Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
| Author | Time | Post | |
| roody | Nov 2012 | OP | |
| mike_c | Nov 2012 | #1 | |
| bemildred | Nov 2012 | #2 | |
| pinto | Nov 2012 | #3 | |
| antiquie | Nov 2012 | #4 | |
| Iggo | Nov 2012 | #5 | |
| KamaAina | Nov 2012 | #6 | |
| GiaGiovanni | Nov 2012 | #7 |
Response to roody (Original post)
Mon Nov 5, 2012, 02:02 PM
mike_c (31,511 posts)
1. I agree with the ACLU's position....
|
So does Truth out, evidently: http://truth-out.org/news/item/12517-californias-prop-35-targeting-the-wrong-people-for-the-wrong-reasons
|
Response to roody (Original post)
Mon Nov 5, 2012, 02:40 PM
bemildred (67,509 posts)
2. I agree, No on 35, the stringency of the laws is not the problem.
|
Enforcement of the laws is the problem.
And I don't like the violations of the 5th amendment it entails, etc., which I would hazard is also the ACLU's objection. |
Response to roody (Original post)
Mon Nov 5, 2012, 03:19 PM
pinto (97,893 posts)
3. I'm voting against it. Wrong approach, wrong target(s).
|
Most telling, organizations working to curb sex trafficking are against it.
|
Response to roody (Original post)
Mon Nov 5, 2012, 03:24 PM
antiquie (857 posts)
4. Absolute no
|
...what bemildred said.
|
Response to roody (Original post)
Mon Nov 5, 2012, 05:07 PM
Iggo (22,326 posts)
5. That one was an obvious No as soon as I saw it.
Response to roody (Original post)
Tue Nov 6, 2012, 12:02 PM
KamaAina (45,246 posts)
6. Can I vote "Hell NO"?
|
Buried in there is a provision that makes sex offenders (by no means all of whom are monsters like Jerry Sandusky) give their emails and usernames -- like their DU name! -- to Big Brother.
|
Response to roody (Original post)
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:20 AM
GiaGiovanni (402 posts)
7. That one won easily and by a huge margin
|
I don't think people actually read it.
|

