And, in case you didn't know, there's a broken US spy satellite that is coming down towards earth. It weighs as much as 10,000 lbs and is falling at a rate of 1,6400 feet a day. As of last Tuesday, it was 173 miles away. Chances are that we're safe; after all, 75% of Planet Earth are made of water. And, it'll start to break up once it enters the atmosphere.
And last note, today was a sad day for the Patriots. I felt bad for Tom Brady.
But then again, I won 8 bucks, so I'm not complaining :)
15 comments:
In response to your first comment, i agree. the advertisements for these propositions are always confusing and never give a straight answer as to what the propositions entail. in one add, there are a bunch of native americans telling us to vote yes, and in another, there are a bunch of native americans telling us to vote no. i still have no idea what to vote for.
in regard to your second and third comments, hopefully the satellite falls down and hits Tom Brady because he is a loser!
Yeah, the commercials do seem most confusing. The vote yes group of Native Americans stated that only two Native American tribes oppose the deals.
It seems that the fire departments are also supporting the proposals. But I've seen two version of commercials from educators though, one supporting and one opposing.
from what iv'e seen of the ads and what i read about it, it seems that both are lying. the yes people exaggerate how much money they're going to give to california, and the no people (partly comprised of bay meadows), say that 94-97 won't help at all. i voted no for all of them, though in retrospect, i should have voted yes on 97, because agua caliente is a cool tribe name. i voted no because, like the "no on 94-97" ads say, there is no guarantee about how much money the state gets, and where that money will go. could it go to schools? yeah, but we don't know for sure. on the other hand, these 4 tribes get to more than double the slot machines they have right now. they might give the state money, but they're making hellla more anyway. and i don't want to help them to take advantage of gambling addicts even more than they already do.
The basic drift that I got from these ads was that 4 tribes get more slot machines. They must pay more to the state, but the increase is an undetermined amount. I don't see a reason to vote No to these 4 propositions. I've also seen a lot of ads for Prop 93, and my dad told me we got a recorded message telling us to vote Yes on 93. I don't really understand what that ones about, and either way, all of these ads are starting to become annoying.
A broken US spy satellite? Wondered how word about that got out.
Noelle, you feel bad for Tom Brady?!! You gotta be kidding. He's still the luckiest guy in the world. Three Super Bowls, MVP of the regular season, a myriad of records, a super-model girlfriend, and millions of dollars. You think he cares about one lousy Super Bowl.
Regarding the propositions, I think it would be stupid to vote no because even if the new gaming deal will not give California X amount of money, it will still give the state some new revenue and in my opinion it is unwise to vote down a prop. just because it doesn't give enough money. You wouldn't turn down a meal to go hungry instead just because the meal doesn't include dessert.
Most groups opposing the props think that they will lose business if some casinos are allowed to expand their slot machines.
If you can't figure out what a proposition is...you probably shouldn't vote for it
happy super tuesday!!!!
By the way, look what I found:
http://www.dipdive.com/
or you can find it here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY
Now it looks like Clinton's in the lead, but we'll see what happens...
to eddie- yeah, money is good. but not if the way you get it is bad. if they set up a heroin-selling booth at the capitol building in sacramento, with 100% of the proceeds going to the state's education fund, the state would get hella money. but is this a good way to get money? no, it is not. because you're just going to feed the addictions of people to something that's bad for them. gambling is an addiction. and with more slot machines, we are hurting people by enforcing that addiction. this is not a good way to make money for the state, just like selling hard drugs, while it could help financially, would only end up killing people. though agua caliente is still a cool name. and it seems that california voters don't have a sense of humor either, since all the percentages on 94-97 were all the same.
Benji, how can you equate gambling to heroin!?
Benji even though gambling is addicting for some it is legal at these casinos which are going have people already addicted playing. So why not have the state get some of this money that the casinos are getting. Idont see why you would turn it down because you feel it doesnt give enough money to the states, something is always better then nothing at all.
So, I heard today on the news that those four or so props were the only props to pass. I'm not really sure what they all are, because since I couldn't vote, I didn't look into them, even if I should have...But I wonder whether people really looked them up or just picked yes or no just because, which isn’t a good tactic to vote on issues . And, like everyone else, I was swamped by all the commercials promoting and bashing the props.
And also, it was a good, exciting Superbowl – and the Patriots lost. Isn’t it weird how most of us don’t like the Patriots and Brady, even though he’s from San Mateo?
These different propositions are definatly some of the more confusing ones. People need to make sure they know what the proposition is all about before they make a decision. You can't go just on the adds as they are misleading and obviously put a spin on the topic in their favor. When I last heard I think people were voting in favor of the propositions with a noticable difference in percentage.
These propositions are certainly some of the more confusing ones. Before you take a stance it is important you know what the proposition actually is and what effects it will have on those involved. You can't go based on the adds as they are clearly deceptive and put a spin on the propositions to their advantage. Take these adds with a grain of salt if at all. People need to make informed decisions or we can be stuck with things we don't want.
How can I compare them? I just did. That's how. My point is that dangerous drugs and gambling are both bad, and selling your soul out for money to make up a deficit isn't the right solution. Yes Robbie, gambling is legal at casinos for certain people. Just like prozac and vicodin are available to people with prescriptions, or pot is legal for people with cards. That doesn't mean it's okay for the government to allow the availability of these substances to increase in growth, and then take a little percentage off the top. Yeah, heroin is kind of extreme, but the principle is the same. I wouldn't support 94-97 even if 100% of that money went to the state. It's exploitation, and it's wrong. It doesn't matter if it's legal now, that's no excuse to turn a blind eye to our problems. There's no free money. We should be spending smarter, instead of feeding off the addictions of people, to stave off a manageable budget crisis.
Post a Comment