I got called by Cameron at 714-532-2536.  The same guy just called my wife.  At 9PM.

I may call him back at, say, 5 am.  I encourage all IHB users to do so as an act of civil disobendence for discourtesy.

I didn’t have the heart to tell him I was gay.

This is a public service announcement

If you hate getting those phone calls, or phone calls from any other campaign, party, etc., go re-register and do not fill in your phone number.  You do not need to fill in your phone number when you register.  It takes a cycle or two to get your number purged from all the lists (because some people buy old data), but you will eventually stop getting calls - unless, of course, you make a campaign contribution and give your phone number with that or otherwise provide a party or candidate your phone number.

End of public service announcement

Sadly, I won’t be getting a call from Cameron.  I would have loved to discuss the inconsistencies of Mormon theology with him.

You say that like a “Do Not Call” number exists for my CELL PHONE.  Plus he had my name.  And the Mrs.  Scary.

I just reread what you wrote.  Doh!  Got it.

EvaLSeraphim - 24 October 2008 04:44 AM

Sadly, I won’t be getting a call from Cameron.  I would have loved to discuss the inconsistencies of Mormon theology with him.

Totally OT:

My poker buddy is a philosophy professor.  He loves it when LDS missionaries show up.  He’s got old versions of The Book of Mormon that, um, don’t exactly jive with what they are studying today.  The visit goes something like this…....

“Oh, hey guys!  Come on in!  Sit down.  Have you seen (whips out several copies) this?  How about this?”

He literally relishes the oppourtuinity to tap on the glass….......and open thier eyes to an all new reality.

We got the call as well, the better half was about to yank the phone out the wall after getting the call.  She told the telemarketer we’re voting NO on 8 and so is my entire family, in fact, no one I know is voting yes on 8, so don’t call back, ever.

It was pretty funny..

Bleh, you guys have it all wrong. You want them to call you, you want to talk to them for as long as you can, and ask as many questions about how they feel about denying the rights of women and blacks to vote. If that doesn’t work, then throw in that the bible says women should not speak at all when they are in church, and see if they support that and abide by that scripture they hold so true to their beliefs. (Hat tip to a certain fish on that one). The longer you keep them on the phone, the less time they will have to call others.

I saw some yes on 8 people rallying at Tustin and Meats Ave., across from Trader Joes none the less, and I wondered if they realize that we will be looking back at this intolerance in history the same way we do segregation and a woman’s right to vote? Gay marriage will not be taught in schools, just like marriage between a man and woman is not taught in schools, and neither will gay marriage. But one day the ignorance and intolerance this will be taught, just like the ignorance and intolerance of the rights of women and “blacks” are taught. We will look back on this in history the same way we shake our heads at the fact we denied women and blacks the right to vote. I can’t believe I am taking the time to vote on this, when my time and vote could be spent on way… way… more important issues. I am truly stunned by the ignorance of this.

They are making phone calls out of desperation. Prop. 8 is not going to pass. Also, all of their yard signs mysteriously disappeared along the route ridden by the 7 C’s, so they had to go to the phones.

Same-Sex Marriage Ban Losing – Measures to Restrict Abortion for Minors, Reform Redistricting Fail to Reach 50 Percent

SAN FRANCISCO, California, October 22, 2008 — Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that would end same-sex marriage in California, is losing among likely voters, 52 percent to 44 percent, according to a statewide survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) with funding from The James Irvine Foundation. With two weeks to go before Election Day, support also remains below the 50 percent threshold for two other closely watched initiatives, Proposition 4, which would require a parent to be notified before a minor can have an abortion, and Proposition 11, which would give a commission of voters the authority to draw legislative districts.

In the presidential campaign, the Democratic ticket of Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Joe Biden has increased its lead over Republican contenders Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin to 23 points (56% to 33%), a 13-point gain in the last month. Independent voters, women, Latinos, and younger voters support Obama-Biden by a wide margin. Party loyalty remains high, with Democratic voters’ support of the Democratic ticket (89%) increasing by 5 points in the last month. A strong majority of Republican likely voters (75%) back their party’s nominees, but that support has dropped 8 points since last month.

“A big turnout for the top-of-the-ticket presidential race could have a significant impact on the rest of the ballot, from the propositions to legislative races,” says Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO.

graphrix - 24 October 2008 09:38 AM

I saw some yes on 8 people rallying at Tustin and Meats Ave., across from Trader Joes none the less, and I wondered if they realize that we will be looking back at this intolerance in history the same way we do segregation and a woman’s right to vote?

I would guess the answer would be “no”.

New today….Yes on 8 resorting to scare tactics…..

PROP 8 CAMPAIGN THREATENS BUSINESS LEADERS
NO on Prop 8 Campaign Calls for Threats to Stop

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – 10/23/2008 – Today, a San Diego business leader against Proposition 8 announced he received a letter from the Proposition 8 Executive Committee requesting funding and revoking his endorsement of the NO on Prop 8 campaign.

The Prop 8 campaign, which continues to lie about schools, children and tax-exempt status, has now escalated activities to threaten and intimidate businesses opposed to Prop 8.

“On October 20, 2008, I received a certified-mail letter for the Prop 8 campaign requesting I withdraw my support of Equality California (EQCA) and demanding that I donate the same amount of money that I donated to the NO on Prop 8 campaign,” said Jim Abbott, Managing Partner of Abbott & Associates/Abbott Realty Group of San Diego, Calif. “The Prop 8 letter was very threatening if I chose to continue to fully exercise my right to support the NO on Prop 8 campaign.”

“This type of outrageous scare tactic from Prop 8 is intolerable. As a business owner, practicing Catholic, and civic leader who has served on the EQCA board for nearly three years, I believe in equality and rights for all…especially for my employees, 25 percent of whom are LGBT,” Abbott said.

“This is just the latest example of the appalling dirty politics being conducted by the Prop 8 campaign,” said Geoff Kors, NO on Prop 8 Executive Committee Member.

snip from the letter:

  “Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. The names of any companies…that choose not to donate…to ProtectMarriage.com…will be published.

  …We will contact you shortly to discuss your contribution.”

Virtually every major newspaper in California has editorialized against Prop 8, stating that “the state constitution shouldn’t be used to turn some people into second-class citizens. Vote “no” on Proposition 8.” (Fresno Bee) For a complete list of NO on 8 endorsements, visit www.noonprop8.com.

*  This info pissed me off so much, I just donated another $1000.00

No on 8.  Don’t Discriminate.

Trooper - 24 October 2008 04:38 PM

The names of any companies…that choose not to donate…to ProtectMarriage.com…will be published.

OMG! Yes… we will shame you in public that you did not support us. How hypocritical to judge and shame like that. Sad that they are so ignorant that they think the threat of shaming a company is going to work, when in fact most people and companies would be proud to not support the intolerance. Just like they try to shame people for being gay, damage that they don’t even realize they cause, but really there is no shame in being gay.

“The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

Mark 12:31

The hypocrisy that is happening on the yes side is truly appalling.

graphrix - 24 October 2008 07:01 PM

Trooper - 24 October 2008 04:38 PM

The names of any companies…that choose not to donate…to ProtectMarriage.com…will be published.

OMG! Yes… we will shame you in public that you did not support us. How hypocritical to judge and shame like that. Sad that they are so ignorant that they think the threat of shaming a company is going to work, when in fact most people and companies would be proud to not support the intolerance. Just like they try to shame people for being gay, damage that they don’t even realize they cause, but really there is no shame in being gay.

“The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

Mark 12:31

The hypocrisy that is happening on the yes side is truly appalling.

The “shaming” seems to be happening on both sides. Californians Against Hate - “Dishonor Roll”.

SoCal78 - 24 October 2008 09:07 PM

The “shaming” seems to be happening on both sides. Californians Against Hate - “Dishonor Roll”.

You certainly have a point, there. 

I think what I didn’t understand is why the Yes side would publish a list of people who did not donate to them.  I can think of many reasons why a business might not donate to a particular campaign that has nothing to do with agreeing / disagreeing with the issue.  That’s likely to be one heck of a long list - to the point of not being useful.  Oh well.

Not to hijack this thread but today I received a pre-recorded call that thought was going to be a campaign/prop call.  It instead turned out to be call touting the BOGO sale at Payless Shoe Source.  I found it pretty bizarre and had to hang up quickly.

EvaLSeraphim - 25 October 2008 12:45 AM

SoCal78 - 24 October 2008 09:07 PM

The “shaming” seems to be happening on both sides. Californians Against Hate - “Dishonor Roll”.

You certainly have a point, there. 

I think what I didn’t understand is why the Yes side would publish a list of people who did not donate to them.  I can think of many reasons why a business might not donate to a particular campaign that has nothing to do with agreeing / disagreeing with the issue.  That’s likely to be one heck of a long list - to the point of not being useful.  Oh well.

Thanks. I read the article again and I read another one online about the same issue. I don’t see where they are sending letters to businesses who haven’t donated to anyone. As far as I know the letters were only sent to those who donated to No on 8. Does it say that in another article?

ohnelly - 25 October 2008 01:29 AM

Not to hijack this thread but today I received a pre-recorded call that thought was going to be a campaign/prop call.  It instead turned out to be call touting the BOGO sale at Payless Shoe Source.  I found it pretty bizarre and had to hang up quickly.

I just got the same exact phone call!!!

SoCal78 - 24 October 2008 09:07 PM

graphrix - 24 October 2008 07:01 PM

Trooper - 24 October 2008 04:38 PM

The names of any companies…that choose not to donate…to ProtectMarriage.com…will be published.

OMG! Yes… we will shame you in public that you did not support us. How hypocritical to judge and shame like that. Sad that they are so ignorant that they think the threat of shaming a company is going to work, when in fact most people and companies would be proud to not support the intolerance. Just like they try to shame people for being gay, damage that they don’t even realize they cause, but really there is no shame in being gay.

“The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

Mark 12:31

The hypocrisy that is happening on the yes side is truly appalling.

The “shaming” seems to be happening on both sides. Californians Against Hate - “Dishonor Roll”.

That is a good point. It’s sad that either side would stoop to posting who or who has not donated. I am just as disappointed in each of the sides for doing this.

Sigh.

“That is a good point. It’s sad that either side would stoop to posting who or who has not donated. I am just as disappointed in each of the sides for doing this.”

It is o.k. I don’t know about you guys, but I don’t mind that either side makes a list of who donates to the opposite side. To some people, they want to support businesses that support their causes and others prefer to take their business elsewhere. People on both sides like having that option and I think that is o.k. Now, I am not for extortion of any kind. In other words - if I see that someone contributed to whatever cause, I would prefer they did it because they believe in the cause and not because their arm was twisted. I think if you’re not going to do it for the right reasons then don’t do it at all.

It is o.k. I don’t know about you guys, but I don’t mind that either side makes a list of who donates to the opposite side. To some people, they want to support businesses that support their causes and others prefer to take their business elsewhere. People on both sides like having that option and I think that is o.k. Now, I am not for extortion of any kind. In other words - if I see that someone contributed to whatever cause, I would prefer they did it because they believe in the cause and not because their arm was twisted. I think if you’re not going to do it for the right reasons then don’t do it at all.

Now this, I think, we can all agree on.

However….the letter that was sent to Mr. Abbott was threatening in nature.  That’s the difference.  “If you don’t…..blah, blah, blah”.

The site you linked just showed who contributed what….. it’s public information. (Graph, who’s that dude from Orange?)

I just don’t agree with the intimidation.  It shouldn’t happen from either side.

And like I said, if that’s their Plan B…resorting to intimidation…..it’s backfiring big time b/c contributions to No on 8 went wild when that hit the web.  I couldn’t run to my wallet fast enough.

Thank you for the pleasant exchange SoCal….I’m pretty sure I know which way you’ll be voting, but you have put forth some very valid points.

My roommate who does a lot of local driving was yelling haters at the yes on 8 sign wavers. The Yes on 8 group had a couple of dozen people here in RSM waving banners etc on Antonio. Then what made me happy is the next day there was a group on No on 8 people in the same spot doing the same thing. I honked in support. Neither my roommate or me are gay but we have a lot of close friends who are and we are voting no.

The most baffling poster I saw at the Meats/Tustin location says “Prop 8=Less Government”. I just don’t understand the logic, of course because there isn’t any. These people want more government, they just want one that agrees with them and imposes it on everyone else. I made sure as we passed this intersection that my four year old son heard all about how these people standing on the corner are not our friends, nor or they friends of his beloved preschool classmate who has two daddies.

tmare - 26 October 2008 12:10 AM

The most baffling poster I saw at the Meats/Tustin location says “Prop 8=Less Government”. I just don’t understand the logic, of course because there isn’t any. These people want more government, they just want one that agrees with them and imposes it on everyone else. I made sure as we passed this intersection that my four year old son heard all about how these people standing on the corner are not our friends, nor or they friends of his beloved preschool classmate who has two daddies.

It seems to me Prop 8 proponents are trying to swing some of the lazy vote their way by confusing people on which issue prop 8 is. If you put up enough signs saying Prop 8 =Protect Children/Less Government/World Peace you are bound to pick up a few votes your way from people who haven’t bothered to research the issue. This is probably less effective on Prop 8 as both sides have really hit the airwaves on this issue.

The nutters I saw yesterday had signs that said “Yes on 8 = Religious Freedom.” I was appalled and gave them all a thumbs down. My husband told me he was a little more vocal and colorful with his thoughts on these folks trying to impose their bible on our constitution. What really bothered me though is the signs on the medians, on public property, the property that my tax dollars pay for, so I removed the one on 17th and placed it where it belongs.

SoCal78 - 25 October 2008 01:35 AM

Thanks. I read the article again and I read another one online about the same issue. I don’t see where they are sending letters to businesses who haven’t donated to anyone. As far as I know the letters were only sent to those who donated to No on 8. Does it say that in another article?

That was my take-away from Troop’s posting above where it said

snip from the letter:

“Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. The names of any companies…that choose not to donate…to ProtectMarriage.com…will be published.

But now as I read it more closely, I think that might have been directed only towards people who donated to No on 8, maybe?

I saw a group of people who looked like the extended family of a mormon polygamy sect protesting on PCH/McArthur last night. I thought it was a joke or that maybe they were celebrating Halloween early.  If my pregnant wife wasn’t in the car I would have gave them the bird…out of respect for her I gave them the more courteous thumbs down along with the most disgusted face I could muster.

Why oh why has the Republican party allowed themselves to be highjacked by the intolerant self righteous a-holes?

I’m voting Yes on Prop 8.

Just kidding.

Is there actually on this board who isn’t going to vote No?

BTW: I got one of those Yes on 8 calls to and the guy ended it with… “Vote your conscience”. So… uh… what was he trying to imply?