Page 8 of 37
California - Because it needs its own thread
Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2019 6:22 pm
by GORDON
You know what would solve.the homeless problem? Bulldozers and bonfires.
Nothing else,.short of magic, is going to.stop.it.
California - Because it needs its own thread
Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2019 6:24 pm
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote: You know what would solve.the homeless problem? Bulldozers and bonfires.
Nothing else,.short of magic, is going to.stop.it.
Sounds like a pretty final solution
California - Because it needs its own thread
Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2019 6:26 pm
by GORDON
Hugs and money are only watering the weed. A final solution is needed, but will never come, and the entire tree of humanity will suffer more and more under the burden of.more and more dead branches.
California - Because it needs its own thread
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:36 pm
by Vince
When you subsidize something, you get more of it.
California - Because it needs its own thread
Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:45 pm
by Leisher
A school in SF is going to spend $600K painting over a mural of George Washington.
Why? Because it has traumatized kids, and the SJWs behind this proved it by providing exactly zero examples of traumatized kids. In reality, polled kids at the school wanted the mural to stay or didn't give a fuck one way or the other.
Read the article about the original intent of the piece, and it gets interesting.
The SJWs also claimed it offends Native Americans, yet when a Native American in attendance at whatever meeting was held said it didn't and she didn't want the mural removed, she was ignored.
When the "snapback" happens in this country, it's going to get bloody.
California - Because it needs its own thread
Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:08 pm
by GORDON
Read today that some UN person visited San Fran and said the squalor reminded her of Calcutta.
I should have linked it.
California - Because it needs its own thread
Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:09 pm
by Vince
We really need a biblical disaster.
California - Because it needs its own thread
Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:11 pm
by GORDON
California - Because it needs its own thread
Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:14 pm
by TheCatt
I have a custom HOSTS file that removes a lot of advertising/spam/hacker DNS entries. That blog is already in the list, so I cannot read it.
California - Because it needs its own thread
Posted: Tue Jun 25, 2019 4:18 pm
by Leisher
Did I mention that part of the reason removing the mural will cost so much is because they're required by state law to do an environmental impact study before fucking painting?
This is why the Democrats entire platform is based upon social issues. When it comes to economics they are worse than the Republicans, and that's
really saying something.
California - Because it needs its own thread
Posted: Sat Jul 06, 2019 12:39 am
by Leisher
Earthquakes hitting Cali.
You doing all right out there Troy?
California - Because it needs its own thread
Posted: Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:30 am
by TheCatt
Troy's pretty far north from those, no?
California - Because it needs its own thread
Posted: Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:52 am
by TheCatt
California - Because it needs its own thread
Posted: Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:24 pm
by Leisher
The hedgehog's a legend.
California - Because it needs its own thread
Posted: Sat Jul 06, 2019 5:19 pm
by Troy
All good, didn't even feel anything. A couple states over, by east coast standards.
California - Because it needs its own thread
Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:59 am
by Vince
"This whole gay marriage thing is going to lead to the attempt to normalize pedophilia."
"You're a ridiculous homophobe!"
CA Democrats Author Bill to Protect Sex Offenders Who Lure Minors
California - Because it needs its own thread
Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:19 am
by TheCatt
Yes, you are being a ridiculous homophobe. The bill is to equalize oral/anal consensual minor-sex (statutory rape) with vaginal consensual minor-sex (statutory rape). We can certainly argue about how that should be treated, but I see no reason that oral/anal would be treated differently from vaginal.
The bill would make it so that the judge would have discretion of the sex offender registry, instead of being automatic. I would think a conservative, libertarian-leaning person would approve of not punishing people beyond their crime + time (sex offender registries), but maybe I misunderstand.
California - Because it needs its own thread
Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:42 pm
by Leisher
TheCatt wrote: The bill is to equalize oral/anal consensual minor-sex (statutory rape) with vaginal consensual minor-sex (statutory rape). We can certainly argue about how that should be treated, but I see no reason that oral/anal would be treated differently from vaginal.
Fine with that.
TheCatt wrote: The bill would make it so that the judge would have discretion of the sex offender registry, instead of being automatic.
Not fine with that.
The 10 year stipulation is rather fucked up. Call me crazy, but 20 years olds don't need to have sex with 10 year olds. Judges certainly don't need a loophole to not punish them or have them register as a sex offender.
People caught pissing outside, an 18-19 year old that sleeps with a 16 year old, someone who gets seen naked by a neighbor, etc. shouldn't need to register as sex offenders. That 10 year rule is really fucked up. I don't know how anyone thought that was a good cut off. 18-8 is the low end 15-25 is the high end. I'm not ok with either of those.
TheCatt wrote: I would think a conservative, libertarian-leaning person would approve of not punishing people beyond their crime + time (sex offender registries), but maybe I misunderstand.
IMHO, if you're 18 and you get caught fucking an 8 year old, the only reasonable and fair punishment is death.
California - Because it needs its own thread
Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:48 pm
by TheCatt
Leisher wrote: Not fine with that.
The 10 year stipulation is rather fucked up. Call me crazy, but 20 years olds don't need to have sex with 10 year olds. Judges certainly don't need a loophole to not punish them or have them register as a sex offender.
...
I don't know how anyone thought that was a good cut off. 18-8 is the low end 15-25 is the high end. I'm not ok with either of those.
The bill does
not allow for that discretion for victims who are 10 or 8 years old. It's for teens who are 15 to 17 only. So 15-25 is covered (sketchy), but also 15-18 (Reasonable)
California - Because it needs its own thread
Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:00 pm
by Vince
Leisher wrote:
TheCatt wrote: The bill would make it so that the judge would have discretion of the sex offender registry, instead of being automatic.
Not fine with that.
The 10 year stipulation is rather fucked up. Call me crazy, but 20 years olds don't need to have sex with 10 year olds. Judges certainly don't need a loophole to not punish them or have them register as a sex offender.
People caught pissing outside, an 18-19 year old that sleeps with a 16 year old, someone who gets seen naked by a neighbor, etc. shouldn't need to register as sex offenders. That 10 year rule is really fucked up. I don't know how anyone thought that was a good cut off. 18-8 is the low end 15-25 is the high end. I'm not ok with either of those.
This. I'm A-OK with tightening the laws up so that the sex isn't discriminatory between hetero and homo. Not okay with just taking it to the lowest common denominator to do it.
