My Predictions for the MA ballot questions:
[views:9134][posts:89]_______________________________________________
[Oct 30,2008 1:06pm - masshole penetration ""]
"NO" on all three. God damn... for a "progressive" state, we sure act conservative when we vote.
either way i'll vote YES on 1 & 2 and NO on 3.
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ELE/ele08/ballot_questions_08/quest_1.htm
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ELE/ele08/ballot_questions_08/quest_2.htm
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ELE/ele08/ballot_questions_08/quest_3.htm
[Oct 30,2008 1:07pm - FuckIsMySignature ""]
Question 4 - Profit!
[Oct 30,2008 1:08pm - sever ""]
Really?
I think question 2 will definitely pass. Question 1 will be an overwhelming no and question 3 is one of those wait-and-see dealios.
[Oct 30,2008 1:08pm - aril ""]
No way, dude. I seriously think Q2 will get passed. Q1=no and Q3=no too. But Q2 - yes.
[Oct 30,2008 1:10pm - metal_church101 ""]
FuckIsMySignature said:Question 4 - Profit!
Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!
[Oct 30,2008 1:12pm - masshole penetration ""]
i'm just cynical that all the old fucks in this state will see the word "marijuana" on the ballot and decide they dont give a fuck. you think our generation will make an impact? bullshit! :end cynicism:
[Oct 30,2008 1:13pm - FuckIsMySignature ""]
i think more old people smoke pot than you realize
[Oct 30,2008 1:13pm - Yeti ""]
yes. i do think that it will. but its going to take time.
[Oct 30,2008 1:16pm - KitchenIncident ""]
Vote no on one unless you make over 100K per year.
[Oct 30,2008 1:17pm - masshole penetration ""]
or vote yes if you'd like more liberty in your life. i want this state to emulate NH. lucky bastards...
[Oct 30,2008 1:20pm - masshole penetration ""]
http://www.smallgovernmentact.org/joomla/
[Oct 30,2008 1:25pm - KitchenIncident ""]
It is going to raise taxes everywhere else that they can possibly think of (perhaps higher sales tax, property tax, etc.) to make up for the missing money. You insist that it will reduce governmental waste but they're going to put the money where they want it.
A good chunk of the funding for schools comes from income tax. UMass Amherst, even before this potential cut, lost $12.5 million and this provides less financial aid for people who need it. That's a university. What about public schools that already have students sharing books? Less money for them than they had to begin with?
The rich get to keep their money and the poor continue to be fucked. Good idea.
[Oct 30,2008 1:30pm - brian_dc ""]
agreed...it's a bad idea
most of the argument for it is centered around the need to reform spending, especially on government pensions. It essentially says, "Since we have to spend less, we're going to take away the income tax so that we force the government's hand. So when they do the right thing and spend less, there will still be money for education."
Like hell, useless projects will still be in the budget and there will be more severe education cuts.
bad bad bad idea
only I live in RI, so I won't be voting on that.
best of luck, guys.
[Oct 30,2008 1:31pm - masshole penetration ""]
i'm not interested in "sharing" money with the rich. why do you loath them so much? people should at least be given the liberty of keeping 100% of the the money they make. this is a step in that direction. i love people who argue the side of public funding. do you give to charity? have you ever donated cash to any education programs? without taxes, people still have the ability to donate. fuck the "robin hood" mentality!
[Oct 30,2008 1:34pm - KitchenIncident ""]
Yes I have, captain. Thanks.
So enlighten me, how is this proposition supposed to create jobs like it says in that page you linked to?
[Oct 30,2008 2:00pm - Sacreligion ""]
wow. some informative links there. wasn't really familiar with question 1 so thought i'd read up on it.
here's one part of the argument for voting yes: "Your "Yes" vote will NOT raise your property taxes NOR any other taxes."
here's one part of the argument for voting no: "It would force dramatic cuts in state aid to cities and towns, driving up property taxes and reducing funding for vital local services."
so who's the liar here?
[Oct 30,2008 2:04pm - Sacreligion ""]
oh man. the argument for voting no on question 2? hilarious!
"One ounce of marijuana - street value $600 - equates to approximately 56 individual sales."
No weed costs that much, and that implies that people are buying nothing but 0.5 grams per purchase.
Authored by:
Michael O'Keefe
District Attorney for the Cape and Islands
President, Massachusetts
District Attorneys Association
1 Bulfinch Place, Suite 202
Boston, MA 02114
who wants to write him a letter and tell him he's retarded and has no idea what he's talking about?
[Oct 30,2008 2:05pm - brian_dc ""]
it's just an assumption that property taxes will be driven up.
but they'll likely need to seek out other forms of income. The 9 other states that don't have an income tax all have high property taxes.
[Oct 30,2008 2:06pm - Sacreligion ""]
so is it safe to assume that property tax will be raised and no real money is being saved by the people?
[Oct 30,2008 2:06pm - sever ""]
I'd only pay 600 for an ounce if it's gold-plated and comes with free munchies.
Who the fuck buys nickelbags? nobody.
[Oct 30,2008 2:07pm - Josh_Martin ""]
Vote no on 1. Unless you want to see bridges collapsing, fire departments getting underfunded, schools turning to shit even worse than they already are, property taxes going through the roof, etc etc. Taking 40% out of the state budget is the stupidest idea ever and Carla Howell is a complete moron. Have you ever seen her intterviewed? She is almost as dumb as Palin. She has absolutely no good reasons for getting rid of the state income tax. All she says is that according to the latest polls, Mass. voters feel there is waste in state spending. But she gives zero specifics on what that waste is. Now, I'm sure there is money being wasted but not fucking 40% of the budget.
No on #1
Yes on #2
Latest polls show 70% in favor of decrim.
[Oct 30,2008 2:08pm - Sacreligion ""]
Here's my vote:
1) No
2) Yes
3) Does anyone know how bad these greyhounds really have it? I'd think that they get treated well if they are making their owners money.
[Oct 30,2008 2:08pm - Josh_Martin ""]
masshole%20penetration said:or vote yes if you'd like more liberty in your life. i want this state to emulate NH. lucky bastards...
You clearly don't know shit about New Hampshire.
[Oct 30,2008 2:08pm - brian_dc ""]
decriminalization is way overdue
[Oct 30,2008 2:10pm - KitchenIncident ""]
Sacreligion said:
so who's the liar here?
They're saying that removing income tax will create more jobs and things of the like. We're all liars at this point. I'm just posting what I've learned from people who are more educated about the whole disaster that is American Politics than I am.
I'm just convinced that this is a really, really bad idea. And if we don't see it now, we'll see it in the future.
[Oct 30,2008 2:12pm - corpus_colostomy ""]
bennyhillifier
[Oct 30,2008 2:14pm - Sacreligion ""]
eh, i'm still gonna vote no on 1 anyway. as much as i hate seeing cops making $50/hr watching guys doing "construction" on roads pretty much everywhere i go, at least they have steady jobs and our roads stay semi-maintained.
but srsly, what's with the greyhounds?
[Oct 30,2008 2:16pm - aril ""]
question is whether or not greyhound racing is ethical. argument against it is that they're locked up, treated like shit, and blah blah. but then again, I always hear about people adopting greyhounds that don't race anymore.
[Oct 30,2008 2:20pm - Sacreligion ""]
i think i'm going to vote no on it. they've been doing it for years and i've never heard of any unethical treatment. sure there's probably some douche racedog owners but there are also douche dog owners so it's really all relative.
1) no
2) yes
3) no
[Oct 30,2008 2:29pm - darkwor ""]
if dog racing becomes illegal then THERE WILL BE ILLEGAL DOG RACING. reverse this logic and you get the right answer to question 2.
[Oct 30,2008 2:32pm - brian_dc ""]
if small quantity marijuana arrests become civil charges then there will be civil charges small quantity marijuana arrests?
I'm not sure I get it.
[Oct 30,2008 2:37pm - Sacreligion ""]
brian, stop being a dick.
[Oct 30,2008 2:38pm - brian_dc ""]
well, I just think it's important to note that this is not legalization
there's a big difference.
[Oct 30,2008 2:38pm - darkwor ""]
haha no i mean, there's illegal pot sales happening all the time. it's not regulated, taxed, etc, so let's say for the sake of argument you're on your own when you look for it and you're never sure the quality, where it's from, or how it's treated. i'm saying making something illegal doesn't stop it from happening, it just becomes unregulated. that's what dog racing will become, and it will end up being far worse for the dogs.
[Oct 30,2008 2:40pm - darkwor ""]
that's why when i see signs for "save the dogs, vote yes on 3" they don't make sense to me.
[Oct 30,2008 2:45pm - Josh_Martin ""]
Sacreligion said:cops making $50/hr watching guys doing "construction" on roads pretty much everywhere i go, at least they have steady jobs and our roads stay semi-maintained.
Not anymore. They just changed the law. Normal people can be flagmen in Mass. now. 'Bout time.
[Oct 30,2008 2:47pm - Sacreligion ""]
That's pretty sweet. Does that apply on highways as well or are they still gonna require two staties per construction job to sit in their cars with their lights flashing?
[Oct 30,2008 3:24pm - Yeti ""]
Sacreligion said:Does anyone know how bad these greyhounds really have it? I'd think that they get treated well if they are making their owners money.
thats a good question. i wonder the same thing. if i saw definitive proof that they were being treated like garbage, then i would think otherwise. however it seems to me that if you want something to do well, you need to treat it well. seems that any argument against it is propaganda from PETA fuckheads who think that any animal not roaming freely across the savannah is being locked up and beaten to near death by its owner.
[Oct 30,2008 3:31pm - FuckIsMySignature ""]
[img]
[Oct 30,2008 3:40pm - Josh_Martin ""]
Sacreligion said:That's pretty sweet. Does that apply on highways as well or are they still gonna require two staties per construction job to sit in their cars with their lights flashing?
I think its across the board.
Right after they passed the new law a bunch of cops went out protesting. They went to a job site and were fucking with the civilian flagmen. a couple of the cops crossed the line and took things too far and actually got arrested. Poor baby piggies can't make triple time for standing around, drinking irish coffee anymore.
They are actually trying to have us believe road construction sites will be unsafe without them. Mass. was the ONLY state in the country where the flagmen had to be cops. According the cops, every other state had unsafe roads. What a bunch of fucking assholes. And they wonder why most people hate them.
[Oct 30,2008 3:49pm - pam @ school ""]
100% NO, YES, Leaning on YES for me, but I think it will come out NO, NO, and NO.
Want proof on greyhound racing being shitty? Call every greyhound rescue you can find and ask if they have an extra room for another abandoned retired dog. They're used up and tossed away like garbage.
But I'm on the fence. Do all racers treat their dogs shitty? Absolutely not. I would rather see tough inspections and regulation to prevent and punish mistreatment but since no one will ever put THAT on the ballot, or fund it for that matter, I'm inclined to vote yes. Plus, gambling is fucking stupid so I don't give a fuck if there's dog racing or not.
BUT that puts people out of jobs and punishes people who care for their dogs. So I'm inclined to vote no, too.
But I'm probably voting yes. The cruelty is there and if it's not going to be dealt with more rationally I'd rather see the whole thing shut down.
[Oct 30,2008 3:54pm - pam @ school ""]
Sacreligion said:
I'd think that they get treated well if they are making their owners money.
I suggest you introduce yourself to any era of history. Stat.
[Oct 30,2008 3:54pm - Sacreligion ""]
what i mean is that they have to be in good shape if they are winning races so it's not like the owner can beat the shit out of his dogs or feed them garbage.
[Oct 30,2008 3:55pm - pam @ school ""]
darkwor said: i'm saying making something illegal doesn't stop it from happening, it just becomes unregulated. that's what dog racing will become, and it will end up being far worse for the dogs.
That's a really, really good point that I hadn't thought of.
[Oct 30,2008 3:58pm - pam @ school ""]
Sacreligion said:what i mean is that they have to be in good shape if they are winning races so it's not like the owner can beat the shit out of his dogs or feed them garbage.
Worked on the slaves who built the pyramids, my friend. And what happens to the dogs that aren't up to par? That's my issue.
[Oct 30,2008 4:12pm - Conservationist ""]
masshole%20penetration said:i'm not interested in "sharing" money with the rich. why do you loath them so much? people should at least be given the liberty of keeping 100% of the the money they make. this is a step in that direction. i love people who argue the side of public funding. do you give to charity? have you ever donated cash to any education programs? without taxes, people still have the ability to donate. fuck the "robin hood" mentality!
I agree.
The "Robin Hood" mentality actually gave its name to a program in our schools here, which takes money from "rich" -- usually middle-class -- schools and throws it into the ghetto schools, which haven't improved since 1843.
[Oct 30,2008 4:13pm - orgymf@work ""]
QUESTION ONE IS SUCH A BAD IDEA.
two....i say yes, just because i think it will benefit everyone.
people who get busted with less than an ounce, don't go to jail, and the fines they pay help cities in finicial crisis (like every city in this fucking state)
three.....definate no.
i refuse to cost more hard working people (dog tracks do employ many people....some of which work a lot for little money) their jobs to rescue some fucking mutts.
fuck dogs.
[Oct 30,2008 4:18pm - darkwor ""]
pam%20@%20school said:
darkwor said: i'm saying making something illegal doesn't stop it from happening, it just becomes unregulated. that's what dog racing will become, and it will end up being far worse for the dogs.
That's a really, really good point that I hadn't thought of.
i don't think there's any legislation that will stop the poor treatment of animals. keep it legal, funded, regulated and inspected.
for question #1, who the hell cares about traffic cops, a YES vote will destroy public education from day cares to state colleges and universities. i work at worcester state and the budget is already spread so thin that there's a hiring freeze in effect for the forseeable future, we can't replace employees that leave, and have to take on extra responsibilies with no job title change or pay increase. and, public services (read: COPS) and not only will schools have less books than they do now, we'll have more pissed off cops that are spread thin because of cut funding just so we can pay a little bit less taxes which we won't notice the difference anyway.
question 2 we all know the answer to
[Oct 30,2008 4:21pm - pam @ school ""]
I have a kid in "ghetto schools" and if you actually think money is being put INTO them you're even more a fucking idiot that I originally suspected. Every couple of years my kid gets her school shut down because of No Child Left Behind starving them of funds because of insane standard test benchmarks. She gets plucked away from her friends and thrown into a bigger, shittier school. There are no music or art programs, and if there are...they go under within a year. Until you have a kid in public schools, you don't get to have a valid opinion of why they aren't improving.
And last I checked, the college I'm sitting in right now is funded by taxes and frankly, I'd rather my fucking tuition and fees not go up any more, thanks. Suck it up and pay your fucking taxes or stfu and move to NH.
[Oct 30,2008 4:34pm - Josh_Martin ""]
I think the only way I would vote yes on #1 was if they made up for the money by immediately ceasing ALL drug enforcement. Keep cops focused on violent crimes and burglary/theft, and white collar crime, shit like that. Y'know, crimes that actually harm people.