  Englishkills Member Username: Englishkills Post Number: 7 Registered: 10-2008 |
From today's Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB122540692976785969.html How does the forum feel the vote might go on this issue? | ||
Higgs1634 Member Username: Higgs1634 Post Number: 726 Registered: 10-2005 |
The christianists will prevail. The worse the economic outlook the more likely the bitters will cling to god and their guns. Everyone else will simply move to places a little less backwater. Thanks Jen...we really ARE blown away! That an Prop 1 will go down. God forbids science or the controlled use of marijuana. Recreational Oxycontin, however, fully endorsed by Rush Limbaugh. | ||
Sharmaal Member Username: Sharmaal Post Number: 1388 Registered: 09-2004 |
Prop 1 looks like it will easily pass. | ||
Choquant Member Username: Choquant Post Number: 7 Registered: 09-2007 |
"Thanks Jen...we really ARE blown away!" While I agree with most of your post, why do you think this is any of Granholm's fault? She endorses the bill and is hardly the reason people are moving out of the state.... | ||
Hudkina Member Username: Hudkina Post Number: 313 Registered: 12-2004 |
Yes, because the governor controls which companies get to ship jobs overseas. It's the governor who decides whether or not NAFTA should be thrown out. It's the governor who's job it is to make sure people in Miami and Los Angeles are buying Fords and Chevys. The irony is that most people think that socialism is evil, but expect the government to do everything when the economy is bad. The economy is bad because we let the "free market" have too much freedom. It's not Granholm's fault, it's the corporate executives' fault. Granholm is doing a damn fine job with what little power she actually has over the economy (offering tax breaks to businesses willing to invest in Michigan, promoting the benefits of doing business in the state, etc.) | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 2748 Registered: 12-2003 |
I am actually against both. I think we are getting out of hand with being slaves to the pharmaceutical cures. While I am not against stem cell research, I am against the false hope ads and lack of regulations that prop 2 proposes. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 1425 Registered: 01-2005 |
I'm for 1 but against 2 for the reasons stated by -sj-. Also, this does not require an amendment to the Constitution. | ||
Diehard Member Username: Diehard Post Number: 627 Registered: 03-2005 |
It's so annoying when people with a political agenda pretend they know more than the scientists on issues like this. The religious folks claim that embryonic stem cells won't cure anything... really? Why are all those researchers wasting their time when THEY have all the answers? Whether we see any miraculous cures in our lifetime or not, it's a no-brainer to at least let the researchers try. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 1427 Registered: 01-2005 |
There is a split among scientists on various aspects of the issue. |
