Debate Analysis and Opinions

[elgordoboy]

Thanks for posting this. Then why did he vote present? If that was his motive, then he shouldn't have taken a non-stance.

It is an issue for me. For zoning issues that involve breakdown of families, women's rights and lack of protection for minors then if local zoning cannot protect them, then it should be a state matter.
Just my opinion, you don't have to agree.

I agree, but from an opposite perspective. When I am watching boobs I do not wish to be pestered by elementary school kids running by the darked out windows, mothers dropping off crying babies and diapers being changed within earshot, people praying at me to change my evil ways, or a boozer within walking distance stumbling in from the mobile home park to horn in on my lap dance!

 

[Teresa]

:rofl:
gordo strikes again.

 

[Teresa]

Geo - I've never seen an unfair post from you. I appreciate your comments and your fairness to all.

 

[Rita]

Thanks for posting this. Then why did he vote present? If that was his motive, then he shouldn't have taken a non-stance.

It is an issue for me. For zoning issues that involve breakdown of families, women's rights and lack of protection for minors then if local zoning cannot protect them, then it should be a state matter.
Just my opinion, you don't have to agree.

I read most of the link that jdarg included. It was looonng but very interesting and informative. Obviously there are a lot of nuances in Illinois State legislature business. Fascinating read but hard for me to grasp it all.

Here are a couple sections from the link that may shed light on a present vote on this kind of bill:

Voting Present in the State Legislature is Used as A Signal to the Other Party, Not As a Way to Duck the Issue. "An aspect of Obama's State Senate voting record that is drawing attention is his "present" votes. A present vote is a third option to an up or down "yes" or "no" that is used with great frequency in the Illinois General Assembly. It has many varied and nuanced meanings that, in the context of the actual bills, border on boring. It's most important use is as a signal -- to the other party, to the governor, to the sponsor -- to show a willingness to compromise on the issue if not the exact bill, to show disapproval for one aspect of the bill, to question the constitutionality of the bill, to strengthen the bill. [Chicago Daily Herald, 3/10/04]

Obama Said He Would Vote 'Present' On Unconstitutional Bills, Saying He Tried To Resist Bad Votes Even If They Made Good Politics. The Sun Times wrote, "Obama says his 'present' votes often come on bills that he believes are unconstitutional. 'I have tried to not succumb to the temptation of voting on bad laws just because it makes for good politics,' Obama said." [Chicago Sun-Times, 9/13/04]

We vote at a local level here in Texas on things like proximity of liquor stores to school, adult stores, etc. - the city level. I am guessing Obama's vote may have been one of those signaling that it was questionable as to the constitutionality of the state of IL acting on this.

Take a read through that link as it has useful insight.


.

 

[supermom262]

I read most of the link that jdarg included. It was looonng but very interesting and informative. Obviously there are a lot of nuances in Illinois State legislature business. Fascinating read but hard for me to grasp it all.

Here are a couple sections from the link that may shed light on a present vote on this kind of bill:

Voting Present in the State Legislature is Used as A Signal to the Other Party, Not As a Way to Duck the Issue. "An aspect of Obama's State Senate voting record that is drawing attention is his "present" votes. A present vote is a third option to an up or down "yes" or "no" that is used with great frequency in the Illinois General Assembly. It has many varied and nuanced meanings that, in the context of the actual bills, border on boring. It's most important use is as a signal -- to the other party, to the governor, to the sponsor -- to show a willingness to compromise on the issue if not the exact bill, to show disapproval for one aspect of the bill, to question the constitutionality of the bill, to strengthen the bill. [Chicago Daily Herald, 3/10/04]

Obama Said He Would Vote 'Present' On Unconstitutional Bills, Saying He Tried To Resist Bad Votes Even If They Made Good Politics. The Sun Times wrote, "Obama says his 'present' votes often come on bills that he believes are unconstitutional. 'I have tried to not succumb to the temptation of voting on bad laws just because it makes for good politics,' Obama said." [Chicago Sun-Times, 9/13/04]

We vote at a local level here in Texas on things like proximity of liquor stores to school, adult stores, etc. - the city level. I am guessing Obama's vote may have been one of those signaling that it was questionable as to the constitutionality of the state of IL acting on this.

Take a read through that link as it has useful insight.


.

Thanks for providing that information.

Unfortunately or fortunately (however you look at it) we live in a tourist area. What is good for the tourists is not necessarily good for the residents. If local government is not looking out for the residents and focusing on dollars spent by the tourists, who is protecting the best interests of us? You only have to look to Ft Walton, Destin and PC to see whose interests are being protected.

 

[Rita]

Thanks for providing that information.

Unfortunately or fortunately (however you look at it) we live in a tourist area. What is good for the tourists is not necessarily good for the residents. If local government is not looking out for the residents and focusing on dollars spent by the tourists, who is protecting the best interests of us? You only have to look to Ft Walton, Destin and PC to see whose interests are being protected.

Stay active in your local government Supermom! Remember the "squeaky wheel" often works.


.

 

[Teresa]

Thanks for providing that information.

Unfortunately or fortunately (however you look at it) we live in a tourist area. What is good for the tourists is not necessarily good for the residents. If local government is not looking out for the residents and focusing on dollars spent by the tourists, who is protecting the best interests of us? You only have to look to Ft Walton, Destin and PC to see whose interests are being protected.

Thanks for the info Rita. I think if anyone has read up on Obama they will know his priorities lie in education and protection and everything having to do with the support of children and families. why would anyone try to say otherwise? I don't get it.