🚀 go-pugleaf

Mike Schleeter (mschleeter@mayfield.hp.com) wrote:
>Opponents of 197 want to manipulate-away your right to choose whether or 
>not to hunt. 

Voting against Prop 197 does not mean hunting is gone.  It maintains
the status quo, so I don't see "right to choose" as the issue.

>Prop. 197 has nothing to do with animal management. 

Since animal management is often debated with regard to 197, I disagree
with this statement.

>Opponents simply want to force their will and their notions of morality 
>down the throat of everybody else.

That is a generalization of the Prop 197 opponent which might be true for
some set of opponents, but is not true for all.

>SEE THE TRUTH!!!

Better yet, read the proposition and compare it to the existing laws.
There is no need for Proposition 197.

>Vote "YES" on 197 to preserve the right of human beings to choose!!!

Voting no does not remove the right of human beings to choose.  A yes
vote does little to preserve anything dealing with choice.

>Vote "YES" on 197 to say "NO" to the environmental fascists!!!

This is probably the only reason to vote Yes that can not be directly
rebutted with facts.  I would guess that a yes vote on 197 could be
seen as a "NO" to the environmental fascists (among others).

>Vote "YES" on 197 to preserve personal freedom!!!

Yes on 197 does little to preserve personal freedom.  Seems that there
are other issues (like 200, 201, and 202) on the ballot that one could
claim affect personal freedom.  At least, it would be nice if you 
explained rather than shouting.

Mark Runyan