PDA

View Full Version : Colorado State Election 2008



The Black Knight
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 05:57 PM
Here's a more or less laid back thread, that I hope most wouldn't mind participating in. Since it has been pointed out all over the place that this is Colorado's biggest ballot in more that a century. I'd like to know people's thoughts on the issue's. More or less just to make another good thread and possibly good debate(if you choose).

We've got Amendments to our State's Constitution up on the ballot. From Amendment 46 to Referendum O, how did you vote and why did you vote the way you did(meaning a short reason why you voted the way you did).

Now I know for most people they like to keep their results private and that's cool. This is for those of us who don't mind sharing how they voted. So since I'm the one who popped up and made this thread, I shall be the first up.

Amendment 46:
Yes
- because I believe governments shouldn't be allowed to discriminate or give preference to any group or person, regardless of who they are.

Amendment 47:
Yes
- Mainly because I don't believe in Unions. Have never liked them, and have seem them in action(towards older family members of mine). Here's the caveat, I believe it should be a persons "right" to choose whether or not to join a Union. If a company has a Union in place fine, but it should be up to the people to choose. If you choose yes, great you can participate in the Union. If not, then you don't participate in the Union and don't get the bene's.

I also don't like the fact that when a Union decides to strike, you have to as well(if not, you are looked down on). Here's why, my grandfather back in the 60's and 70's was part of one. When it came time to strike, he had my grandmother and three sons to feed. He went freelance, in order to put food on the table. The way I look at it, if you have the free time to strike, great and more power to you. But don't threaten or bully those who have families to feed, just to have them participate in your little strike.

Amendment 48:
Yes
- because, while I'm Pro-Choice/Pro-Life at the same time. I believe that disguishing when a person is actually a person is critical. I think that establishing a person is a person at the moment of conception is crucial in determining whether or not you choose to have an abortion. To be clear, I'm not for banning abortion at all, regardless of how Right Wing you peg me to be. I do however, feel that the ramifications of an abortion should not be taken lightly. I feel that the people aborting the child should realize, that they are getting rid of a Person. I think it would put accountability back in the hands of the man and woman, it would make them realize that yeah we are going to abort, but we are aborting a person we just made.

Amendment 49:
Yes
- why? because it's your paycheck. Do with it what you will.

Amendment 50:
Yes
- because I believe that gambling and gaming is a free market. I shouldn't be regulated, nor should people be told how much they can spend. Hey if someone wants to flush their paycheck, they have every right too.j

Amendment 51:
No
- because I don't believe we need more money being allocated just for special needs. Especially when they are organizations and other entities that easily fund this cause. Sure every bit helps, however I think special needs can find monies else where.

Amendment 52:
No
- because I70 is just fine. And I don't feel a ton of money needs to go to highways. We've got other areas in our state's budget that could use the money.

Amendment 53:
Yes
- because everyone should be accountable, even high ups. And business should be penalized for not taking care of their workers. Hey if you want to use human resources for your business. Take care of them, they are your strongest asset.

Amendment 54:
Yes
- because politicians get enough from private business men and donations. I'm all for accountability in our elected officials as well. The more we can put them under the microscope the better off.

Amendment 55:
Yes
- because people shouldn't just get canned from the job, because the owner or manager/supervisor doesn't like them. There should be reasonable data given and shown to the employee in order to complete the termination. Just because someone doesn't like you, doesn't mean you get the axe.

Amendment 56:
No
- because I believe healthcare still shouldn't be government mandated, and people should get their own. Unless the company decides to provide it, then they can participate in the program. However, giving a business owner the freedom to choose whether or not to provide healthcare if their own right.

Amendment 57:
Yes
- because like earlier, if you want people to work at your business. Make it a safe and secure evironment. Have proper safety equipment and so forth. I feel this extents workman's comp a bit. Because you just never know when a business might be trying to get out of paying you fully for your injury on their time.

Amendment 58:
No
- no brainer, enough with the taxes and $321 million is not something I want to foot the bill for.

Amendment 59:
Honestly I can't think of how I voted for this one. I did mail-in ballot and can't for the life of me think of how I voted on this one. Sorry

Referendum L:
No
- age 25 is a good age for public office. No need to lower it, because at 21 you're still too young to deal with the demands of public offic. In my opinion that is.

Referendum's M & N:
No, No

Referendum O:
Yes
- because I'm sick of guys like Doug Bruce getting their frivolous issue's on the ballot. I think certain things need to be changed about how getting Amendments on the ballot. I mean when it takes upwards of 40 minutes to fill out your ballot, it's getting old and getting old fast.

zetaetatheta
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 06:27 PM
Amendment 48 would ban abortion, it is a con job. If a fertilized egg is a person then any intentional harm on that person would be criminal. Surely you know this, just another right wing attempt to legislate morality, and by pass abortion laws. A child could get raped and would have to birth the child as a morning after pill would not be available. If you are against abortion, say so and not try and make yourself out to be something you are not. You are not dumb and neither are the people on this site. Please give us credit enough to be able to see 48 for what it is. It is a feeble attempt to bypass a woman's right to privacy and her right to choose. IMHO as a man, I have no dog in this fight.

The Black Knight
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 06:49 PM
see I didn't view it that way. And no I'm not against abortion. I feel it is a woman's right. I just feel that there is nothing wrong with considering a person a person at the moment of conception. Like I said, I'm both pro-choice and pro-life. I honestly think you can be both at the same time. While I respect everyone's right to choose, I have to respect life as well. However, I'm entitled to my beliefs as you are yours. This is the good discussion that I wanted to come from this thread.

I would disagree slightly with you on being a man and having no say. I think it does take two to tango(in order to make a kid). So while it's probably not a 50/50 decision, the man should have some input. I mean it's his kid as well.

P.S.
I want to also say that while I do believe abortion is up to the woman. I shouldn't be used as a form of birth control. Just because you can't keep your legs shut or your buddy in your pants, doesn't give you free reign to discard life like it's garbage.

Also, I never said you were dumb nor anyone else on the site. I'll have to be honest, I did bounce back and forth on this issue. Inevitably I voted my conscience, why? because I feel life is important and important at the moment of conception. I feel we've got enough death in this world, to just flush little babies down the sink.

I knew this issue would probably raise the most eyebrows, but he it's honesty and honesty is the best policy.

zetaetatheta
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 09:44 PM
see I didn't view it that way. And no I'm not against abortion. I feel it is a woman's right. I just feel that there is nothing wrong with considering a person a person at the moment of conception. Like I said, I'm both pro-choice and pro-life. I honestly think you can be both at the same time. While I respect everyone's right to choose, I have to respect life as well. However, I'm entitled to my beliefs as you are yours. This is the good discussion that I wanted to come from this thread.

I would disagree slightly with you on being a man and having no say. I think it does take two to tango(in order to make a kid). So while it's probably not a 50/50 decision, the man should have some input. I mean it's his kid as well.

P.S.
I want to also say that while I do believe abortion is up to the woman. I shouldn't be used as a form of birth control. Just because you can't keep your legs shut or your buddy in your pants, doesn't give you free reign to discard life like it's garbage.

Also, I never said you were dumb nor anyone else on the site. I'll have to be honest, I did bounce back and forth on this issue. Inevitably I voted my conscience, why? because I feel life is important and important at the moment of conception. I feel we've got enough death in this world, to just flush little babies down the sink.

I knew this issue would probably raise the most eyebrows, but he it's honesty and honesty is the best policy.

I detest abortion, but each individual should be responsible for their actions and will answer for those decisions. I believe moral decisions are something personal and the person making their decisions will have to answer for their actions. I can only imagine the grief a woman goes through having an abortion. She may not feel this grief at the time of the abortion, but I have to believe there will come a day when it hits home. As for the father having a say, I agree to that, but that is one man involved with one woman, not men in general dictating to women unknown. I do believe if daddy wants the baby, he should have that right, but the courts need to settle that battle. I think we basically agree that abortion is not a choice we will have to make and that neither would probably do such, but I don't want to push my moral beliefs on others. Free will and such.
Sorry if I misconstrued your intentions, but I watched a show on this amendment and it was easy to see the intentions of the writer of this amendment and the implications of its enactment.

Pandora-11
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 10:03 PM
Black Knight,
I drove to C. Hills Mall and stood in line for 45 minutes with my blue booklet in hand. It took me about 2 and a half hours to read the pros and cons for each amendment along with google to read additional info. I made similar votes to yours with these exceptions: Opposite from you on 50, 51, 55,56, and 57 (most of which the sign on the wall there said had been withdrawn) and yeses on M and N. It was a tough ballot but armed with all the info I could get, I felt pretty good about my choices. 48 was a toughie, but I had to vote yes.

Pandora-11
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 10:05 PM
I had done the research earlier that day so the actual voting once I got in the booth took me less than 5 minutes.

zetaetatheta
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 10:12 PM
I voted thursday morning downtown on cascade--motor vehicle place. No line, no wait...It is going to be a mad house on the 4th, with all the amendments (14 pages total) and folks trying to understand them. Hope everyone gets to vote and aren't discouraged by long lines.

fook
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 10:27 PM
Amendment 48:
Yes
- because, while I'm Pro-Choice/Pro-Life at the same time. I believe that disguishing when a person is actually a person is critical. I think that establishing a person is a person at the moment of conception is crucial in determining whether or not you choose to have an abortion. To be clear, I'm not for banning abortion at all, regardless of how Right Wing you peg me to be. I do however, feel that the ramifications of an abortion should not be taken lightly. I feel that the people aborting the child should realize, that they are getting rid of a Person. I think it would put accountability back in the hands of the man and woman, it would make them realize that yeah we are going to abort, but we are aborting a person we just made.


seems to me this amendment is designed for one thing, defining a person at conception thus defining abortion as murder. how do you rationalize being pro-choice and pro-life at the same time? doesn't one make you morally opposed to the other?



Amendment 50:
Yes
- because I believe that gambling and gaming is a free market. I shouldn't be regulated, nor should people be told how much they can spend. Hey if someone wants to flush their paycheck, they have every right too.j
i'm for it too, but annoyed that they have restrictions on where the funds go.



Amendment 53:
Yes
- because everyone should be accountable, even high ups. And business should be penalized for not taking care of their workers. Hey if you want to use human resources for your business. Take care of them, they are your strongest asset.
yes, except that if you read the details it was a bit wacked out, employers would be pretty anxious to leave colorado altogether, luckily this and the rest of the labor union proposed amendments(53,55,56,57) to counter 47 were dropped... they were all piss poor and anti business, last thing we need is to become france.



Amendment 58:
No
- no brainer, enough with the taxes and $321 million is not something I want to foot the bill for.
you just voted to keep giving oil companies the tax subsidy? you're already footing the bill.. this just would have taken the foot and shoved it up someone elses ass(education)... either way you didn't vote for "enough with taxes", you just voted to keep the incentives rolling into the oil/gas industry.



Referendum's M & N:
No, No
why?

rforsythe
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 10:44 PM
Good thread. I was getting ready to post up something about the CO ballot issues as well after I read the booklet. With all the focus on the presidency, nobody's even talking about this stuff, and this is all really, really important.

Pandora-11
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 10:57 PM
Fook, I agree that it hardly seems possible to be prolife and prochoice. It's a bit like saying "I'm opposed to slavery and feel like it's despicable, but I'm going to let my neighbor own some because it's convenient for them."
It's a no win issue and one that you either feel strongly about or you don't as far as I can see.

FZRguy
Fri Oct 24th, 2008, 11:04 PM
Regardless of when you believe life begins, I don’t believe an unborn fetus has any rights at all. Not until it is a breathing being outside the womb. So 48 is moot in my mind.

MrMischief
Sat Oct 25th, 2008, 08:25 AM
Amendment 47:
Yes
If a company has a Union in place fine, but it should be up to the people to choose. If you choose yes, great you can participate in the Union. If not, then you don't participate in the Union and don't get the bene's.


Under 47 if you don't participate in the Union, you still get the bene's. So I can see how a "right to work" law can actually be abused and people will use it as a free ride.
But since I commented on this, I should tell you the way I voted. I am a union member, and I voted yes. Right now I have no way of controlling my union. The union that I am a part of (CWA Local 7777) does what is best for the union which is not always what is best for the workers. Under 47 I can at least threaten to take my dollar away from the union if they don't act in my best interest.

Canuck
Sat Oct 25th, 2008, 10:01 AM
Under 47 if you don't participate in the Union, you still get the bene's. So I can see how a "right to work" law can actually be abused and people will use it as a free ride.
But since I commented on this, I should tell you the way I voted. I am a union member, and I voted yes. Right now I have no way of controlling my union. The union that I am a part of (CWA Local 7777) does what is best for the union which is not always what is best for the workers. Under 47 I can at least threaten to take my dollar away from the union if they don't act in my best interest.

You take control of your local (union) by participating in its functions/elections. Something that, sadly, not enough members do regularly.

I voted NO on 47 and I'm with Pipefitters Local 208.

fook
Sat Oct 25th, 2008, 10:04 AM
Under 47 if you don't participate in the Union, you still get the bene's. So I can see how a "right to work" law can actually be abused and people will use it as a free ride.
But since I commented on this, I should tell you the way I voted. I am a union member, and I voted yes. Right now I have no way of controlling my union. The union that I am a part of (CWA Local 7777) does what is best for the union which is not always what is best for the workers. Under 47 I can at least threaten to take my dollar away from the union if they don't act in my best interest.


just curious, you think if 47 passes it'll really make much difference? i've never been in a union but the perception i have is that what will happen is the union will continue to operate normally and anyone who doesn't join will be treated as an outcast freeloader by the rest.... probably ultimately joining if they wish to enjoy work... of course maybe i just watch too many movies. :D

that said, i voted yes on it because I figure choice is usually better than no choice.

The Black Knight
Sat Oct 25th, 2008, 06:23 PM
seems to me this amendment is designed for one thing, defining a person at conception thus defining abortion as murder. how do you rationalize being pro-choice and pro-life at the same time? doesn't one make you morally opposed to the other?
How I rationalize my pro-choice/pro-life stance is fairly simple(in my eyes). I'm for a woman being in control on her body. I'm for it being between her and her doctor and the man she made the baby with. I'm for a pro-choice stance if there is complications either to the woman or child, also in cases of rape or incest. Now I know the TV ads kept saying it would ban abortion and prosecute rape and incest cases. But I think you have to take some commercials with a grain of salt.

How I read the amendment, was that it just was to clarify when a person is a person. And nothing more, again this is how I read it.

Now as far as me being Pro-life, here's why. I don't believe in using abortion as a means of birth control because of wreckless behaviour. If you're adult enough to fool around with sex, then you're adult enough to accept the responsibilities that come with sex(i.e. pregnancies, or std's). And I believe that destroying a life you created just to get you off the hook is wrong and immoral.

So while I am for a woman's right to choose what happens to her body for medical reasons or reasons beyond her control, I'm Pro-Choice. But for someone to just use it as a means of birth control I'm against, and I'm Pro-Life.

Inevitably it's not me whom any woman answers to and the ramifications of such a decision will be delt with by her and her alone. Whatever physical or mental damage is caused, is unfortunately the nature of the beast.

i'm for it too, but annoyed that they have restrictions on where the funds go.
It's kind of what of those, you can't have your cake and eat it too scenerios. I'm a huge fan of Cripple Creek(it's a beautiful town) and I think it greatly adds to their tourism. Also I think it's a persons choice to spend as much as they see fit. So that's why it go a YES from me.

yes, except that if you read the details it was a bit wacked out, employers would be pretty anxious to leave colorado altogether, luckily this and the rest of the labor union proposed amendments(53,55,56,57) to counter 47 were dropped... they were all piss poor and anti business, last thing we need is to become france.
Well the choice of the worker is what I'm for. As said earlier, I think it should be up the worker to choose whether or not to join a Union. I'm all for a company having a Union, but I don't think it's right to force someone to join, in order to receive employment.

you just voted to keep giving oil companies the tax subsidy? you're already footing the bill.. this just would have taken the foot and shoved it up someone elses ass(education)... either way you didn't vote for "enough with taxes", you just voted to keep the incentives rolling into the oil/gas industry.
The way I look at it, is Oil companies employ people too, lots of people. If we run them out of Colorado, that just means more jobs lost. Gov. Ritter already wants to shut companies down 3 months out of the year, just to stifle production. Can you imagine what that will do to families who need to put food on the table those 3 months? Oil is here to stay, we just need to find ways of using less of it.



Fook, I agree that it hardly seems possible to be prolife and prochoice. It's a bit like saying "I'm opposed to slavery and feel like it's despicable, but I'm going to let my neighbor own some because it's convenient for them."
It's a no win issue and one that you either feel strongly about or you don't as far as I can see.
Refer to my response above as to my reasoning for being Pro-life/Pro-choice.


Regardless of when you believe life begins, I don’t believe an unborn fetus has any rights at all. Not until it is a breathing being outside the womb. So 48 is moot in my mind.
If it's not a person, then what is it? Parasite? that's pretty harsh to call a child. Sure there are people in the media that are parasites(HAHA) but to call an unborn child a parasite is rough. While it might be scientifically true, because the child does feed off the mom. It still is a person growing inside and soon to be birthed. I think one could even get off with saying it's a bit of a grey area.


Under 47 if you don't participate in the Union, you still get the bene's. So I can see how a "right to work" law can actually be abused and people will use it as a free ride.
But since I commented on this, I should tell you the way I voted. I am a union member, and I voted yes. Right now I have no way of controlling my union. The union that I am a part of (CWA Local 7777) does what is best for the union which is not always what is best for the workers. Under 47 I can at least threaten to take my dollar away from the union if they don't act in my best interest.
Mischief,
what I meant by my comment was, if people wanted to join fine, if not then fine as well. I was being general in saying that if companies would open this door up for choice, there is nothing stopping them from telling the prospective employee that by not joining they wouldn't receive bene's. It was more of a hypothetical comment than anything else.

Your reason for voting Yes was more of less mine as well. While I'm not a member of a Union, I've had several older family members that have been. I've always felt that Union's while intentions were good, were equivacally bad for the people. Sure Pro-Union people will say that Union's give them a voice. Well how can they be a voice for you, if they are in the pockets of the companies?

Way I look at it is, I don't need someone speaking for me or acting a voice for myself. I can do that on my own without any help.

fook
Sun Oct 26th, 2008, 09:20 AM
you just voted to keep giving oil companies the tax subsidy? you're already footing the bill.. this just would have taken the foot and shoved it up someone elses ass(education)... either way you didn't vote for "enough with taxes", you just voted to keep the incentives rolling into the oil/gas industry.
The way I look at it, is Oil companies employ people too, lots of people. If we run them out of Colorado, that just means more jobs lost. Gov. Ritter already wants to shut companies down 3 months out of the year, just to stifle production. Can you imagine what that will do to families who need to put food on the table those 3 months? Oil is here to stay, we just need to find ways of using less of it.


How do you figure we'll run oil companies out of CO though? all this does is take the tax subsidy, which btw everyone starts screaming about each summer as gas prices approach $4/gal.

i'd say the incentive to keep oil and gas companies operating in CO is pretty secure these days, theres oil and gas to be had and at a profit, too... the tax subsidy is just icing on the cake, for them.

MattTLS
Sun Oct 26th, 2008, 11:19 AM
Regardless of when you believe life begins, I don’t believe an unborn fetus has any rights at all. Not until it is a breathing being outside the womb. So 48 is moot in my mind.

Let's put this in a hypothetical. What if somehow a situation occurred wherein a pregnant woman is attacked by someone whose intent for whatever reason is to harm/destroy the fetus? Is this simply an assault on the woman, or is it more?

The Black Knight
Sun Oct 26th, 2008, 11:20 AM
[/i][/color]How do you figure we'll run oil companies out of CO though? all this does is take the tax subsidy, which btw everyone starts screaming about each summer as gas prices approach $4/gal.

i'd say the incentive to keep oil and gas companies operating in CO is pretty secure these days, theres oil and gas to be had and at a profit, too... the tax subsidy is just icing on the cake, for them.

True, but just like every other company. You take away some incentives for them and with our high corporate tax. It will just run them off. Again we don't need to be pushing companies away actually employ alot of the workforce in America.

The Black Knight
Sun Oct 26th, 2008, 11:22 AM
Let's put this in a hypothetical. What if somehow a situation occurred wherein a pregnant woman is attacked by someone whose intent for whatever reason is to harm/destroy the fetus? Is this simply an assault on the woman, or is it more?

Very very true and a massively good point. If someone murders a woman with child. They get charged with a double homicide. Because if you kill the mother, then the unborn can't survive(unless medical attention is given to it fast enough). So technically, two lives were in fact lost.

PrillerGrrl
Sun Oct 26th, 2008, 01:54 PM
" Now as far as me being Pro-life, here's why. I don't believe in using abortion as a means of birth control because of wreckless behaviour. If you're adult enough to fool around with sex, then you're adult enough to accept the responsibilities that come with sex(i.e. pregnancies, or std's). And I believe that destroying a life you created just to get you off the hook is wrong and immoral. "

Defining where life begins might have a moral basis but it doesn't reflect real life. Women need to have the power to choose because by far and large, it's women that bear the brunt of children. Not good or bad. Just is.

The suggestion that an abortion is a convienient method for birth control is nauseating. I've held the hands of several gf's that terminated pregnancies and I don't remember anything convienient about it - nor the weeks of pain they endured after the fact - let alone the profound saddness and grief they live with.

Both times, they had men in their lives whom abandoned them when they discovered they were pregnant.

I have been a foster mom to 5 kids. Children that were unwanted and because of their age, unadoptable. One pair of fraternal twins (boy and girl) were raised by their parents in a closet for 7 years. When I got them, they could barely walk and had underdeveloped hearing, eyesight and lacked speech. I myself am raising an adopted child. Birth mother is vaguely interested and father is still denying he's the father 13 years into his son's life.

Terminating pregnancies might seem morally wrong but until we as a society are prepared to care for and love all children that are born regardless of who their parents are or what disabilities they have, sometimes the unspeakable may be the answer.

I read a really kewl bumper sticker a few weeks ago. It doesn't directly apply but can easily be morphed to fit many occasions:

"If a child turns out to be gay, will you still defend the rights of the life you saved?"

This ammendment is a new angle to making abortion illegal. Nothing more.

I'm not sharing this to moralize, so please don't flame me. It's just what actually happens everyday. To ignore the realities of this life is irresponsible.

Peace out.

PG

FZRguy
Mon Oct 27th, 2008, 02:01 AM
If someone murders a woman with child. They get charged with a double homicide.

No, not true. That would be up to the DA to decide, and his (or her) decision would be influenced by his own biases.

puckstr
Mon Oct 27th, 2008, 09:02 AM
Hmmmmm

48

So if it is a child at conception, then it (unborn child) is a dependent?

The woman is providing:
Shelter
Food
Clothing (see shelter)

So the woman should be able to use the unborn child as a tax deduction. And If she looses the child (god forbid) then no hurt no foul (mmmm that raises another question if she can get life insurance for their unborn?).

So a woman could just keep getting prego, and not giving birth and get a tax break?
For proof does she have to go to a doctor or just send in used positive EPTs with her tax return?

fook
Mon Oct 27th, 2008, 10:53 AM
True, but just like every other company. You take away some incentives for them and with our high corporate tax. It will just run them off. Again we don't need to be pushing companies away actually employ alot of the workforce in America.

since when do we have a high corporate tax rate? no offense Black Knight but you're sending a lot of mixed signals on things here.

Colorado Corp income tax rate is around 4.6% - this is -very- competitive with the rest of the country. At this point all the incentive the oil and gas industry need in my book is whether or not they can make a profit on their operations in CO and given the relatively high cost of fuel these days, they don't need a subsidy funded by the tax payers to offset that expense.

it's perplexing to me too how you could have been so pro all of the union backed amendments meant to counter 47 which would have done the REAL hurt to Colorado businesses here if they had not been dropped. putting severe limitations on an employers ability to fire employees without serious risk of litigation.. threat of actually getting jail time for even minor infractions etc etc... THOSE are the things that would cause an employer to think twice about continuing operations in our state.

thankfully, those amendments are a moot point now..

and as for abortion and amendment 48. I've personally been faced with the absurdly difficult decision first hand with my second daughter. my wife suffered multiple complications during pregnancy and one of the specialists we were seeing at the time went ahead and put it out there that we should consider terminating the pregnancy because of a high likelyhood that we'd see birth defects, a recommendation our family doctor also backed.

in the end we decided to take our chances but it was an unbearably difficult time for us - my daughter was born just 4 weeks premature but otherwise healthy and today only suffers mild asthma...

I say all that and make this point, I'm glad we had that choice.. as difficult and painful as it was I believe strongly that the choice needs to be there. nobody takes it lightly..

64BonnieLass
Mon Oct 27th, 2008, 11:00 AM
I went through all the amendments on Sunday.

I list my answers on a piece of paper then when I go to the booth it takes about 5 minutes to vote. :)

puckstr
Mon Oct 27th, 2008, 11:02 AM
I went through all the amendments on Sunday.

I list my answers on a piece of paper then when I go to the booth it takes about 5 minutes to vote. :)


Is there a website that has ALL of the amendments?

64BonnieLass
Mon Oct 27th, 2008, 11:06 AM
Is there a website that
has ALL of the amendments?

Online Blue Book:

http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/bluebook/2008EnglishVersionforInternet.pdf

fook
Mon Oct 27th, 2008, 11:10 AM
Hmmmmm

48

So if it is a child at conception, then it (unborn child) is a dependent?

The woman is providing:
Shelter
Food
Clothing (see shelter)

So the woman should be able to use the unborn child as a tax deduction. And If she looses the child (god forbid) then no hurt no foul (mmmm that raises another question if she can get life insurance for their unborn?).

So a woman could just keep getting prego, and not giving birth and get a tax break?
For proof does she have to go to a doctor or just send in used positive EPTs with her tax return?

nice, except if she takes shelter, food and clothing away wouldn't she be charged with child endangerment leading to death? she'll need those tax returns pretty quick to pay legal fees..

puckstr
Mon Oct 27th, 2008, 11:26 AM
Online Blue Book:

http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/bluebook/2008EnglishVersionforInternet.pdf


Holy shit it is 71 pages:shocked:

64BonnieLass
Mon Oct 27th, 2008, 11:28 AM
Yea, really it's just half the book though. From the middle to the back, that is all the ammendments listed in a more legal format. So you only need to read the front half of the book. Took an hour. Easy peasy!

The Black Knight
Mon Oct 27th, 2008, 03:52 PM
since when do we have a high corporate tax rate? no offense Black Knight but you're sending a lot of mixed signals on things here.

Colorado Corp income tax rate is around 4.6% - this is -very- competitive with the rest of the country. At this point all the incentive the oil and gas industry need in my book is whether or not they can make a profit on their operations in CO and given the relatively high cost of fuel these days, they don't need a subsidy funded by the tax payers to offset that expense.

it's perplexing to me too how you could have been so pro all of the union backed amendments meant to counter 47 which would have done the REAL hurt to Colorado businesses here if they had not been dropped. putting severe limitations on an employers ability to fire employees without serious risk of litigation.. threat of actually getting jail time for even minor infractions etc etc... THOSE are the things that would cause an employer to think twice about continuing operations in our state.

thankfully, those amendments are a moot point now..

and as for abortion and amendment 48. I've personally been faced with the absurdly difficult decision first hand with my second daughter. my wife suffered multiple complications during pregnancy and one of the specialists we were seeing at the time went ahead and put it out there that we should consider terminating the pregnancy because of a high likelyhood that we'd see birth defects, a recommendation our family doctor also backed.

in the end we decided to take our chances but it was an unbearably difficult time for us - my daughter was born just 4 weeks premature but otherwise healthy and today only suffers mild asthma...

I say all that and make this point, I'm glad we had that choice.. as difficult and painful as it was I believe strongly that the choice needs to be there. nobody takes it lightly..

I'm sorry, I was referring to the Business Tax rate of 35%. My mistake totally. Got the two mixed up.

As for being super pro Union backed amendments. That's not the case, I felt Amendment 47 was good, because I believe in peoples freedom of choice. Guess that's a bad thing.

It's not like I spent tons of time on the other amendments either. I'll be honest, I read over them, thought about them for a bit, then just voted my conscience. I don't delve into an Amendment and try and dissect it, because frankly I've got better things to do with my time. I voted based on how it was written and that's that. Sorry it bothers you.

As for 48, it's just the way I feel about that one as well. Jumping all over me for voting the way I did, won't change the fact that I already cast my vote. Even if I hadn't, it still wouldn't have changed my mind.

fook
Mon Oct 27th, 2008, 05:00 PM
still not sure what exactly you're referring to by a 35% business tax, is the sales/use taxes/unemployment taxes etc? again, I believe anyways that CO is for the most part very competitive amongst other states that we compete with for high tech and industrial jobs. I just do not buy that suddenly the oil and gas companies are gonna pack up their rigs and clear out of CO if this subsidy went away. I also think that all of the ads are being very misleading.. well, pretty much ALL political ads are misleading but alas, thats another topic.

not jumping all over you black knight, amendment 48 is a very personal issue and everyone has an opinion which is their right. but being so personal, everyones gonna come across a little strong to anyone not in agreement. :)

as for the pro-union backed amendments - I wasn't referring to 47 but rather the others that were spawned in response to 47 by the labor unions which you originally said you supported.

it was just striking to me that you're negative on 58 over a perception that its anti business but supported several others that were in fact, anti business and dropped from the ballot.

you're certainly free to put whatever effort you wish into investigating amendments but I feel there were several on this years ballot which deserve special scrutiny and I'd urge everyone who hasn't already voted to really understand what they're voting on.

CYCLE_MONKEY
Mon Oct 27th, 2008, 05:10 PM
Thanks BK. Actually, your thoughts are very similar to mine, so I'm just gonna print this out and vote tomorrow. Saves me some time.:)

The Black Knight
Mon Oct 27th, 2008, 08:35 PM
still not sure what exactly you're referring to by a 35% business tax, is the sales/use taxes/unemployment taxes etc? again, I believe anyways that CO is for the most part very competitive amongst other states that we compete with for high tech and industrial jobs. I just do not buy that suddenly the oil and gas companies are gonna pack up their rigs and clear out of CO if this subsidy went away. I also think that all of the ads are being very misleading.. well, pretty much ALL political ads are misleading but alas, thats another topic.

not jumping all over you black knight, amendment 48 is a very personal issue and everyone has an opinion which is their right. but being so personal, everyones gonna come across a little strong to anyone not in agreement. :)

as for the pro-union backed amendments - I wasn't referring to 47 but rather the others that were spawned in response to 47 by the labor unions which you originally said you supported.

it was just striking to me that you're negative on 58 over a perception that its anti business but supported several others that were in fact, anti business and dropped from the ballot.

you're certainly free to put whatever effort you wish into investigating amendments but I feel there were several on this years ballot which deserve special scrutiny and I'd urge everyone who hasn't already voted to really understand what they're voting on.
Well I shall concede to agree that we disagree on everything.


Thanks BK. Actually, your thoughts are very similar to mine, so I'm just gonna print this out and vote tomorrow. Saves me some time.:)
:up: