Some Early Voting Numbers

[frerottenextelway]

Numbers are official numbers from the states.

Georgia

691,507

Black 35.6%
White 60.7%
Asian 0.4%
Hispanic 0.5%
Native Am. 0.0%
Women 56.1%
Men 41.1%
Unknown 2.5%

North Carolina

279,274

Dem 54.1%
Rep 29.7%
White 69.9%
Black 26.5%

John McCain should be very afraid. :D

[Arkie]

I thought they couldn't announce the official numbers until after the polls close. They used to have to wait until west coast closed before beginning to announce results from the east coast.

[theAPAOps5]

These are demographics. I think they can announce those.

[Garcia Bronco]

I am voting tomorrow. We have something like 1 billion amendments on the ballot. I literally have to bring a sample ballot this time.

[Garcia Bronco]

And it's got to be exit polling, which can be completely false.

[ak1971]

and now that I am a registered democrat..

its pretty cool to get personal emails from Obama thanking me for all the money I've given him

[Garcia Bronco]

http://thecoloradoindex.typepad.com/the_colorado_index/2008/09/voters-guide-to.html

These are a breakdown of the Colorado amendments

[ak1971]

http://thecoloradoindex.typepad.com/the_colorado_index/2008/09/voters-guide-to.html

These are a breakdown of the Colorado amendments

Gaming (50)

Would allow casino towns to vote on whether to increase bet limits to $100 from $5, expand hours of operation and add games. This initiative does one thing that we like and one thing that we detest. First, it returns local control to the citizens most impacted by gambling, those who live in the three cities. Second, it assigns any additional taxes that result from this measure to fund something that voters would not eventually have to fund anyway. We consider that feature a fatal flaw. If the casinos want to bring this forward again without a restriction on where the funds are to go, then it would deserve consideration. In this form, it does not. No.


VOTE YES ON THIS ONE!!!!!

[Paladin]

And it's got to be exit polling, which can be completely false.

Not much to fudge on those demographics unless there are a hellacious number of cross dressers and people wearing black paint or such. C'mon, those can be counted simply by watching the numbers that exit the polls.....

ROFL!

[Garcia Bronco]

Gaming (50)

Would allow casino towns to vote on whether to increase bet limits to $100 from $5, expand hours of operation and add games. This initiative does one thing that we like and one thing that we detest. First, it returns local control to the citizens most impacted by gambling, those who live in the three cities. Second, it assigns any additional taxes that result from this measure to fund something that voters would not eventually have to fund anyway. We consider that feature a fatal flaw. If the casinos want to bring this forward again without a restriction on where the funds are to go, then it would deserve consideration. In this form, it does not. No.


VOTE YES ON THIS ONE!!!!!

Here is how I am voting

46 Yes
47 Yes
48 Yes - I am going to hear about this one.
49 Yes
50 Yes
51 No
52 No
53 Yes
54 Yes
55 No
56 No
57 No
58 No
59 No
Ref L No
Ref M Yes
Ref N Yes
Ref O no

[Garcia Bronco]

Not much to fudge on those demographics unless there are a hellacious number of cross dressers and people wearing black paint or such. C'mon, those can be counted simply by watching the numbers that exit the polls.....

ROFL!

Maybe, maybe not - But I was talking about party affliation.

[ak1971]

Here is how I am voting

46 Yes
47 Yes
48 Yes - I am going to hear about this one.
49 Yes
50 Yes
51 No
52 No
53 Yes
54 Yes
55 No
56 No
57 No
58 No
59 No
Ref L No
Ref M Yes
Ref N Yes
Ref O no


I hadnt given much though yet, except for 50.. Thanks for the list/website

[Garcia Bronco]

I hadnt given much though yet, except for 50.. Thanks for the list/website

I am voting down anything pro-union or anti-business.

[Paladin]

Whoda thunk it?

[Garcia Bronco]

*COLORADO AMENDMENT 46

Colorado Civil Rights Initiative

Would prohibit the state from granting preferential treatment to anyone on the basis of race, sex or ethnicity in hiring, education and contracts.

A big yes

[Garcia Bronco]

"*COLORADO AMENDMENT 47

Right to work

Would outlaw agreements requiring workers covered by union contracts to pay fees for representation."

I consider this anti-business and anti-choice. A big Yes. Paladin?

[Rohirrim]

Here is how I am voting

46 Yes
47 Yes
48 Yes - I am going to hear about this one.
49 Yes
50 Yes
51 No
52 No
53 Yes
54 Yes
55 No
56 No
57 No
58 No
59 No
Ref L No
Ref M Yes
Ref N Yes
Ref O no

If 48 passes all it's going to do is suck a bunch of money out of the treasury in legal fees until the Colorado Supreme Court tosses it. This is why I'm opposed to the petitions process in Colorado. I call it "legislative amateur hour."

[Garcia Bronco]

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 48

Definition of person

Would ban abortion by defining personhood as beginning at fertilization


Yes for me. We need to legally define when a life begins to put to rest all this RvW and abortion nonsense. I don't really care where it's defined, but we legally define when a person is dead, why not when they are alive?

[Garcia Bronco]

If 48 passes all it's going to do is suck a bunch of money out of the treasury in legal fees until the Colorado Supreme Court tosses it. This is why I'm opposed to the petitions process in Colorado. I call it "legislative amateur hour."

How can the Colorado SC throw it out? Based on what?

[Garcia Bronco]

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 49

Public payroll standards

Would ban governments from taking deductions directly from employee paychecks for any nongovernmental special interest group.


A big huge Yes

[Garcia Bronco]

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 50

Gaming

Would allow casino towns to vote on whether to increase bet limits to $100 from $5, expand hours of operation and add games.

Why shouldn't business and the populace be able to decide for themselves? Yes

[Garcia Bronco]

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 51

Sales tax for disabled services

Would increase the state sales tax (by 2 cents on every $10) to fund services for those with developmental disabilities


No.

[Garcia Bronco]

" COLORADO AMENDMENT 52

Severance tax - transportation

Would allocate more severance tax money to transportation. "

No. RTD and CDOT get more than enough money for roads. Live within your budget

[Garcia Bronco]

" COLORADO AMENDMENT 53

Corporate fraud

Would impose tougher sanctions for fraud committed by businesses, executives. "

While this can be abused, I think a yes vote is in order.

[Rohirrim]

How can the Colorado SC throw it out? Based on what?

States do not have the power to restrict rights deemed to exist in the Constitution by the Supreme Court. They do have the power to create a more open interpretation of rights, but not a more restrictive one. RvW is the law of the land until the SCOTUS changes it.

[Garcia Bronco]

"* COLORADO AMENDMENT 54

Campaign finance curbs

Would bar sole-source government contractors and unions with exclusive bargaining powers from making contributions to political candidates. "

Yes

[Rohirrim]

Every one of these Colorado amendments is just one more special interest looking to pass some friggin law for their own benefit. That's why we have to kill the idiotic petition process. Bruce's idiotic Tabor Amendment should have taught us that.

[Garcia Bronco]

States do not have the power to restrict rights deemed to exist in the Constitution by the Supreme Court. They do have the power to create a more open interpretation of rights, but not a more restrictive one. RvW is the law of the land until the SCOTUS changes it.

While you may be right in a prediction:

RvW is not the law of the land and it never has been. There is no law or right to privacy in the Constitution. Further more the law of the land is the Constitution and under the 10th Amendment the Federal Goverment nor the Supreme Court can do this because the right to an abortion, definitions of when a life begins, or the right to restrict abortion is a power delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. It's left to the states.

[Garcia Bronco]

Every one of these Colorado amendments is just one more special interest looking to pass some friggin law for their own benefit. That's why we have to kill the idiotic petition process. Bruce's idiotic Tabor Amendment should have taught us that.

I disagree. The petition process is great. And while it may allow for instances of exactly which you speak, it also allows actually citizens to petition their government for better governance.

[Garcia Bronco]

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 55

Just cause

Would require an employer to provide a reason for firing a worker

No.

[Garcia Bronco]

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 56

Health coverage for employees

Would require employers with 20 or more workers to provide health care coverage for workers.


No

[Garcia Bronco]

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 57

Safe workplaces

Would allow an employee to sue for damages in addition to any settlements from the workers compensation system.


No

[Garcia Bronco]

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 58

Severance tax

Would reduce energy company tax breaks and use revenue to pay for college scholarships and other programs


No

[Garcia Bronco]

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 59

K-12 schools funding

Would lift constitutional limits on state spending and direct additional revenue into an education fund


No. This has already been passed and Governemnt decided to spend the money elsewhere

[Garcia Bronco]

* COLORADO REFERENDUM L:

Would lower the age of a candidate for the Colorado House and Senate from 25 to 21.


No. A 21 year-old has no business running for office.

[Garcia Bronco]

* COLORADO REFERENDUM O:

Would increase the number of signatures required on petitions for constitutional amendments to at least 6 percent of votes cast in the previous election for governor

No

[Rohirrim]

While you may be right in a prediction:

RvW is not the law of the land and it never has been. There is no law or right to privacy in the Constitution. Further more the law of the land is the Constitution and under the 10th Amendment the Federal Goverment nor the Supreme Court can do this because the right to an abortion, definitions of when a life begins, or the right to restrict abortion is a power delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. It's left to the states.

To uphold that take, you'll have to go back and overturn Marbury v. Madison. Good luck with that. :~ohyah!:

[Rohirrim]

I disagree. The petition process is great. And while it may allow for instances of exactly which you speak, it also allows actually citizens to petition their government for better governance.

We already have that. It's called representative democracy. You know, republic and all that. The petition process is just the lazy man's way out. It does much more harm than good.

[Garcia Bronco]

We already have that. It's called representative democracy. You know, republic and all that. The petition process is just the lazy man's way out. It does much more harm than good.

I disagree. There is nothing lazy about it. I think you just have a porblem with people having a voice on ballot issues. Why?

[Garcia Bronco]

To uphold that take, you'll have to go back and overturn Marbury v. Madison. Good luck with that. :~ohyah!:

M va M was not about the right to privacy, but I think you are refering to judical review. Judical Review cannot review based on laws that don't exist, so now you understand the problem with the RvW ruling.

[Rohirrim]

I disagree. There is nothing lazy about it. I think you just have a porblem with people having a voice on ballot issues. Why?

For one thing, if you look at every issue on this ballot in Colorado, you won't find one that has been forwarded by regular old "Joe Citizen." Every one of them is written by some special interest looking to bypass the legislature and get some little plum for their own cause or their own interest.

[Garcia Bronco]

For one thing, if you look at every issue on this ballot in Colorado, you won't find one that has been forwarded by regular old "Joe Citizen." Every one of them is written by some special interest looking to bypass the legislature and get some little plum for their own cause or their own interest.

In some instances, but not all of them.

[Paladin]

Garcia Bronco is the most authoritarian libertarian I have read in a long time. He will fudge his way with the "not all of them" arguments forever......

The only thing definite for him is that nothing is definite....

[Rohirrim]

M va M was not about the right to privacy, but I think you are refering to judical review. Judical Review cannot review based on laws that don't exist, so now you understand the problem with the RvW ruling.

No. RvW is settled law. Even Roberts said so, somewhat obliquely, when he talked about it as thirty years of precedent. I think it is obvious that there is an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution. It's undeniable to anybody but a sophist. The link to an abortion right is somewhat iffy, IMO, but the point is moot. A state cannot create its own interpretation of law separately from the SCOTUS just because some nut job gets enough yahoos at the Walmart to sign a petition.

[frerottenextelway]

And it's got to be exit polling, which can be completely false.

These numbers are not any kind of polling, they are straight from the States. They are official "hard" numbers.

[frerottenextelway]

Not much to fudge on those demographics unless there are a hellacious number of cross dressers and people wearing black paint or such. C'mon, those can be counted simply by watching the numbers that exit the polls.....

ROFL!

That's not this - there is no polling or outside counting involved.

In certain states, when people register they fill out things like Party and Race and Gender. These numbers are from people who turned in their vote already and how they filled out their registration - as provided by the States.

[Garcia Bronco]

Garcia Bronco is the most authoritarian libertarian I have read in a long time. He will fudge his way with the "not all of them" arguments forever......

The only thing definite for him is that nothing is definite....

Maybe.

[Garcia Bronco]

That's not this - there is no polling or outside counting involved.

In certain states, when people register they fill out things like Party and Race and Gender. These numbers are from people who turned in their vote already and how they filled out their registration - as provided by the States.

They still have to go off hand counted registration, and just because someone is registered as this doesn't mean they voted that.

[Garcia Bronco]

No. RvW is settled law. Even Roberts said so, somewhat obliquely, when he talked about it as thirty years of precedent. I think it is obvious that there is an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution. It's undeniable to anybody but a sophist. The link to an abortion right is somewhat iffy, IMO, but the point is moot. A state cannot create its own interpretation of law separately from the SCOTUS just because some nut job gets enough yahoos at the Walmart to sign a petition.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I would agree that it's iffy. So we are back to the 10th Amendment.

[frerottenextelway]

They still have to go off hand counted registration, and just because someone is registered as this doesn't mean they voted that.

It doesn't say who they voted for - but it doesn't take a gigantic leap of faith to see these numbers are favorable to Obama.

Btw, here's a link to Georgia's count, which gets updated daily (you can see it's official!).

http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/earlyvotingstats08.htm

[Garcia Bronco]

It doesn't say who they voted for - but it doesn't take a gigantic leap of faith to see these numbers are favorable to Obama.

Btw, here's a link to Georgia's count, which gets updated daily (you can see it's official!).

http://sos.georgia.gov/elections/earlyvotingstats08.htm

But it would still be a leap of faith. These numbers tell you nothing

[Rohirrim]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I would agree that it's iffy. So we are back to the 10th Amendment.

The power to interpret the Constitution is delegated to the SCOTUS (Marbury v. Madison, et al) therefore it has nothing to do with the "powers" mentioned in the 10th. I suggest you forget the 10th and go read Article VI, Clause 2.

[Garcia Bronco]

The power to interpret the Constitution is delegated to the SCOTUS (Marbury v. Madison, et al) therefore it has nothing to do with the "powers" mentioned in the 10th. I suggest you forget the 10th and go read Article VI, Clause 2.

IMO, Article 4, Clause 2 affirms the 10th Amendment

[BroncoBuff]

These are demographics. I think they can announce those.
That's correct, and demographics are why I'm predicting 334 for Obama. Every single toss-up state will go his way, here's why: You can't poll for 'turnout.' John Zogby famously said, "everone is a likely voter on the telephone." So which demographic of these likely voters are MORE likely to show up? We all know the answer to that, the Democrats. And that's why I'm predicting a near-landslide.

Karl Rove understood that you have to incentivize your voting bloc ... so he spent four years meticulously landing anti-gay marriage initiatives on the ballots of 20-something states (and he did it out of his WH office, which is a felony), because he knew these ballot initiatives would incentivize GOP voters to show up. And it worked ... Bush over-performed in those states.

I don't think Camp Obama strategized his upcoming over-performance ... I think he has Bush's catastrophic incompetence to thank for that.

[Rohirrim]

BroncoBuff, you're a lawyer. What's your take on Garcia's argument? ;D

[Atlas]

That's correct, and demographics are why I'm predicting 334 for Obama. Every single toss-up state will go his way, here's why: You can't poll for 'turnout.' John Zogby famously said, "everone is a likely voter on the telephone." So which demographic of these likely voters are MORE likely to show up? We all know the answer to that, the Democrats. And that's why I'm predicting a near-landslide.

Karl Rove understood that you have to incentivize your voting bloc ... so he spent four years meticulously landing anti-gay marriage initiatives on the ballots of 20-something states (and he did it out of his WH office, which is a felony), because he knew these ballot initiatives would incentivize GOP voters to show up. And it worked ... Bush over-performed in those states.

I don't think Camp Obama strategized his upcoming over-performance ... I think he has Bush's catastrophic incompetence to thank for that.

If everyone who wants to vote votes Obama wins in a landslide. That is why the Republicans every election tries to scare and suppress the minority and elderly vote. Just like clock work. The only sure things in life is death, taxes and a republican smear campaign come election time.

[frerottenextelway]

But it would still be a leap of faith. These numbers tell you nothing

I guess, if you think a 25% Party ID gap is ''nothing''.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And it's got to be exit polling, which can be completely false.

Wrong.

Just the opposite is true.

Exit polls have always been extremely reliable.

[enjolras]

Wrong.

Just the opposite is true.

Exit polls have always been extremely reliable.

Except in a handful of precincts in Ohio in 2004 :)

[Paladin]

Those were jobbed, weren't they?

[Blueflame]

* COLORADO AMENDMENT 48

Definition of person

Would ban abortion by defining personhood as beginning at fertilization


Yes for me. We need to legally define when a life begins to put to rest all this RvW and abortion nonsense. I don't really care where it's defined, but we legally define when a person is dead, why not when they are alive?

Well, then...if this passes, wouldn't every miscarriage have to be investigated as a potential homicide? And wouldn't every woman of childbearing age have to be closely monitored to be certain that no egg-fertilization has occurred? And wouldn't that make females a different classification of citizen (a lesser species) from males?

On edit: and just who is gonna pay for the gigantic increase in workload/paperwork for law enforcement agencies if/when every miscarriage needs to be listed as a new case file? Fast answer is: taxpayers.

[Paladin]

And wouldn't birth control pills be outlawed? My goodness. Women would have no privacy rights or control over their own lives at all if this thing passed/

I voted no.

[Blueflame]

And wouldn't birth control pills be outlawed? My goodness. Women would have no privacy rights or control over their own lives at all if this thing passed/

I voted no.

Certainly IUD's would be... because they prevent implantation; not fertilization.

Consider this scenario: a woman desperately wants to have a child... conceives... but suffers a first-trimester miscarriage. If this law is enacted, then police will have to investigate to be certain she didn't "do anything" to cause the death of another person. Treating grieving women as suspected criminals would be outrageous.

[baja]

Well, then...if this passes, wouldn't every miscarriage have to be investigated as a potential homicide? And wouldn't every woman of childbearing age have to be closely monitored to be certain that no egg-fertilization has occurred? And wouldn't<b> that make females a different classification of citizen (a lesser species) from males?</b>

Your time is coming (Feminine aspect in power ) and I know you will do a great job of organizing a system that works.

It's starting with Obama who displays more of his female side than any leader previous to him.

[Blueflame]

</b>

Your time is coming (Feminine aspect in power ) and I know you will do a great job of organizing a system that works.

It's starting with Obama who displays more of his female side than any leader previous to him.

I hope you're right.... but the fact that a ballot issue like this is being voted on in a state like Colorado (a relatively progressive state) makes it seem like the battle for gender equality is far from over.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I hope you're right.... but the fact that a ballot issue like this is being voted on in a state like Colorado (a relatively progressive state) makes it seem like the battle for gender equality is far from over.

Yep.

The regressives aren't about to "go gently into that good night," as it were, but their era is coming to a close nonetheless.

http://www.bartcop.com/obama-crowd-stl-1008.jpg

[Garcia Bronco]

Wrong.

Just the opposite is true.

Exit polls have always been extremely reliable.

No they aren't. There is nothing scientific about it

[Garcia Bronco]

Well, then...if this passes, wouldn't every miscarriage have to be investigated as a potential homicide? And wouldn't every woman of childbearing age have to be closely monitored to be certain that no egg-fertilization has occurred? And wouldn't that make females a different classification of citizen (a lesser species) from males?

On edit: and just who is gonna pay for the gigantic increase in workload/paperwork for law enforcement agencies if/when every miscarriage needs to be listed as a new case file? Fast answer is: taxpayers.

That's a very good question that I hadn't considered. I would say that no it would not, or at least a DA wouldn't be able to get a conviction because of a lack of evidence.

[Garcia Bronco]

I hope you're right.... but the fact that a ballot issue like this is being voted on in a state like Colorado (a relatively progressive state) makes it seem like the battle for gender equality is far from over.

This has nothing to do with gender equlaity and everything to do with defining when a life begins. If you contend that the genders cannot be equal because woman bare children, then I would say you are correct, but there is nothing we can do about that at all. I still think we need to legally define when a life begins and put a stop to the nonsense.

[SJ Bronco]

No they aren't. There is nothing scientific about it

No, exit polls are creationist.....;D

[SJ Bronco]

This has nothing to do with gender equlaity and everything to do with defining when a life begins. If you contend that the genders cannot be equal because woman bare children, then I would say you are correct, but there is nothing we can do about that at all. I still think we need to legally define when a life begins and put a stop to the nonsense.

If the voters decided that life LEGALLY begins at birth, would you be happy with that? I'm guessing the answer is no. So I doubt it would end the "nonsense".

[Garcia Bronco]

If the voters decided that life LEGALLY begins at birth, would you be happy with that? I'm guessing the answer is no. So I doubt it would end the "nonsense".

I would. It would definately end if there was a constitution amendment.

[SJ Bronco]

I would. It would definately end if there was a constitution amendment.

Seriously? You'd be alone. Both sides have too many extremists. I for one as a father, am going to vote for the new Prop in Cali that requires parental notification, despite the fact that I am pro-Choice and I'm scared to death of girls getting back alley abortions. Like most people however, I vote my interest. I think most people are centered, but you got a lot more nutz on both sides then the handful there used to be just 15 years ago.

[Old Dude]

Certainly IUD's would be... because they prevent implantation; not fertilization.

Consider this scenario: a woman desperately wants to have a child... conceives... but suffers a first-trimester miscarriage. If this law is enacted, then police will have to investigate to be certain she didn't "do anything" to cause the death of another person. Treating grieving women as suspected criminals would be outrageous.

So what you're saying is that miscarriages could be investigated as possible instances of child abuse?

Child abuse resulting in death.

Which, in Colorado, even if it is only negligence (and not reckless or intentional) is a class 3 felony?

Gee, that would be rather harsh.

[snowspot66]

And you know somewhere some dumbass DA would press charges. There's always some ****er on a power trip willing to do it.

[Rohirrim]

So what you're saying is that miscarriages could be investigated as possible instances of child abuse?

Child abuse resulting in death.

Which, in Colorado, even if it is only negligence (and not reckless or intentional) is a class 3 felony?

Gee, that would be rather harsh.

I can just see the campaing motto now:

"Use a rubber, go to jail."

[TheDave]

And wouldn't birth control pills be outlawed?


Yes they would so would invitro fertilization...

[Old Dude]

Where would it all stop?

http://photos10.flickr.com/11316056_fd3b043151_o.jpg

[Blueflame]

That's a very good question that I hadn't considered. I would say that no it would not, or at least a DA wouldn't be able to get a conviction because of a lack of evidence.

But if you define "human life" as beginning at conception.... then any time a pregnancy ends with any other result than a live birth, wouldn't law enforcement be obligated to investigate to ascertain that no "homicide" has occurred? Whether or not a DA would agree to prosecute any given case is moot; the investigations would still have to happen, I think. And any pregnant mother who suffered a miscarriage would be in the position of having to prove she didn't do anything to "cause" (or fail to take action to prevent) the loss of the fetus. I think it's a very slippery slope....

[Blueflame]

So what you're saying is that miscarriages could be investigated as possible instances of child abuse?

Child abuse resulting in death.

Which, in Colorado, even if it is only negligence (and not reckless or intentional) is a class 3 felony?

Gee, that would be rather harsh.

I believe if human life is defined as beginning at conception, all miscarriages would by law have to be investigated as possible child abuse and/or neglect... or homicide.... it wouldn't matter if law enforcement or prosecutors wanted to bring legal action or not; the law would make it mandatory, imho.

[Paladin]

That amendment is like Big Brother from 1984. That is fascist. Next some nutjob will want an amendment to ban books that someone considers to be anti-marriage or some such. Fahrenheit 457 (do I have the degrees right?) revisited. Maybe the anti-intellectuals should all move to Arizona and secede. I'd send them money to do it.....

[Old Dude]

I believe if human life is defined as beginning at conception, all miscarriages would by law have to be investigated as possible child abuse and/or neglect... or homicide.... it wouldn't matter if law enforcement or prosecutors wanted to bring legal action or not; the law would make it mandatory, imho.

Technically, Colorado law does require various people, including teachers and physicians to report any suspected instance of child abuse, and such reports must be investigated by social services. So I guess you are right. Wow.

[Blueflame]

Yes they would so would invitro fertilization...

It would open ethics questions re: freezing fertilized eggs for infertile couples (freezing human beings? ???) as well as disposal of any unused "human beings" that weren't chosen to be implanted in the mother.... and what of any that didn't "take"? Would the doctor or the mother then be a murderer?

[Paladin]

Blue, you are hurting my head.....

[Blueflame]

Blue, you are hurting my head.....

Sorry... I'm just not sure that those who wrote this legislation and/or might vote for it.. have thought the whole thing through to its logical conclusions.

[Paladin]

I didn't say you were not right, because I think you are.

[Blueflame]

Also... if a fertilized egg is a "human being"... then any given woman's expanding belly would become "everyone's business"... would we see police reports every time a visibly-pregnant woman (for example) lit a cigarette or ordered a single glass of wine with her dinner? (yeah, I know pregnant women shouldn't smoke or drink; but some do... would that constitute child abuse under the new law?) Or what if she was seen eating fatty foods or gaining more weight than is considered "healthy"? And would that be the type of "crimes" we really want law enforcement to take on as a priority?

And would slightly overweight... but non-pregnant... women of childbearing age be worried about being reported as well? And perhaps being forced to provide medical proof of non-pregnant status to avoid prosecution?

[Rohirrim]

Besides the moral arguments, just listening to Blue's points you could see why I say this would be a bonanza for lawyers in Colorado, and waste tons of taxpayer dollars.

[Blueflame]

Besides the moral arguments, just listening to Blue's points you could see why I say this would be a bonanza for lawyers in Colorado, and waste tons of taxpayer dollars.

Yeah, I think it's a very bad (proposed) law.

[TheDave]

It would open ethics questions re: freezing fertilized eggs for infertile couples (freezing human beings? ???) as well as disposal of any unused "human beings" that weren't chosen to be implanted in the mother.... and what of any that didn't "take"? Would the doctor or the mother then be a murderer?

Ready for this... Sub-total hysterectomy's would become illegal. If this law were to be passed i bet all Dr's would mandate the removal of ovaries for any woman that required a hysterectomy.

A law as stupid as this would have brutally far reaching consequences.

[Garcia Bronco]

But if you define "human life" as beginning at conception.... then any time a pregnancy ends with any other result than a live birth, wouldn't law enforcement be obligated to investigate to ascertain that no "homicide" has occurred? Whether or not a DA would agree to prosecute any given case is moot; the investigations would still have to happen, I think. And any pregnant mother who suffered a miscarriage would be in the position of having to prove she didn't do anything to "cause" (or fail to take action to prevent) the loss of the fetus. I think it's a very slippery slope....

She would not have to prove anything. It would be up to the state, who has the burden of proof. But again, I don't think this ever happens.

[Garcia Bronco]

That amendment is like Big Brother from 1984.

No. Murder is murder and it's got nothing to do with Big Brother.

[Garcia Bronco]

It would open ethics questions re: freezing fertilized eggs for infertile couples (freezing human beings? ???) as well as disposal of any unused "human beings" that weren't chosen to be implanted in the mother.... and what of any that didn't "take"? Would the doctor or the mother then be a murderer?

An egg is pre-conception. Come on. I wasn't aware that they froze fertilized eggs.

[Garcia Bronco]

Besides the moral arguments, just listening to Blue's points you could see why I say this would be a bonanza for lawyers in Colorado, and waste tons of taxpayer dollars.

Except most of her comments are hysterics, IMO.

[Garcia Bronco]

Ready for this... Sub-total hysterectomy's would become illegal. If this law were to be passed i bet all Dr's would mandate the removal of ovaries for any woman that required a hysterectomy.

A law as stupid as this would have brutally far reaching consequences.

More hysterics. Removing the uterus because of a tumor would not be outlawed. Further more the amendment doesn't say anything about medical procedures, and while the amendment will produce questions(oh noes), it doesn't mean that females become reporductive vessels that have to bow down to the law. You folks are talking a simple truth and being hysterical about it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No. Murder is murder and it's got nothing to do with Big Brother.

Your definition of "murder" has everything to do with Big Brother and nothing to do with science or fact.

[Garcia Bronco]

Your definition of "murder" has everything to do with Big Brother and nothing to do with science or fact.

I am all for "scientifically" finding the point. But lets not be dim and act like when the sperm hits the egg that a life has not begun.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I am all for "scientifically" finding the point. But lets not be dim and act like when the sperm hits the egg that a life has not begun.

You're being "dim" when you act like your arbitrarily-chosen point where "life" begins is some sort of scientific absolute.

You could just as easily make the case that I'm a "murderer" every time I choke my chicken.

[TheDave]

More hysterics. Removing the uterus because of a tumor would not be outlawed. Further more the amendment doesn't say anything about medical procedures, and while the amendment will produce questions(oh noes), it doesn't mean that females become reporductive vessels that have to bow down to the law. You folks are talking a simple truth and being hysterical about it.

You need to re-read my post... Sub-Total hysterectomy's would be in jeopardy. Sorry Garcia but that is just common sense. If life is pinned at conception then any act that allows a fertilized egg to die would be by definition murder.

The point is, it is a stupid idea with far reaching consequences

[Garcia Bronco]

You're being "dim" when you act like your arbitrarily-chosen point where "life" begins is some sort of scientific absolute.

You could just as easily make the case that I'm a "murderer" every time I choke my chicken.

It's not "arbitrarily-chosen". Life begins at fertilization. Now you can try to gerrymander it and say there is no heart beat or brain activity, but when you get down to where the rubber meets the road: Fertilization is where it begins. You choking your chicken or an un-fertilized menstration period is half the equation in each instance and does NOT constitute fertilization.

[TailgateNut]

Here's my opinion on matters related to ones' body. The Goverment should have no right to infringe on a persons right to do as they please with their own body.

You want to drink, drink.
You want to smoke, smoke.
You want to change your "sex", it's your body.
You want have children, have them
You want to have an abortion, it's your decision.
You want to end your life, have at it.

We should not tell others what to do with their own bodies. What gives others the impression that they have the right?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's not "arbitrarily-chosen". Life begins at fertilization.

Yes, this is an arbitrary choice. Sperm are living matter, so you could just as easily call me a "murderer" every time I spank my dolphin.


Now you can try to gerrymander(sic)(???) it and say there is no heart beat or brain activity...

You are making my case for me now. :welcome:

[TailgateNut]

Sperm are living matter, so you could just as easily call me a "murderer" every time I spank my dolphin.

:


Only 1/2 a murder. The centerfold you were fantasizing about could also be charged.:spit:

[Garcia Bronco]

Yes, this is an arbitrary choice. Sperm are living matter, so you could just as easily call me a "murderer" every time I spank my dolphin.


Again, like the others, this is hysterics. You are taking it too far. Fertilization has no occured at this point.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Only 1/2 a murder. The centerfold you were fantasizing about could also be charged.:spit:

:laugh:

[Garcia Bronco]

You need to re-read my post... Sub-Total hysterectomy's would be in jeopardy. Sorry Garcia but that is just common sense. If life is pinned at conception then any act that allows a fertilized egg to die would be by definition murder.

The point is, it is a stupid idea with far reaching consequences

It's still removing organs to prevent further disease.

[TailgateNut]

:laugh:


I love how GB is sooo worried about "egg abuse" but condones sex with underage girls.

[Garcia Bronco]

I love how GB is sooo worried about "egg abuse" but condones sex with underage girls.

I do not condone sex with underage girls

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Again, like the others, this is hysterics. You are taking it too far. Fertilization has no occured at this point.

Your claim that life begins at fertilization is arbitrary at best - unless you have some special definition of "life" that's independent of science.

[TailgateNut]

Let me guess what GB said.


Cue the teacher in the Peanuts cartoon.

[TheDave]

It's still removing organs to prevent further disease.

and by default would lead to the "murder" of every fertilized egg.

[Arkie]

Here's my opinion on matters related to ones' body. The Goverment should have no right to infringe on a persons right to do as they please with their own body.

You want to drink, drink.
You want to smoke, smoke.
You want to change your "sex", it's your body.
You want have children, have them
You want to have an abortion, it's your decision.
You want to end your life, have at it.

We should not tell others what to do with their own bodies. What gives others the impression that they have the right?

I agree 100%. What about a person's right to begin life? Does the unborn child have rights too?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I agree 100%. What about a person's right to begin life? Does the unborn child have rights too?

That's a question that should be answered by the mother and her doctor - not by Bible Barbie.

[Rohirrim]

It's not "arbitrarily-chosen". Life begins at fertilization. Now you can try to gerrymander it and say there is no heart beat or brain activity, but when you get down to where the rubber meets the road: Fertilization is where it begins. You choking your chicken or an un-fertilized menstration period is half the equation in each instance and does NOT constitute fertilization.

You've never seen sperm under a microscope. Who could argue that's not life? Those little dudes are swimming around like crazy. Sure looks like "life" to me.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You've never seen sperm under a microscope. Who could argue that's not life? Those little dudes are swimming around like crazy. Sure looks like "life" to me.

Exactly.

That's why I was wondering if Garcia had his own special definition of "life" that was independent of the accepted scientific one. :D

[Garcia Bronco]

and by default would lead to the "murder" of every fertilized egg.

Again. Hysterics.

[Garcia Bronco]

You've never seen sperm under a microscope. Who could argue that's not life? Those little dudes are swimming around like crazy. Sure looks like "life" to me.

There is still no human life without the egg.

[Garcia Bronco]

Exactly.

That's why I was wondering if Garcia had his own special definition of "life" that was independent of the accepted scientific one. :D

The Physics, Chemistry, and Biology all start at fertilization. What "science" are you talking about?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Physics, Chemistry, and Biology all start at fertilization. What "science" are you talking about?

There you go again - going all Sarah Palin on me.

[Garcia Bronco]

Your claim that life begins at fertilization is arbitrary at best - unless you have some special definition of "life" that's independent of science.

Again, which science would that be? Planned Parenthood science? There are four sciences and 3 of them say that life begins when the sperm hits the egg.

[Garcia Bronco]

There you go again - going all Sarah Palin on me.

Whatever that means. It's education time LABF. Name the 4 sciences and put them in order. I bet you can't.

So exactly which science says when life begins beyond the point where the sperm hits the egg? I would love to hear this.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There are four sciences and 3 of them say that life begins when the sperm hits the egg.

According to whom?

You make it sound like there is some consensus view here.

[TheDave]

Again. Hysterics.

Who is getting hysterical here?

These are some of the real world issues that must be dealt with if we convey all human rights to a fertilized egg.

[Garcia Bronco]

Who is getting hysterical here?

These are some of the real world issues that must be dealt with if we convey all human rights to a fertilized egg.

I would agree that certain exceptions have to be made. I would not want anyone forced to have a child that is a product of rape and incest, or for medical reasons that would endanger the mother, but this law doesn't say that.

[Garcia Bronco]

According to whom?

You make it sound like there is some consensus view here.

It's just simple physics, chemistry, and biology. They all agree that life starts at the point of fertilization. You cannot get around that fact.

[baja]

Here's my opinion on matters related to ones' body. The Goverment should have no right to infringe on a persons right to do as they please with their own body.

You want to drink, drink.
You want to smoke, smoke.
You want to change your "sex", it's your body.
You want have children, have them
You want to have an abortion, it's your decision.
You want to end your life, have at it.

We should not tell others what to do with their own bodies. What gives others the impression that they have the right?

So you mean you are for Bob walking naked in towndown denver?

[baja]

I am pro life

Want to know why?

[TheDave]

I would agree that certain exceptions have to be made. I would not want anyone forced to have a child that is a product of rape and incest, or for medical reasons that would endanger the mother, but this law doesn't say that.

Rape or incest is the least of our worries... What do you do about invitro clinics? What about the birth control pill? What about IUD's? Those 3 things destroy 1,000's of fertilized eggs everyday.

Again these are real world issues that must be addressed if human rights are given to a zygote.

[TheDave]

I am pro life

Want to know why?

Nope...;)

[oubronco]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs

interesting

[TailgateNut]

I agree 100%. What about a person's right to begin life? Does the unborn child have rights too?

An unborn child is, IMO not a child. Just like an uncooked egg is not a McMuffin!:yayaya:

[TailgateNut]

So you mean you are for Bob walking naked in towndown denver?


I don't give a flying **** what Joe Blow does on his own time and with his own dime.

[TailgateNut]

So will we be able to claim an exemption for the "egg" once its' fertilized, and who will determine when "it" is tax deductable?;)

[Blueflame]

An egg is pre-conception. Come on. I wasn't aware that they froze fertilized eggs.

Yes, they do freeze embryos (the so-called "snowflake babies"). And my concerns are not mere "hysterics"... the word alone is offensive as it appears that a viewpoint is marginalized or dismissed solely due to the gender of the individual who posted it. The law... if passed... would mandate investigations. As its writers intended.

[peacepipe]

This board is a whole lot better with OUbronco on ignore,I recommend everyone do it.

[Garcia Bronco]

Rape or incest is the least of our worries... What do you do about invitro clinics? What about the birth control pill? What about IUD's? Those 3 things destroy 1,000's of fertilized eggs everyday.

Again these are real world issues that must be addressed if human rights are given to a zygote.


In vitro Clinics get people pregnant. As far as Birth control pills and IUD's, people would just have to find different ways to keep from getting pregnant.

[Garcia Bronco]

Yes, they do freeze embryos (the so-called "snowflake babies"). And my concerns are not mere "hysterics"... the word alone is offensive as it appears that a viewpoint is marginalized or dismissed solely due to the gender of the individual who posted it. The law... if passed... would mandate investigations. As its writers intended.

I don't think the Dave is a woman. :) That was not the intent at alol. By hysterics I am talking about the grasping at anything and everything that this amendment doesn't speak, doesn't define, and ergo is not a concern. Your gender has nothing to do with it. I just don't see the legal process getting involved in a case they can't possibly win.

[Rohirrim]

There is still no human life without the egg.

Too bad we can't spend so much focus, time and energy working to keep those humans alive who are out here walking around with us. BTW, GB, support the death penalty, do ya?

[Garcia Bronco]

Too bad we can't spend so much focus, time and energy working to keep those humans alive who are out here walking around with us. BTW, GB, support the death penalty, do ya?

I do in extrme cases. And before you walk down this road, an unborn child hasn't had any choices. It's not even an argument you can make.

[Rohirrim]

I do in extrme cases. And before you walk down this road, an unborn child hasn't had any choices. It's not even an argument you can make.

Life is life.

[Garcia Bronco]

Life is life.

Nope. It's amusing you would take that position, but no it's not. Especially when one has the opportunity to make decisions. Unborn Child? No decision power. Grown folk? They have the ability to make decisions.

[Bronco Bob]

Nope. It's amusing you would take that position, but no it's not. Especially when one has the opportunity to make decisions. Unborn Child? No decision power. Grown folk? They have the ability to make decisions.

I love how the anti-abornionists love to throw emotional words
around like "unborn" child. Is an acorn an ungrown oak tree?
Is a pile of iron ore an unbuilt car? It's not a child until it
is born. Before that it is a blastula, an embryo, and
then a fetus. This is the "unborn child" GB is willing to send
a woman to prison over.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I love how the anti-abornionists love to throw emotional words
around like "unborn" child. Is an acorn an ungrown oak tree?
Is a pile of iron ore an unbuilt car? It's not a child until it
is born. Before that it is a blastula, an embryo, and
then a fetus. This is the "unborn child" GB is willing to send
a woman to prison over.

Yep.

Even funnier is how folks like Garcia mistake such rhetoric for scientific fact.

[TheDave]

In vitro Clinics get people pregnant.

and in the process kill thousands of fertilized eggs...

(Hint: thats murder if a fertilized egg has the same rights as you and I)

[Blueflame]

I don't think the Dave is a woman. :) That was not the intent at alol. By hysterics I am talking about the grasping at anything and everything that this amendment doesn't speak, doesn't define, and ergo is not a concern. Your gender has nothing to do with it. I just don't see the legal process getting involved in a case they can't possibly win.

This law...if enacted... would force law enforcement agencies to do exactly that... (get involved in... meaning investigate... cases that can't possibly be won). You can't define "human life" as a fertilized egg and then ignore the possibility that someone may have intentionally (or by neglect) murdered that fertilized egg. And the "muddying of the waters" is most likely what the initiative's author(s) intended to do.

[Garcia Bronco]

I love how the anti-abornionists love to throw emotional words
around like "unborn" child. Is an acorn an ungrown oak tree?
Is a pile of iron ore an unbuilt car? It's not a child until it
is born. Before that it is a blastula, an embryo, and
then a fetus. This is the "unborn child" GB is willing to send
a woman to prison over.

More hysterics and ridiculous analogies.

[Garcia Bronco]

and in the process kill thousands of fertilized eggs...

(Hint: thats murder if a fertilized egg has the same rights as you and I)

It's still taking it too far. Where would you draw the line? 10 weeks? 11 weeks?

[Garcia Bronco]

This law...if enacted... would force law enforcement agencies to do exactly that... (get involved in... meaning investigate... cases that can't possibly be won). You can't define "human life" as a fertilized egg and then ignore the possibility that someone may have intentionally (or by neglect) murdered that fertilized egg. And the "muddying of the waters" is most likely what the initiative's author(s) intended to do.

They wouldn't be able to mount a case in your senario.

[Garcia Bronco]

Yep.

Even funnier is how folks like Garcia mistake such rhetoric for scientific fact.

We've already established you don't understand what science is exactly. You should just remove the word from your vocab.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

10-27-08

John McCain's Economic Plan: Laissez-Failure

By Joseph Palermo

John McCain is running one of the most divisive, negative, and dishonorable presidential campaigns in modern history. By spreading the Big Lie that Barack Obama is a "terrorist sympathizer" who is not from the "real" America, McCain is fanning the flames of latent racism and xenophobia. He is doing everything in his power to divide and conquer the country. His robo-call smears and his surrogates' McCarthyite attacks against his Democratic opponent are strange ways to put "Country First." McCain wants to be president so badly he will do anything: Adopt the extreme social positions of James Dobson; put Karl Rove's Swift Boaters on the payroll; appoint a Christian Nationalist as his VP to stir up the faithful into a froth; and launch a racially-tinged class war against anyone who thinks the government might be able to do something positive for the working middle class.

Millions of Americans are reeling from record home foreclosures, rising unemployment, and shrinking retirement accounts and John McCain -- who married into a $100 million fortune and doesn't even know how many houses he owns -- is going around the country accusing Obama of being a "socialist" and ridiculing the idea of "spreading the wealth around." He promises to continue the Republican class war of recent years. McCain has shown that his real "base" consists of millionaires, billionaires, and huge corporations. Why else would he be still proposing, even after the epic failure of laissez-faire capitalism, more "trickle down" tax cuts to the wealthiest corporations and individuals along with more deregulation?

And what do you call a wealthy old white man who spends most of his time lying about, sliming, and producing false accusations and innuendo against the first African-American presidential candidate to be nominated by a major political party as well as against ACORN, a community organization that consists largely of low-income people of color?

A McCain administration would be a carbon copy of the Rovian "permanent campaign"; that epic failure Scotty McClellan outlines in What Happened, and the former head of Bush's faith-based programs, John DiIulio, summed up back in 2002: "What you've got is everything -- and I mean everything -- being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellians." The way McCain and his surrogates dismiss any criticism no matter how legitimate is strikingly similar to the Bush style. And the McCain campaign seems to have struck that perfect balance between incompetence and arrogance that characterized the Bush administration.

In the last year the average American household has shelled out nearly $3,000 in additional living expenses just to break even. Gasoline and home heating oil are far more expensive; health care premiums have increased exponentially (for those lucky enough to have health care); home values have declined steeply (for those lucky enough not to be facing foreclosure); and tuition costs for college have skyrocketed. We are bracing for an economic contraction the likes of which we have not seen since the Great Depression. Poverty, unemployment, and homelessness are going to increase over the next 18 months. (Just ask Fed Chair Ben Bernanke.) And the grand neo-con nation-building experiment in Iraq is draining away $10 billion each month that certainly could be put to better use here at home.

Meanwhile, the $1 trillion government welfare program called the "Wall Street Bail Out" is being squandered on a relative handful of individuals who need it the least. It is an outrage that the nine investment banks that have received $250 billion from the Treasury insist on paying dividends to their shareholders to the tune of $25 billion! Why don't we cut out the middleman and just hand over the $25 billion directly to the fat cats who still own most of the stock in those banks? There are golf junkets and pedicures and prostitutes to be procured! We mustn't deny these innovative people Republicans love so much -- these Wall Street "Joe the Plumbers" -- who pumped up the notional value of "credit default swaps" to $62 trillion the fruits of their labors! They deserve their first-class amenities! To deny them that which is rightfully theirs would be "socialistic!"

The epic failure of the laissez-faire ("laissez-failure"), "supply side," Milton Friedman, market fundamentalist ideology has only just begun to wreak its damage on American society and the world. Back in 1974, in the wake of Watergate and Richard Nixon's resignation, President Gerald Ford said: "Our national nightmare is over." Today, Bush's Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, should lapse into a rare fit of honesty and tell the American people: "Our national nightmare is just beginning." The contraction is on; there isn't going to be a "soft landing." Send your "thank you" cards and letters to the Republican National Committee.

During the bitter 1988 presidential campaign, George Herbert Walker Bush's smear-meister, Lee Atwater, famously declared that he was going to make voters believe that Willie Horton was Michael Dukakis's running mate. Steve Schmidt, the Karl Rove wannabe, is now trying to make voters believe that Bill Ayres is Obama's running mate.

And this brings me to the freak show that is Governor Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin is a liar. She lied about being against the infamous "bridge to nowhere"; she lied about her abuse of power in "Troopergate" and her violating the Alaska Ethics in Government Act; she lied about charging per diem expenses to the state of Alaska for time spent at home; and most recently she lied about pilfering over $21,000 from Alaska taxpayers so her kids could go on expensive trips. The RNC forked over $150,000 so this "Jane Sixpack" could go on a lavish spending spree. She spent more money on stylish clothes in a matter of weeks than most families will spend over the course of a lifetime.

But far more disturbing than Palin's venality are her extreme Christian Nationalist religious beliefs. Just go to Youtube and see her standing there on stage, trancelike, praying while her pastor at the Wasilla Assembly of God Church talks about how Alaska is going to become a state of refuge for people when Armageddon comes. Palin not only holds the most extreme right-wing Christian views on abortion, gays, and creationism, she apparently believes we are in the Last Days. And she could be a heartbeat away from having her finger on the nuclear trigger. The only reason why McCain's boys, Rick Davis and Steve Schmidt, haven't thrown Reverend Wright in the faces of voters in the closing days of the campaign is because they know that Palin's whack-job pastors, including Pastor Thomas Muthee who specializes in exorcising witches, would immediately flood the airwaves.

And what about John McCain himself? What a Faustian bargain that man has made. He sold his soul, his heart, his liver, his spleen, and his mind. When George W. Bush was riding high so was John McCain. "My Friends" and "Maverick" will be perennial punch lines. He will be forever remembered for running one of the meanest, most discreditable presidential campaigns in American history. He sold out his country by choosing division over unity, lies over truth, jingoism over patriotism. And he did so at a time when the nation faces major peril and the American people are clamoring for thoughtful, steady, and honest leadership.

http://www.hnn.us/articles/56152.html

Mr. Palermo is Associate Professor of American History at CSU, Sacramento. He's the author of two books on Robert F. Kennedy: In His Own Right (2001) and RFK (2008).