|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 19, 2010 15:48:22 GMT -8
George Skelton opinion on Prop 16 =Bob post this link on the other board and then locked it down. It is an opinion piece by a Jerry Brown backer. It is one sided, but Bob said it was informative. Locked down so no one can post infor that would present another side. Propaganda on that board by the moderator. www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap19-2010apr19,0,5395592.column |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Apr 19, 2010 16:09:35 GMT -8
Well, the ol' =perfesser held his water as long as he could stand it, I suppose. I'm a little bit surprised that he would push the envelope of his satrapy on that board by going political.
That he immediately shut down comments fits, though. That's the liberal way.
JMHO, but I think the libs get some kind of perverted sexual rush when they get to tell other people what they can and cannot do.
Just take a look at perverts who dominate our political class these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 19, 2010 16:38:42 GMT -8
Well, the ol' =perfesser held his water as long as he could stand it, I suppose. I'm a little bit surprised that he would push the envelope of his satrapy on that board by going political. That he immediately shut down comments fits, though. That's the liberal way. JMHO, but I think the libs get some kind of perverted sexual rush when they get to tell other people what they can and cannot do. Just take a look at perverts who dominate our political class these days. Exactly! BTW, I agree with the view of =Bob on the issue, just think that his way of doing things stinks like a dead rat. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 21, 2010 9:56:38 GMT -8
I've been hearing the pro-16 ads on radio. Just to play devil's advocate here for a moment, might it not be a good idea to require 2/3 vote just to put the brakes on some local city council's crackpot scheme to start up, at enormous costs, a power plant just for that jurisdiction? Even though such a power plant might not be close to economically viable?
I may be way off base on this, in which case I hope someone will explain to me where I am going wrong.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 21, 2010 12:12:28 GMT -8
I've been hearing the pro-16 ads on radio. Just to play devil's advocate here for a moment, might it not be a good idea to require 2/3 vote just to put the brakes on some local city council's crackpot scheme to start up, at enormous costs, a power plant just for that jurisdiction? Even though such a power plant might not be close to economically viable? I may be way off base on this, in which case I hope someone will explain to me where I am going wrong. AzWm This part of the idea is good. It should take 2/3 to spend that kind of money, it is just I with power plant ownership part of it, not the vote part. Confusing at best. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Apr 21, 2010 12:59:16 GMT -8
I've been hearing the pro-16 ads on radio. Just to play devil's advocate here for a moment, might it not be a good idea to require 2/3 vote just to put the brakes on some local city council's crackpot scheme to start up, at enormous costs, a power plant just for that jurisdiction? Even though such a power plant might not be close to economically viable? I may be way off base on this, in which case I hope someone will explain to me where I am going wrong. AzWm I have never been a fan of the 2/3 vote. It is not democratic and is un-american. It is nothing more than another method of a minority controlling the majority. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 21, 2010 18:26:59 GMT -8
It seems to me that 2/3 vote for huge expenditures is appropriate. Just look at what happened via reconciliation on the Health Care bill. A very slim majority approved a huge change over the vocal objections of their constituents. Seems like just the opposite of what Always had to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 21, 2010 18:39:30 GMT -8
I've been hearing the pro-16 ads on radio. Just to play devil's advocate here for a moment, might it not be a good idea to require 2/3 vote just to put the brakes on some local city council's crackpot scheme to start up, at enormous costs, a power plant just for that jurisdiction? Even though such a power plant might not be close to economically viable? I may be way off base on this, in which case I hope someone will explain to me where I am going wrong. AzWm I have never been a fan of the 2/3 vote. It is not democratic and is un-american. It is nothing more than another method of a minority controlling the majority. There are serious arguments to be made on both sides of this issue. You have presented one of those. Don't you think, however, that there are some issues that are so far reaching, so divisive, that a nation would be better served to require a super-majority in favor of they before it becomes law? One obvious example of this is the process by which amendments to the U.S. Constitution are made. This from Wikipedia. The framers of the Constitution were aware that changes would be necessary if the Constitution was to endure as the nation grew. However, they were also conscious that such change should not be easy, lest it permit ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. On the other hand, they also wanted to ensure that a rigid requirement of unanimity would not block action desired by the vast majority of the population.And so, to achieve the goals set forth in the preceding paragraph, the Framers dictated that any amendment must be approved by THREE FOURTHS of the several states. Here's another example; in a criminal trial, a defendant cannot be convicted without unanimous agreement by all 12 members of the jury. (I believe that the requirement in a civil trial is less stringent, but still significantly greater than 50% plus one.) One could cite other cases, historical in nature or hypothetical, in which a super-majority would be appropriate. As I suggested at the start of this post, this is not a cut-and-dried issue by any means. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Apr 22, 2010 7:31:33 GMT -8
AW - I see your point. Yes, there are some instances where a super majority probably makes sense. Your examples were good ones.
Win - The "the vocal objections of their constituents" you speak of are nothing more than the wing-nut fringe that was thrown out of power and can't stand it.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 22, 2010 7:38:00 GMT -8
AW - I see your point. Yes, there are some instances where a super majority probably makes sense. Your examples were good ones. Win - The "the vocal objections of their constituents" you speak of are nothing more than the wing-nut fringe that was thrown out of power and can't stand it. You will be hard pressed to find any district that had polling data to support ObamaCare let alone and indication that the protesters are not primarily moderates. You can say Wing Nut Fringe" all day and most have no idea what you are talking about since there just is not much there there. |
|
