Posted on 07/01/2002 6:51:05 PM PDT by ZGuy
John Campbell (R) just announced on the Hugh Hewitt show that the democrats in Sacramento have pulled a fast one. Bill 1058 which has been written about on several posts originally failed. The democrats took a bill on Friday night which dealt with an unrelated subject and gutted out the language. They then inserted the exact language of 1058 and the senate passed it Friday. This (Monday) afternoon the house got the bill. The democrats had to hold a hearing and every office in the capital was available but they chose to hold the "hearings" in the smallest office in the building - the only one which had no TV cameras, no radio, no cameras, and no space for reporters or the public to attend. They then passed a vote making this bill exempt from the 3-day waiting period required by law for public input. The democrats just passed the bill in the last 45 minutes and it now goes to the governor's desk. No republicans voted for the bill in either chamber. One highlight - (Dennis?) Cardoza - the democrat running for Condit's seat voted for the bill in the central valley. He's toast.
I submit that, if you put these same drivers in 1964 Nash Metropolitan, they would be every bit as rude and annoying.
It's not the vehicle, it's the driver...
I don't disagree. However, in the Metropolitan, they would likely have a much more personal awareness of the potential consequences of inconsiderate driving (i.e. injuries suffered in a traffic accident). It's almost as if the SUV was a coat of armor to them, which allows them to blither on carelessly down the road, not suffering the consequences of their callous rudeness.
I believe that it is a virtue to treat other human beings with as much politeness and consideration as possible, at all times.
Yes, the drivers are at fault not the vehicle. I've noted above that rural SUV drivers are, in my observations, more considerate drivers than urban SUV drivers.
And the drivers of other cars? Same thing? (I hope so)
Yep. And the reality is that we are reduced to bribes in order to preserve any freedoms.
-------
or praying for the big earthquake.
We out here in California pray your homes, your hopes and your dreams get blown away in hurricanes... it's fun to watch on the news....especially the panic when you're trying to get out of town, then those really depressed faces y'all get afterwords.
Back at ya nitwit.
Based upon whose standards? Yours? Well, in that case, maybe the next thing the government votes against will be something that you need or want. Remember: "When they came for the Christians, I did not say anything, for after all, I was not a christian..."
Get it?
Based upon whose standards? Yours? Well, in that case, maybe the next thing the government votes against will be something that you need or want. Remember: "When they came for the Christians, I did not say anything, for after all, I was not a christian..."
Get it?
Perhaps. But he better be carefule with the Quid Pro Quo. Many in California are onto his game, even many "sheeple".
But there are many Freeper cousins fighting the good fight here...
To quote from a guide provided by the California Secretary of State:
Pursuant to article II, section 9, of the California Constitution, a referendum is the power of the electors to approve or reject any statute enacted by the Legislature. A referendum cannot be used on urgency statutes, statutes calling elections, or statutes providing for tax levies or appropriations for current expenses of the state.
...the California Constitution requires that the process must be completed within ninety days of the enactment of the bill that is being referred. The signature requirements are the same for a referendum as an initiative statute. [The number of signatures must be equal to at least 5% of the total votes cast for Governor at the last gubernatorial election. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 8(b); § 9035) The total number of signatures required for initiative statutes, which qualify for circulation before the November 2002 gubernatorial election, is 419,260.]
So given enough money (which should be available from all the organizations lined up against it), some good political consultants, and a quick enough reaction time, it is possible to force it onto the ballot and then defeat it.
Yea, what happened to that ice age!? I remember being scared by my teachers about that. Even came home and told my mom about it I was so worried.
Different day, same BS.
I'd love to go back and get some of that propoganda they were spreading then. Now that would be a good link!
We need to sign Charlton Heston to front the SUV cause.
And, I wonder how smart the dims are on this one. Many swing voters are "soccer moms". Try to take their SUV's and there could be hell to pay. Trust me, you wouldn't want to try and evict my lovee from hers -- would be a BAD move. :O)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.