You're human, I'm sure you'll think of something soon enough. It seems to be in mankind's very nature to always find something to whine about. o:


Edit: And I join the opinion that two men or women getting married most likely will have no effect on your life what so ever.

Care to explain how two women who decide they'd like to be together for the rest of their lives has anything to do with your prejudice ***?

BTW: Free, did you vote against that? I did. And I'm as pissed as you, if not more if you didn't vote.

This is a false statement. It is not a matter of opinion. Two women or two men entering in marriage does not affect your life at all. The only thing it does is make you feel uncomfortable because you hold onto irrational, backwards and prejudice beliefs. Not only that, you feel the need to spew them out unto others by voting for backwards laws such as the one above.

In short, you are a shallow, broken husk of a human being.

Maybe being an uninformed Brit again but hasn't your minimum wage stayed at the same figure for several years without adjustmen for inflation? I swear I read that somewhere.
If that is the case then surely the GOP for the last 6 years have been handling the situation like absolute crap, ie if unemployment is relatively high and yet in real terms the minimum wage has been reduced.

Btw, what's with the whole stem cell thing these days? Last I checked Bush vetoed it such that even blastocysts from fertility treatment which are due to be discarded anyway cannot be used for research. What the heck is going on with that?

Minimum wage differs from state to state. I could get a job 8 miles away that has $2 more per hour on a minimum wage rate than the state I live in.

Well, theres a Federal minimum wage everyone has to follow, that no one can go below. States however, can set their own minimum wage, provided that it's eqaul to or higher than the federal minimum wage.


But I think the last time they raised minimum wage was about 8-10 years ago.


It should really be about doubled. $5.15 an hour isn't getting you crap. Anything short of $10.00 an hour just isn't livable. Minimum wage is supposed to be a livable wage for a single person.

That was all opinion.

I'm pretty conflicted about gay marriage, because while I think I'm against it morally, I believe it should be allowed because it's not hurting anyone. But saying gay marriage should be allowed because it is progressive is just as irrational as saying it shouldn't be allowed because it's a morally bad.

What's wrong with giving homosexuals the same rights as everyone else? Or do they need to be untermenschen because third parties don't like where they stick their genitals?

Seems to me that civil rights should never be placed up for referendum.

Damn you Americans are nuts.

Damn you Finns are snowmen.

Arizona becomes the first state to vote down a same-sex marriage ban! Woohoo!

Surprising for a traditionally conservative, republican state.

But then again, our governor of 8 years is a democrat and very likely a lesbian.

i cant believe you voted on that. did you even read the issue? this referendum did not just raise minimum wage to 6.85/h, it effectively made your pay records a public record.

because this passed anyone can waltz into your employer and request your paystubs, the tax forms you filled out, etc.

while yes, i would have liked minimum wage raised, i felt the crap they tacked onto the end of it was complete bull****.

but whatever. issue 5 passed, and now not even going to bars will be fun anymore.

and go stickland/brown/etc.

Didn't you not vote? And didn't you say you wouldn't complain about anything that happened therein?


Your opinion is wrong.

[EDIT]WTF? You're? God I'm losing it.


Stayed the same for like 15 years now iirc. It needs raising.

If you think that they actually can prevent the cost somehow winding back up on the shoulders of consumers, you've got another thing coming.

The idea itself is inane. What's the justification of taxing oil producers? Indeed, there are also alternative technologies and hybrids around, but it's the consumer that makes the decision to drive the SUV. I don't know how the popularity of hybrids and electric cars are nowadays, but I think I can say by sole observation evidence that the consumer really doesn't care about alternative energy. They just want cheaper gas, and this won't help that. It's not any insidious action by the oil producers that people don't care. Unless they have mind control beams, then that would be cool.

As far as the election results... not too surprised. Maybe this will scare the republicans straight. Maybe have some positive effect on the party. Maybe lose the social conservatisms and such, maybe go back to being about little government involvement mostly, not about interference with individual's lives. Then again, after being shut out for years, the dems kept their personality, so I guess it will be the same crap.

We'll see what happens. Things can't go that badly. I mean, relatively speaking...

I don't think he was saying it's progressive (though in my opinion it is) the points was that same sex marriage have absolutely no effect on you.

The whole debate about same sex marriages is absurd to me, and I have yet to hear one argument against it that's not biblically based.

Ahaha yes! My faith in the California populace is restored.

1A-1E: passed (1A is big since is keeps the liberal legislature from raping transportation funds)
83 (high punishments for sex offenders): passed
84 (spending on water): rejected
85 (parental notification for minors on abortions): rejected
86 (cigarette tax): rejected
87 (oil tax): rejected
88 (increase in property tax): rejected
89 (campaign finance): rejected
90 (limitations on eminent domain): passed

However CA elected liberal hippy Jerry Brown (former CA gov) as attorney general.

About prop 87: You have to realize that it's a CA prop therefore is either going to be a large spending project or a cheap money grab from a profitable industry. Two industries were targeted this election oil and tobacco. From what I read of the prop, it was a price cap on profits for the oil companies. Last time we had price caps was on electricity and that went VERY well.

I was torn on who I wanted to win. If the Democrats win, then obviously they'll be able to deadlock everything for at least two years and stop more damage from happening. The bad thing is that this will only encourage the far left fringe of the party that controls it currently. If they act on their impulses, it'll only be two years before the Republicans gain control again.

Now, if the Republicans had won and even taken seats, that would ultimately be best for the Democrats. If that would have happened, I believe the rational liberals and moderates in the party would finally rebel against the fringe leadership and take the Democratic party back. Then, in two years, when the people are given a choice that isn't grossly corrupt or psychotically fringe(which are currently the only two options), Democrats would win resoundingly around the country.

I suppose we'll just have to see if the Democrats start doing stupid crap with their power now that they have it.

JG: What was wrong with the campaign finance referendum?

****. I wish I kept my election material. I think it was a jab at big businesses. I don't like jabs at big businesses. I had a friend explain it well to me. I'm drawing a blank.

Edit: Damnit! The liberals won all the state offices except Governor.

Was it something along the lines of "Politicians can no longer take obscene amounts of money from corporations through either hard or soft money and their campaign spending will be monitored"?

I'm not convinced that the oil companies would be content to take a loss of profits; they would find a way to pass on the costs through a loophole. Plus, this prop is little more than handing a blank check to a new bureaucracy, which then can piss it away without coming up with anything new. I'm doing business with the public sector on a design project right now, and after seeing how inefficiently everything operates, I'm less inclined to give any more money to government for stuff like this because I feel that government is not up to the challenge.


I suspect that new energy sources will come from the private sector, because as petroleum becomes more expensive, alternative fuels are going to become more financially lucrative to develop. A factor holding alternative fuels back right now is the fact that alt. fuel companies have to convince car manufacturers to go along with them, infrastructure for distribution must be developed from scratch, and an alternative fuel must be produced in great enough supply and at a cheap cost to be commercially viable. It just needs more time.

My problem with his post wasn't about the idea that same sex marriage should be illegal, it was that instead of perhaps having a logical argument he went straight to personal attacks.

Oh well.

Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down!

Yeah, wow. I just saw that. What an interesting turn of events.

(Here is a link to confirm, but not much info)

The good news is that the Republicans lost the House and, pending recounts (which I'm confindent will show Democratic victories) the Senate. The bad news is that they gave them to the Democrats. Overall a change for the better, but still not exactly what I'd call ideal.

I say this because the Democrats ran a nationwide campaign based almost entirely on complete silence. They won because the Republicans got so out of control that people just couldn't vote for them anymore, and that doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in the new Democratic leadership. They'd better come up with a real plan, and quickly. Repealing the Military Commisions Act would be a good start.

I'm not the least bit excited about Nancy Pelosi being Speaker of the House.

The good news in individual elections: Rick Santorum is out of the Senate, Arizona rejected the $1 Million Voter Reward amendment, and Robert Wexler won his race against no one despite his well-known love of prostitutes and crack cocaine.

The bad news: Seven states passed gay marriage bans, Rod Blagojevich is still governor of Illinois, Kinky Friedman and Carol Keaton Rylander Grandma Strayhorn kept Chris Bell from beating Rick Perry in Texas, and Michael Badnarik's "in it to win it" candidacy in Texas District 10 managed only 4% of the vote.

As for Rumsfeld, I knew his days were numbered when Bush said he had done a "fantastic job." Remember Michael Brown?

Page and Kuat:

I see your point. You're right, taxing the oil companies won't do much good, and the government can't be trusted to fairly distribute money. Hell, I said the same thing about our tobacco tax.

However, I do think that alternative energy developers should at least get some tax breaks or incentives to develop energies that are actually sources, opposed to just carriers like hydrogen and ethanol are.

God. Wtf? NOW Rumsfeld resigns? If he had resigned before the election that might have actually benefitted the Republicans.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]You're opinion is wrong.
[/QUOTE]


By far the most compelling argument i've heard all day!

Here's a shot. Do married people not get more tax relief than single people. They'll have to raise taxes on somebody if there are enough new married couples. Do insurance companies not give lower insurance rates to married people vs. unmarried people. Insurance companies are run by money grubbing bastards. If they dont get their money from the newly married gay couples, theyre gonna get it from the other unmarried people. SOMETHING is going to change, and whether or not its good or bad, it IS an EFFECT.

The weddings themselves would have an impact on the economy, since weddings are quite expensive. If you have the demand for wedding stuff go up, it raises prices on the stuff, and it will then be more expensive for you to get married, gay or not.

Do I care if gay people want to get married? No, its fine with me, let them... but its just ignorant to say that their marriage has no effect on anyone but the married couple.

...so you think the whole economy will change because gay people are allowed to get married?

Whaaaaaat? I seriously do not believe the economy is going to drastically shift or have any marginal impact if weddings occur. Weddings are a one time event. Consumer spending happens DAILY and that's what drives the economy. The only thing I can see having an impact on the economy is that gay people will be happier by being married. Happy people mean happy consumers means happy economy!

Fine. A negligible effect. The kind no married couple will legitimately notice. The generally accepted estimate for the percentage of the population made up by homosexuals is 4-5%, and not nearly all of them are in monogamous relationships. Even if every monogamous gay couple got married (and they won't -- some have no interest whatsoever in marriage), would this have any noticeable effect on tax revenues and overall consumer spending? Very doubtful.

Saying that gay marriage will not affect straight couples is not ignorant, because for all practical purposes it's true. I think you're splitting hairs.



I think this is up for debate.

Yeah, I heartily agree with this. I'm actually surprised they already don't; maybe it's because gas and automotive lobbies. It would be pretty bad for them (I'm guessing) if there was a breakthrough of sorts; definitely for gas due to obvious reasons, and maybe due to automotive because they'd have to drastically change some manufacturing elements (just speculating on that part though) among other things.

But if gay people are happy, and gay consumption goes up, then there will be more gay items on the market due to increased demand. I mean, who wants to see more lavender clothing? That would then turn away straight individuals (I, for one, loath purple, pink, and lavender) from consumerist exploits, therefore crippling the market. And that, my friends, would be pretty gay.

My logic is flawless.

You know, this is a joke. Possibly not funny and in poor taste, but yeah

Agreed!

Lesser things change the whole economy every day. Even small "peices" of the economy are part of the "whole" economy, so even a small change affects the whole economy.

Sorry to take down everyones across the board "absolutely no effect" statements that fly around here so often.

Also dont forget that gay people might want to *gasp* get divorced! Last I checked, divorce is pretty damn expensive. This would also confuse the whole court system, since the judge would have to actually decide who deserves the assets instead of just saying "the woman gets everything."

Wouldn't it be hilarious if they made it legal for gay people to get married, but then made illegal for them to get divorced? I would just find it funny and ironic in my sick mind.



That wasnt the question posed at all. Everyone saying "no effect". I said there is an effect. I dont care if its a drastic change or it makes everyone have to walk on their hands. The whole question about gay marriage isn't if there is an effect, its if the effect matters enough to ban the marriage. The effect proably would be minimal and have no noticeable impact, but just because its not noticed doesnt mean it doesnt happen.

I know its hard to comprehend that everyones across the board "absolutely no effect" statements flying everwhere aren't actually true, but you'll just have to learn to deal with it.

Why do people get married anyway, outside of religous beliefs? Why would 2 heterosexual people, a man and a woman, who do not hold any religious beliefs, and dont believe in the sanctity of marriage, want to get married? I can think of a few reasons. 1. For the benefit of their children/start a family (which can be done without marriage) 2. Tax/insurance breaks 3. easier to combine assets and whatnot. 4. They just feel for whatever reason that its what they're supposed to do after being together for a long time... a sociological thing.

Leaving religion out of it for gay people, why do they want to get married? The starting a family thing may be legit if they want to adopt/artificial insemanation. But lets assume for a crazy second that not all gay people want children. What reasons do they then have? Tax/insurance breaks, there's a good one. Combining assets, another good one. Both having some effect on the economy. Then the whole sociological belief that marriage is the thing to do to make you feel your relationship is "legit" and "going somewhere."

It makes me wonder how many gay couple would want to get married if they passed the law but said "you can get married, but you dont get any tax benefits and you have to keep your assets on seperate accounts." Obviously it wouldnt happen, just sayin...

see, even that I disagree with. I have yet to see any major change in history brought about by one small thing. If something major happens, even if it's an economic shift, it is usually due to a combination of factors. Give me any event in history (that I know anything about) that is due to one reason and I'll show you the rest of the reasons. Gay marriages alone will have no major or significant change in our economy.

That and how will divorces, however expensive they may be, negatively affect anyone but the person getting a divorce? There's no supply/demand issue there. If divorce becomes more widespread, I would bet money that more people will just become divorce lawyers rather than having the same amount and driving prices up.

I think people mainly get married because they love eachother.

L
M
F
A
O

Yeah, it'll effect the economy. But it won't matter, so stop arguing as if it will (despite your words, that's what your arguments steer towards).


Most people say "No major effects", and they're right. At least, no major effects for the worst.


Overly bigoted chauvinistic stupidity at its finest.


Yeah...hilarious...because gay people don't deserve the same rights we heterosexuals do. Not like they're human or anything


Everyone's saying "No effect" because, to them, there would BE no effects felt. None. At all. There would be an effect, yes, but it would be an effect dwarfed by the fact that it's not that big of a deal at all.


Or not. You assume you're right, and in a sense you are. Unfortunately, on the whole, you are wrong.


Because they love each other and marriage is just a word put to a practice that existed long before Christianity, and is the symbolic joining of two people into one entity--their family.


Deep, really deep. Only not. Tax breaks are a great reason--gay people can get civil unions but it doesn't hold the same meaning nor the same tax advantages as marriage does.


Probably less. Then again, say the same about heterosexual couples and you'd probably get less too.

Stop treating homosexuals as if they're somehow not human. They're just like you and me, except they don't enjoy the opposite sex. Christ.

Yes, this is true!

Anyways, I went to my political science teacher's house for a watch party. It was fun. We're in Missouri, which was one of the key states for Democrats to take the senate. I thought I was the only liberal there at first, because all the Democrats showed up late. (I live in Springfield, which is like, 90% ignorant Conservative) (P.S.S. It's a joke. I don't think all republicans are ignorant. Just where I live.)

Stayed up til 12 predicting how Talent's (R) victory speech was like.

Even though I don't like either McCaskill (D) or Talent (R), I'm glad we went democratic here. I'm also glad stem cell research passed here.