Tacomic Voting Guide for 2009
by Erik on 10/6/2009 @ 12:08am
|Looks like Jeremy's Garfield with a clothes dryer for the middle.|
Nice Venn diagrams.
However, you forgot to show what one gets when they intersect Yes with Yes and three yeses together.
by morgan on 10/6/2009 @ 6:33am
|Very handy. Thank you!|
by NineInchNachos on 10/6/2009 @ 10:45am
|Free-thinker and Tacomic/Melon friend Glynnis Kirchmeier throws her intellectual heft at R 71
by Mofo from the Hood on 10/6/2009 @ 1:02pm
|R 71 is about redistribution of wealth. It's a financially motivated scheme.
For Christ's sake. This is America. How do you get someone's attention in America? You cloak your goal with the pretense of sex. Those in favor of R 71 talk about equality, but it is an equality based on self-centered satisfaction. It leads nowhere, it gains nothing for society. It is intellectually vacant.
To vote in favor of R 71 is to vote for mindlessness.
by NineInchNachos on 10/6/2009 @ 1:06pm
|To vote in favor of R71 is to vote for what is right. Mindless, beautiful equality.|
by Erik on 10/6/2009 @ 1:13pm
|..but it is an equality based on self-centered satisfaction.|
The "pursuit of happiness" I believe is the terms often used.
by Mofo from the Hood on 10/6/2009 @ 1:37pm
|The pursuit of happiness was declared an inalienable right; not the unconditional guarantee of happiness.|
by NineInchNachos on 10/6/2009 @ 2:27pm
with liberty and justice for all baby.
by Mofo from the Hood on 10/6/2009 @ 3:09pm
|Justice is an abstract rational idea.
If one isn't thinking about abstract rational ideas then one isn't thinking.
R 71 is not about justice. It's not about conforming to a true principal. It's about thoughtless selfish material gain. It's about taking liberty with liberties.
The posted illustration shows Lady Liberty raping Lady Justice. That's a just depiction of R 71.
by NineInchNachos on 10/6/2009 @ 3:19pm
|it's not considered rape if the kissing action is between two consenting logos.|
one woman's thoughtless selfish material gain is another woman's exercise of human rights.
are you going to sit there in the library and tell some gay kid she can't get married?
by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 10/6/2009 @ 3:35pm
|Lady Justice looks like she can defend herself, she does have that big sword.|
by Chris Van Vechten on 10/6/2009 @ 3:36pm
|Not a bad spread|
by marumaruyopparai on 10/6/2009 @ 3:48pm
|bow chicka wow wow!|
by fredo on 10/6/2009 @ 6:45pm
|R-71 is all about insurance benefits. If it passes, then there will be an increase in the cost of insurance for employers in both private and public sectors. This is bound to lead to layoffs and an increase in unemployment. R-71 proponents are using a disingenuous ad campaign which makes it look like R-71 is about the rights gays are being denied in visiting someone in the hospital. That's a very peripheral issue.|
by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 10/6/2009 @ 7:29pm
|If I'm not mistaken, fredo, R-71 is designed to repeal a law that is already on the books. Since it is already law I don't recall seeing the gloom and doom that you predict. In politics every one is disingenuous, seems to be the name of the game. Still this is an issue of fairness and to me fairness to the people under the law trumps all else.|
by NineInchNachos on 10/6/2009 @ 8:12pm
|this effects hetro couples too.
we have a friend whose finance was murdered by estranged family members when he got in a motorcycle accident running away from the police. He was scooped up off the pavement and taken to the hospital. He needed a blood transfusion badly, but the family was Jehovahs witness and said no. The woman he was living with and would have been married too had no say. Infact she was verbally abused by the dudes family. She is a sexy blonde who wears zebra striped dresses and red 'f-me' shoes at parties.
Domestic Partners get the shaft all the time. Vote yes on R 71
by fredo on 10/6/2009 @ 8:14pm
|"fairness to the people ...trumps all"
Fredos all about fairness. Many of the taxpayers who will be asked to fund this extension of benefits don't have health insurance themselves. Is that fair?
If passed, the proposal will cost state government alone between $900K and $1.6M per year in extra insurance costs. In addition it will cost approximately $4M to implement the changes. I couldn't find any estimates on impacts for other governmental bodies or for private sector employers, but they will be considerable.
by Crenshaw Sepulveda on 10/6/2009 @ 8:20pm
|All the more reason for a single payer health plan provided by the federal government, good point, fredo.|
by fredo on 10/6/2009 @ 8:48pm
|Single payer health is OK with me. But I would like to have a discussion with all you good FT contributors regarding the details.|
by thriceallamerican on 10/7/2009 @ 8:21am
|In my experience, most private-sector employers only subsidize the employee's health insurance costs, leaving the employee to cover any costs for insuring family members. So the family benefits from being part of the insured "group" provided by the company without the company having to take on any additional financial hardship. I don't see how including domestic partners in the definition of family would have an affect on the employer's health care budget or the health care premiums of breeders.|
by thriceallamerican on 10/7/2009 @ 8:37am
|Also, to play devils advocate, if we're going to complain about paying for the state to subsidize domestic partners' benefits with our taxes, I could just as easily complain about my taxes subsidizing the health care for a family with a large number of children.|
by fredo on 10/7/2009 @ 8:49am
You've hit the proverbial nail on it's head. If we didn't pay for the health benefits of dependants of straight marriage we wouldn't have to defend the practice against the dependants of gay and lesbian relationships. There actually are quite a few large private employers in addition to most public employers who pay for the dependents of straight relationships. Boeing for example. There is no reason that the overwhelmed taxpayers in Washington should be obligated to provide to coverage for any workers dependents, be they straight breeders or homosexual courtesans.
by thriceallamerican on 10/7/2009 @ 10:06am
|But that's beside the point in discussing whether or not to approve R71, fredo. The issue, as it relates to insurance, is whether or not private or public employers that currently cover spouses and dependents should also cover partners (opposite- or same-sex). A vote for or against the measure has absolutely no affect on whether someone irresponsible enough to pop out 9 babies gets their health care covered.|
by fredo on 10/7/2009 @ 10:30am
|I recognize that the current system is unfair. Gay people pay taxes which are used to subsidize heterosexual (traditional) lifestyles. This does bother me. OTOH the whole system of health care provision for the dependants of public sector employees is based on an unfair redistribution of wealth. People who have no health care themselves pay for it.
R-71 replaces one unfairness by expanding another unfairness. Thats not a good way to solve social problems.
by thriceallamerican on 10/7/2009 @ 11:00am
|I guess I would take exception to your earlier statement that "R-71 is all about insurance benefits" in that it deals with a number of rights previously only granted to heterosexual, married couples in our state (such as death-related situations like that mentioned by NINachos above, child custody issues, estate and other financial benefits, etc.). Insurance reform should be approached separately, but for now of utmost importance to me is making sure that people in loving, committed relationships can enjoy the same protections that I currently enjoy in my marriage.|
by Mofo from the Hood on 10/7/2009 @ 11:09am
|Why should Feminist Separatists receive money from civilized hardworking people?|
by fredo on 10/7/2009 @ 11:15am
|Gay people should be careful what they wish for. Right now they enjoy the freedom to kick their girlfriend/boyfriend out of the house with no legal recourse. This is a very useful tool in resolving dysfunctional relationships.|
by NineInchNachos on 10/7/2009 @ 12:10pm
|Mofo, how did you get out of your cage?|
by NineInchNachos on 10/7/2009 @ 12:21pm
|that was a true story by the way. Still blows me away. Was going to write it up as a 'do you enjoy hypotheticals' but this conversation seemed more fitting.|
by Mofo from the Hood on 10/7/2009 @ 12:21pm
|I done broke my rusty cage.|
by NineInchNachos on 10/7/2009 @ 12:25pm
|I suppose it depends on which side of the door you're on eh fredo?|
by fredo on 10/7/2009 @ 12:42pm
the legal ambiguity of homosexuality works out pretty well for a lot of gays.
by NineInchNachos on 10/7/2009 @ 12:43pm
|and married GOP congressmen!|
by Mofo from the Hood on 10/7/2009 @ 12:54pm
|Yeah and Barney....what did that guy call him?...Barney....You know, it sounded like rag?....Oh heck, Barney Frank.|
by L.S.Erhardt on 10/7/2009 @ 1:35pm
|Interesting... veeeeeery interesting indeed.|
by Mofo from the Hood on 10/8/2009 @ 10:08am
|Why should Feminist Separatists receive money from civilized hardworking people?
Why would thinking people agree that they should pay for the well-being of Feminist Separatists?
How do Feminist Separatists fit in the sustainability of civilized society?
What kind of civilization do Feminist Separatists produce and why?
by NineInchNachos on 10/8/2009 @ 1:01pm
|I have an idea. |
why dont you scribble these intensely interesting questions down on a sandwich board that you can wear to the next dockyard derby dame event.
Let us know how it goes.
by Mofo from the Hood on 10/8/2009 @ 2:35pm
|If that'll make 'em hot and ready for me. Rock & Roll.|
by Erik on 10/9/2009 @ 1:17am
|It looks the Tribune has read your voting guide and followed your advice on endorsing Catherine Ushka-Hall:|
Ushka-Hall is the better choice by far. She is one of the best candidates weve met this year in any race, and certainly one of the only newcomers who would be prepared to step right into the job from day one.
Unlike Thorpe, Ushka-Halls public service has been primarily dedicated to public schools. She has been a member, and a vocal one at that, of a number of school district advisory committees and school funding campaigns.
Ushka-Hall, who works as a supervisor for Expedia.com, is also a member of the Tacoma Human Services Commission and Eastside Neighborhood Council. Shes endorsed by Mayor Bill Baarsma, five Tacoma City Council members and Pierce County Executive Pat McCarthy.
by fredo on 10/9/2009 @ 6:41am
|"she's been a member, and a vocal one at that, of school funding campaigns"
Including the one that voters overwhelmingly turned down last spring?
by fredo on 10/9/2009 @ 8:31am
|"the voter's guide is BOORING, right?" RR
As a matter of fact it is. I would go a step further. It's actually unreadable. Is this by accident or design? Candidates who go out on a limb and clearly express a unique perspective are never rewarded. Look at Will Baker and the Travellers candidacies. The most popular candidates are ones whose opinions are the most pedestrian and boldly fonted. The main beneficiaries of this process are the political cartoonists who have a constant stream of political buffoonary to draw from.
by NineInchNachos on 10/9/2009 @ 9:15am
|I look forward to your bold font analysis this year fredo.|
by NineInchNachos on 10/9/2009 @ 9:16am
|I think the best thing about running for office is writing your voter pamphlet statement. it makes me sad to see so many people squander the opportunity|
by The Jinxmedic on 10/9/2009 @ 9:56am
|Visualize whirled peas!|