And reason #474710470 that San Francisco > *

[thistlechaser]

George W. Bush Sewage Plant makes the ballot! Quote:

-----
SAN FRANCISCO - A measure seeking to commemorate President Bush's years in office by slapping his name on a San Francisco sewage plant has qualified for the November ballot.

The measure certified Thursday would rename the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.

Supporters say the idea is to commemorate the mess they claim Bush has left behind by actions such as the war in Iraq.

Local Republicans say the plan stinks and they will oppose it.
-----

Ha ha ha ha, how great and fitting is that! I <3 this area. :D

Comments

[pure-trance.livejournal.com]

LOL

[hamburger.livejournal.com]

Oh that's hilarious.

Shame there's no way in heck it'll be allowed to happen. I'm pretty sure one can refuse to have something named after them if they're still alive. Vote or not.

[ani-mama.livejournal.com]

Only in America...Say what you want about the evils of American civilization. This is one of the few countries in the world where you can do this sort of thing about the current regime, without being beaten up by anonymous thugs or getting your business torched. ::Bush or no, would still rather be living here than Korea::

[sethimothy.livejournal.com]

Meh, I should find this clever and hilarious, yet I absolutely don't. It's just... so played out, at this point.

I bet this will get all sorts of publicity though.

[draymor.livejournal.com]

Haha I remember when this was proposed a while back... thought it was a joke but interesting that it's going through the motions >.>;

[quistie.livejournal.com]

Despite the flimsy excuse for the war in Iraq, you have to admit it was a daring success from a Machiavellian point of view. I mean, sure, that whole spreading-democracy-all-over-the-world is just a big fat lie, but at least Bush did secure cheap gasoline for Americans everywhere for generations to come.

Wait a minute...

[barahir-ffxi.livejournal.com]

Why bother voting on it? Apparently in CA the supreme court can overturn a legitimate vote by the majority if a minority complains. Since I imagine this would be approved by the majority of voters in CA, a vote seem highly unnecessary.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Apparently in CA the supreme court can overturn a legitimate vote by the majority if a minority complains.

Darned equal rights for all! Those gays, they want the same rights as everyone else! Why will they need them, when they're going straight to hell! Not in this country, I tell you! *shakes fist*

Silly right winger. :) *pats you*

Since I imagine this would be approved by the majority of voters in CA, a vote seem highly unnecessary.

I'd hope it'd be approved by the majority of people anywhere in the world...

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Ha ha ha. Have I mentioned lately that I love you? :D

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

I hope it succeeds! That'd be too amusing and too fitting. :D

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Probably.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

You do have a point! :)

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Oh man, that's too bad. Oh well, at least we're trying!

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Agreed!

[barahir-ffxi.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but see it's not really about that specifically... it's about democracy. People in CA went through the legitimate democratic process to get a law enacted (which is not all that easy a process). A court stepped in and suppressed their voice basically branding the democratic process insignificant.

What I find vaguely amusing is that i'm sure most of the people who support the California court's ability to overrule the voice of the people are the exact same people who railed against the Supreme Court's decision to do the exact same thing in the 2000 election.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

So if the majority of the people voted to disallow interracial marriages, you'd be okay with no court stepping in? What if some state decided to kick all black people out? All Irish? All (fill in the blank) group out?

To you, does the democratic process trump all? So if the majority of people in the US wanted to permit slavery to start again, that'd be okay with you? To take the vote from women?

This country would be in an even sorrier state if the courts didn't step in as needed to allow for progress. (And back when blacks/women couldn't vote, how many people would have called that change "progress"?)