marriage can be the religious ceremony. My worry is lawsuits. If a religious entity wants to refuse to perform the ceremony, they should be immune from lawsuits. Some say those protections already exist, but I want specific language banning lawsuits against any religious entity that refuses to perform a gay marriage. I stay largely out of the culture wars. Some gay activists are so relentless, that it pushes me in the other direction. The people on both sides should just shut up. Cut taxes and kill terrorists, and drop the culture warring.

9) Criminal Justice System, Victims Rights , Parole, Initiative, Constitutional Amendment and Statute

YES. Victims should have more rights than criminals. The reductions in parole hearings is a good start.

10) Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy, Bonds, Initiative Statute

NO. The Greeniacs want to give money to colleges to indoctrinate a new generation of zealots. Absolutely not. Being green should not be compulsory.

11) Redistricting, Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute

YES. Liberals have gerrymandered California into a one party state of fruits, nuts, and frosted flakes. Perpetual safe seats destroy democracy.

12) Veterans’ Bond Act of 2008

NEUTRAL. I want to vote yes because of the deep respect I have for veterans. However, further study is needed with regards to cost, and efficiency. This could be good for veterans, but their might be better ways.

Sadly enough, the attempt to sell San Francisco to Canada did not make the ballot. Canada did not want it.

I hope this helps, and if it does not, just know that citizen initiatives should not exist anyway.


20 Responses to “The California Propositions”

  1. “If you have no idea what the proposition actually says, vote no.”

    Eric! That’s terribly irresponsible advice! C’mon man! If you don’t know what the vote is about, then abstain. Don’t automatically assume that a “no” vote is ambivilant. It may well not be so. It all depends on the wording.

    The 1A Ballot measure is to fund what has already been allocated. At this time in CA, it may well be wise to put this off. In the long run, CA does desperately need more public transportation, but even this project isn’t slated for completion for another 22 years, and what CA really needs is more local trans in the cities. It can wait. I agree with your vote.

    Prop 2 is a tough one. I vote Yes, myself. But there’s more to the arguments around this measure than just animal cruelty. I’m not sure why you brought up cows and pigs, because they aren’t all that effected by this measure. This is all about the poultry industry, really.

    3 is a tough one also, mainly because, as you cited, the moneys are not directed very well. I’m not sure how I’d vote on that one.

    I would DEFINITELY vote NO on 4. It’s yet another cynical, inhumane, vicious assault on the rights of women to live their own lives. It is CHILD ABUSE. No person, parent or whoever, should have the right to FORCE A CHILD TO HAVE A CHILD. I find this initiative and those like it disgusting and find it’s supporters highly ethically corrupted.

    I would vote YES on 5, and again I see it’s supporters as ethically corrupted. The Drug War is a totalitarian nightmare and has to come to an end. Authoritarian phonies who espouse “freedom” while imposing a Police State on the poor disgust me. Anyone who votes NO on this is a totalitarian-authoritarian paranoid.

    6 should be a NO vote. We have enough of a police state already.

    7 is a brilliant idea and anyone who votes against it may as well just send the 3.4 millions lousy dollars right on out of the state, because that’s where it’s going. I can’t imagine the logic of someone who would vote against this common sense initiative.

    If you truly love freedom, you’d vote NO on 8. Besides, it’s nothing but a cynical ploy to get the Christian nutbags out to the polls.

    I would vote YES on 9 if it weren’t for the Drug War. As of now, I’d vote NO.

    As with 7, 10 is a no-brainer. Why any would be against this is beyond me. California has always been a leader in Green regulation, and because of this, California homes are the most energy efficient in the nation. Californians should be very proud of this and should keep it up. Why anyone would be against this progress is beyond me. It just seems so fickle and pointless to be against this.

    I too would vote yes on 11. I only wish there was a better science to districting. But this proposition seems like a good option for now.

    On 12, Californians may want to wait until after this election year before getting a jump on this. The federal gov’t may well be bringing a new GI Bill in the near future that would make this proposal redundant. On the other hand, CA is home to a large number of vets and with home prices the way they are now, it would be a perfect time to get these people into farms and real estate. I would vote yes.


  2. Charlene Martel says:

    The initiative is often the ordinary citizen’s only voice. The state legislature is too beholden to lobbyists to hear the voices of the regular man-in-the-street. How many pork filled foolish laws does the all-wise legislature foist upon the public? How many pages of unforeseen consequences do those laws have? At least the initiatives are pretty much confined to one subject at a time. People can weigh them and accept or reject them in their entirety instead of having to accept the crap to get the rest of the sandwich.

    It’s even possible the rest of the state could try an initiative to vote San Francisco as it’s own state. They’d probably love to style themselves as the city and county and state of San Francisco. The rest of us could simply call it the state of mindlessness.

  3. There is a problem with I&R, though, and that’s the propensity of the masses to to be stupid. Most I&R’s are brought by the same special interests that lobby (and bribe via our corrupt campaign financing system) our politicians and in states like CA I&R’s come through the government itself. I&R’s aften take one rights issues, and when the masses start picking choosing rights, and therefore winners and losers of those rights, we have Democracy run amok.

    I do believe there’s a place for I&R (though CA famously overdoes it a bit), but I often question the wisdom of too much democracy. I am, and always will be, a small “r” republican. Todays big “R” republicans are really just small “d” democrats, and small “d” democrats often apeal to our lesser angels – the lowest common denominators.


  4. parrothead says:

    I have to response to prop 4 Jersey.

    “It’s yet another cynical, inhumane, vicious assault on the rights of women to live their own lives.” This is not about WOMEN it is about GIRLS. A girl under 18 in California is not considered responsible enough to vote, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes or drive (driving had severe restrictions anyway). She cannot get a tattoo, ear piercing or an aspirin form the school nurse (not to mention other more involved medical procedures) without parental notification. If they do any damage to another persons property her parents are financially responsible. Yet she can get an abortion. That is absolutely inconsistent and illogical. Either she is an adult and is fully responsible or she is not. If not the parents ought to be notified.

    What bugs me most about proposition 8 (which i voted against) is that is all anybody wants to talk about although I think there are several far more significant propositions on the ballot. Personally I think the whole uproar on both sides is to quote Shakespeare: Much Ado About Nothing. It is an argument over TERMINOLOGY and nothing more. Gays already have civil unions which confer all the rights of marriage so if it passes nothing will change except the use of the term marriage. On the other hand if it fails what difference does it make if gays use the term. I tend to agree with Eric, the state should only have civil unions or better yet some easy contract (ketubah if you will) and let religion be in the business of marriage. (so marriage is not a legal status as it were). Although we all know that will never happen. Ultimately this whole proposition is about symbolism more than substance.

  5. Parrothead, long after that “girl” has become a woman, she will still have that baby. Just as it is CHILD ABUSE to force a child to GET PREGNANT, it should be CHILD ABUSE to force a child TO CARRY. Notifying the parents is a sleazy, backhanded way of FORCING the child to do as the parents wish – which could including forcing a raped child to have a baby, maybe even from incest.

    Some things must be private, even for children. If they want to tell tyheir parents, then fine. If they want to report a rape (because, after all, children who are pregnant are de facto “raped” according to the law), then fine. If, as I’m sure is usually the case, the child became pregnant from consentual sex with another child around her age, and she wants an abortion, it should not be any of her parents business. If they were such great oarnets, she wouldn’t have gotten pregnant oin the first place.

    Again, I believe anyone that is for this amendment is ethically corrupted. To be honest, I find this position as lowly as it gets. You may as well be for child abuse as far as I’m concerned.


  6. Micky 2 says:

    “4) Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy, Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

    Regardless of anyones position on when life begins I think its every parents right to know when an invasive act of surgery is going to be performed on their kid.
    Consent should be on the parents for a number of reasons. Its up to the parents to issue examples to their children as to what the cosequences are of bad choices, not the state. Also, its the parents who often enough end up footing the bill for that bundle of joy and they should have some say so in the matter also.
    Hopefeully they choose life and adoption.

    “5) Non-violent Drug Offenses, Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation, Initiative Statute”
    I’m all about locking up dealers who knowingly sell to those who are threatened with a life threatening addiction.
    There are controls in place for those who drink alcohol, although they are minimal. its still better than nothing as it does have its intervetionist properties such as no sales to minors or those already inibreated and cut off times.
    There is no such thing in the illegal drug trade of course but the first step in any intervention is to cut off supply.
    International efforts to destroy manufacturing has and always will be a joke until we can legislate other countries laws and have a border that actually works.
    So it starts here with dealers and local manufacture of meth/hallucinogens who should face penalties that are equivalent to attemted murder.
    These first and second offenders would be getting more than probation on the first rap and just a few months on the second.
    Users should be evaluated as to whether or not they are casual users who just had some bad luck with the law, or chronic users/addicts who are in need of treatment.
    The cost of good serious rehab for these people is minimal compared to the rotataing door useless system in place that only really propels the cycle for illegal and addictive use.
    In my opinion the drug war as is , is simply set up to feed the penal system as it is and keep people employed for the wrong reasons.
    60% of those in prison are there for drug offenses, most are simple possesion cases. Without those bodies to maintain the system would simply have less volume to operate on and have to perform layoffs.
    Cant have that now can we ?

    “6) Police and Law Enforcement Funding, Criminal Penalties and Laws, Initiative Statute”
    Without #6, #5 would not be possible.
    Cops need less restrictive methods of gauging an offender as to whether hes just a casual user or a dealer.
    I can spot a dealer in a second, if the evidence in court supports it, lock his ass up for a few years, period
    I think any one who says we live in a police state is simply trying to make the case so people are free to be less responsible and move around with less consequence to irresponsibility.

    “9) Criminal Justice System, Victims Rights , Parole, Initiative, Constitutional Amendment and Statute”

    For myself jail worked. Unfortunatly the sentence that actually did work was the lenghtiest one which should of been my first one instead of my 10 th

    “10) Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy, Bonds, Initiative Statute”

    Anytime they want to pump money into any industry they find a way to label that industry as having green conscience and environmental concerns. Its a just a sham to recieve funds for ulterior purposes.
    Theres already so much R&D being done on alternatives its not even funny.
    Green jobs are a farce red herring as most of these positions are already filled today.
    We know what the alternative fuels are already, production needs to brought to level thats applicable to our system and cost efficient.
    The vehicles are there already.
    When the market is ready they will be manufactured and people will buy them.
    You can push these vehicles as many ways as you want but not until the ones on the road now are no longer functional will people start buying them at cost of about 30% more than an ordinary combustion model.

    California will vote down gay marriage, the people already did once, only to be circumvented by the courts.

  7. parrothead says:


    There you go once again labeling people who disagree with you not only as wrong but ethically corrupt and favoring child abuse. Get real. I would say FORCING her to have an abortion is equally as abusive as FORCING her to carry the child. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS PROPOSITION IS ABOUT.

    Many people who are pro-choice favor parental notification. Many parents who would advise there daughter to have an abortion still feel they have a right to be notified. They will have to deal with the emotional consequences of any choice and any complications should they occur. This is not about whether the girl has an abortion, it is about parents rights and responsibilities. I notice you ignored my examples of how everywhere else in California Law the girl is not considered independent or responsible and able to do what she wants without parental knowledge and consent. In fact not requiring parental notification is an extreme position on this issue and inconsistent with the rest of California Law.

    The fact she got pregnant does not mean they are bad parents. Most kids rebel in some way or another and make mistakes. The mark of good parenting is how you deal with those mistakes. That doesn’t mean the parents will make the girl have the child or have an abortion. It means counseling and guiding the girl to make whatever choice is the best for her.

  8. Micky 2 says:

    “Eric! That’s terribly irresponsible advice! C’mon man! If you don’t know what the vote is about, then abstain. Don’t automatically assume that a “no” vote is ambivilant. It may well not be so. It all depends on the wording.”

    So , if you dont understand the “wording” vote yes ?
    In Hawaii we’ll be voting on the Con Con.
    A blank is automatically a no vote. The exact opposite may apply in some states.
    Abstaining does not always guarantee absence.

    “Notifying the parents is a sleazy, backhanded way of FORCING the child to do as the parents wish – which could including forcing a raped child to have a baby, maybe even from incest.”

    Are calling my daughters OBG a sleaze ? Becuse its my right as a parent to know what my daughter is doing with a body that I am legally responsible for ?
    The rates of incest and rape babaies in almost miniscule compared to the ones that are simply results of carelessness.
    The law should be on the side of the majority and not cater to what would be only a few rare instances.
    If it were they way you would have it its just an excuse to have rabid promiscuity with no accountabilty for the results.
    And because she will have that baby long after shes a teen is exactly why we as parents need to know now.

    Also, just about every adult woman that does get pregnant still goes to their mother for support and advice so its only logical that a teen would seek or need that parental input in such an emotional and important part of life.
    Yea, Iknow, you libs would love to have the schools and government raise your kids for you so you have more time to screw around a make few more fetuses for the dumpster.

  9. I stand by what I said. Forcing a child to carry a child is child abuse. This amendment is about meddling in the life of a woman – the government meddling in the personal affairs of families. You totalitarian authoritarians just can’t live without your big, nosey Mommy State, huh? What? Not enough teenage girls committing suicide for you nosey Nelly’s? Not enough teenage girls poisoning themselves to induce abortion so their parents don’t find out? What’s the matter? can’t impose your will on little girls enough for you guys?


    And Micky, there are 40,000 adoptions a year and there are well over a million abortions. Get real for once, will ya’?

    And Micky, just because you had to be jailed to wise up doesn’t mean that works for most people. In fact – for the VAST majority of people it does NOT. Maybe if you looked to more sources, you’d know that. Recitivism among drugs users is ridiculously high (no pun intended). In fact, the Drug War CREATES more drug addiction – further wrecking people’s lives makes them MORE suspetable to drug abuse! Just as making all drugs equally illegal CREATES gateways for abuse of more dangerous substances. As usual, you cons have it all wrong and only make things worse for everyone.

    I just quit drinking a couple of months ago. I did it because my health was in danger. No great bravery. Nothing to be proud of. No admitting I had a problem, or delluding myself that I am powerless, or that some stupid, imaginary higher power was pulling my strings. I just stopped because it was time to stop. That’s how I quit drugs. That’s how I stopped drinking. No problem. No great will power. Just plain good ol’ fashioned fear of mortality. I exercized my own free will. But you cons don’t believe in free will. You believe you know best what people should do with their personal lives. And that makes you no better than Stalinists.

    If you guys weren’t such hypocrites, you’d let other people make their personal decisions for themselves. But no, for you cons the only freedoms that matter are the freesdom to make money (even completely unethically), the freedom to pray out loud in other people’s faces, the freedom to drive a gass guzzlng terrorist-profiter, the freedom to carry around a big, shiny, metal fallace-substitute with bullets, and the freedom to act like a jack@$$ in public.


  10. Micky 2 says:

    “I stand by what I said. Forcing a child to carry a child is child abuse. This amendment is about meddling in the life of a woman – ”

    Go ahead, stand by your apple answer to oranges.
    They are not “women” they are children.
    So, anything that realates to after that is a mute statement.

    Whats really pathetic and understandable since you’re not a parent is that no where do you employ or suggest that parents intervines or apply guidance to their kids that would prevent the pregnancy in the first place.

    Its you who wants the state to be the nanny by taking these decisions away from the parents.
    And spare me you chest banging BS about child abuse.
    Not raising your kid with with the morals and ethics to prevent such a thing is child abuse. Letting it get to a point where she needs an abortion is child abuse. Letting a doctor rip a baby from her so she can be emotionally devastated for life is child abuse. Allowing her to make decisions o her own or with the state that involve sound adult judgement is child abuse. And lastly , allowing her to believe that its OK to just throw away a baby is not only abuse to her but most definitly ABUSE OF LIFE AND INFANTS !!!!

    You’re not a chronic addict.
    So you can toss all the crap that was in that paragraph.

    Bsides that, you did admit you had a problem.
    Its called inevitable death.
    When that faces you and you “cant quit”
    Then you can come to me with your BS.

    As far as your last paragraph goes.

    Sounds like you need a drink.

  11. Micky, try to pay attention here – long after that child is a woman she will still have that child. Therefore this is meddling in the lives of WOMEN.

    Get it yet? Finally?


  12. Micky 2 says:

    “It’s yet another cynical, inhumane, vicious assault on the rights of women to live their own lives.”

    “It is CHILD ABUSE. No person, parent or whoever, should have the right to FORCE A CHILD TO HAVE A CHILD.”

    You see, this is where you’re wrong.
    And you made your own case against yourself

    You cant have it both ways.
    If they’re children being abused, then the fact is, they are children.
    GIRLS !
    And you have to take care of THE GIRL !!

    Not “women”

    I get it.
    But the fact is that at the time and place where parental roles and guidance is applicable she is a child.
    And it is your job, not the state, to provide that guidance.

    I also see to that my child is raised healthy so that she may take that health into her adult life.
    I also see to it that my daughter does not carry anything into her adulthood that would cause her grief.

    But for you guys there is no grief in killing life.
    Its all about convenience.

    Do you not think that later in life that woman will regret doing what she did when she was a girl ?

    You may be morally and ethically vacant enough to go on in life realizing that one of your kids got killed mid way in its production and it not bother you.
    Sorry, I have conscience.
    Its happened to me and women that I know and now they regret it and their heads are screwed up forever.

    So, if I raise my daughter with morals and ethics that she carrys into her adulthood will I be meddling with her adult self ?
    If I let her go into the world thinking its OK to toss life in the dumpster will that not be a form of meddling.

    YOU dont get it, like I said probably because the only thing you’ve raised are tomatoes.
    And yet , I’ll bet you wouldnt pick them green

    Yea, I know how you think.
    As Obama said, you dont want to be punished with a child.
    Kids get in the way when you want to make more dumpster babies.

    I get , because its easy to understand a limited concept like yours, like checkers.
    You of course are incapable of getting my side, its obvious the thought process of extended responsability is not there , but instead you live by knee jerk judgement that is only there to protect a promiscuous self indulgent greasy life style that cares for nothing more than the need to run around and have sex with no repercussions.
    Thats why you guys are so fascinated with AIDs and STDs.

    “Damn, if werent for those things we could screw around even more”

    Oh, by the way.
    You’re just a normal person who needed to quit.
    Dont put down the people I’ve seen with a life threatening disease who beat it by trumping up your abstinense from booze and drugs.

  13. Micky 2 says:

    Besides that, we got off track.
    Its about notification, not consent.

    Are you going to argue that its not good to know that your 12, 13 year old girl is going to have a huge parasite removed from her body ?

  14. Micky, I CAN have it both ways because NOTH things are true. It is both intimidating girls into having children and forcing women to have them. Girls, afterall, become women – or at least that’s what I learned in Sex Ed class.

    You guys, by default, want little pregnant girls to drink poison and commit suicide. It is their life, it is their body. It is not the property of their parents. Parental rights end where child abuse begins.


  15. Micky 2 says:

    You wanna play stupid , fine.
    And you obviously cant answer any of my questions.

    You can it both ways, true, but it makes you look dumb.

    You said, child abuse goes against womens rights.

    Hardly, explain to me how what I make my daughter do affects her adult womans rights when shes not an adult yet ?
    Thats like saying when shes an adult and the state forces her to keep the kid its child abuse.
    One person cannot occupy the same space at two times.

    There is absolutly no abuse when a parent makes a child learn to accept responsabilty for their actions.
    If that kid kills someone would it be abuse to let them serve their sentence ?

    Yea right, we want them to kill themselves. Thats stupid.
    Pregnancy is not an automatic death sentence unless the kid has parents like you, and its the babys death.

    I dont know what planet you’re on, but that kids body is the parents responsability and no one ever said a kid was property.
    But we do have the right to say what happens to that body.

    You dont have kids so you’ve obviously dont know what the hell you’re talking about. I’ve raised a boy and a girl, until you’ve had some experience in the matter I suggest you butt out unless you want to continue looking any dumber than you managed to look.
    Ever take your kid to emergency and read the admission rules ?

    NO ! You havnt, otherwise you would know that consent is on the parents as they are also liable if the injury is their fault.

    We cant just let our kids run around putting themselves in danger.
    If we do the law comes after us.
    We control them, we dictate to them, we tell them what to do, we set examples

    Got it ?

    Face, you guys agenda is just a free for all unaccountable orgy.
    Man, if you guys could get rid of AIDs and have an abortion clinic on each corner you would have utopia.

    When you have a kid, if you want that responsabilty, then you can come talk to me as if you had a clue.

    Until then you’re just parroting rabid left wing talking points without ever having any real involvemet or experience in the matter.

    In other words.
    You’re not to be taken seriously

  16. The effective result of notifcation laws is increased teenage suicide, young lovers being arrested for statutory rape, girls poisoning themselves to induce abortion, and families torn apart.


  17. parrothead says:

    Jersey you love to consistently and conveniently ignore facts and the arguments against your position. Let me state this for the record. I AM PRO-CHOICE. I believe abortion is a tough ethical question that every women ought to be able to answer for herself to make her own decision.

    However there is a reason there in an age of responsibility in the law on all questions. Any decision made when a woman or girl gets pregnant will be life altering. Whether she decides to have an abortion, carry it to term and keep it or carry it to term and give it up for adoption. California Law does not recognize that a girl under 18 is mature enough to make much less significant decisions without her parents consent/knowledge. I do not know for sure what decision I would help my daughters make if they get into that situation when they are older, I certainly wouldn’t FORCE them into one decision or another. I do know however that I would not want them to be able to make that decision without my knowledge. I have talked to several pro-choice women and mothers who feel the same way. This is parents rights and responsibilities more than about abortion. It is only PRO-ABORTION ZEALOTS (as opposed to truly PRO-CHOICE people) who cannot see the difference

  18. Micky 2 says:

    Parrot, theres even more contradiction when you look at how the left wants to tell us what to do with our bodies.
    How we heat our homes, what we eat, smoking bans etc…

    Yea Jersey, so you say.
    Even if it were true its palinly evident that would love to strip parents of their right to be parents.
    Of course you know this.
    That is why you wont answer any of my questions.
    And your next question will be “what questions”

    No one is talking about statuatory rape.
    The whole teen suicide thing is just a farce, sure, it does happen.
    But I cant remember the last time I saw a news report of a teen commiting suicide because she was pregnant.
    But we should not be intimidated by death threats in order to maintain responsability.
    Besides that, they can usually just drive out of state, its done quite frequently.
    You’re little suicide scare doesnt float.

  19. Well, the second half of my post was erased, so my point was not properly conveyed. I don’t know how much more of that I can tolerate. Not much, I think.

    You guys are looking at very narrow issue prioities that you place in a one-dimensional heirarchy.

    Parrothead, you are looking only at Child Medical Consent, and nothing beyond that. You are also looking only at the literal wording of the initiative, and not the overall legal and real implications. Those are conveniently superficial, and therefore inarguable, points. It’s like debating Christianity with only the Bible allowed as reference for argument. While I wholly and completely understand your argument, I am trying to engage you beyond those superficial and arbitrary stands and into issues regarding the real-life implications of the initiative. I am not a “black and white” thinker, Parrot, especially if that “black and white” is no more substantial than paper and ink. If you really want to substantively debate me, you’re going to have to get beyond that train of thought.

    Micky, you’re just outright ignoring the implications of the initiative, so I really have no idea what’s left to say to you about it, just to say, “If anecdotes were farts…”


  20. Micky 2 says:

    If anectotes were farts ?

    Thats a riot coming from someone who thinks his opinion is fact.

    Do you have kids ?
    No ?
    Then sit down and be quiet.

    You make these implications up and over dramatize tham and also cant or wont answer my questions.

    You lose when you fail to do that.

    I did not ignore any implications.
    As a matter of fact it was me who said we were off track and this was about notification and not consent.
    You are the one who went off on a tissy fit about forcing girls to have abortions.

    NOT ME !

    Now whos ignorant of omplications ?

    Try a better intelectual diet and it will cut down on your verbal flatulence

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.