|
Dead Reckoning posted:Rephrasing it as "whether or not breaking the law is good depends on whether or not you do it for the right reasons" doesn't actually change the substance of your argument. You realize those are the exact same rationalizations used to argue that free states must return escaped slaves? Returning escaped slaves is not a matter of personal belief, it is a matter of protecting a traditional institution thousands of years old. Becoming a government official means accepting a responsibility to execute the law irrespective of your personal feelings about slavery, because not everyone agrees with every law and civilization is about agreeing to follow a set of common rules. It turns out that the proper role of government in respecting competing rights and interests while guaranteeing the security of its citizens and their chattel property has been a contentious topic for the whole of human history, so maybe you should take a step back from declaring that you, personally have deduced the one true answer.
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 07:50 |
|
|
No, he does not realize that, because he about as self-aware as a bag of nails.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 11:05
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:mostly I'm just hoping that the light will come on and you'll realize that declaring your personal beliefs to be inarguable moral truths does not actually make them so. Someone treating their moral judgments as moral judgments? Well, I never! Haven't they heard that only the status quo is defensible?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I was going to write a bunch of sarcastic poo poo about how gay marriage is not a matter of personal belief, it is a matter of protecting a traditional institution thousands of years ol-- You realize you can't un-assert an argument by tacking "I was going to write a bunch of sarcastic poo poo" in front of it, right? Your argument is dumb and wrong and your Trumpian mindset may have won most of the country, but it lost the West Coast, bigly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Yeah my favorite part is the very Trump-like assertion that "I was going to say" and then saying it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
laws are legal opinions are all equally valid, there's no such thing as one opinion being better than another marriage is ruined if the gays get to have it
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Slicing the foreskin off little boys is 100% ok because grandpa's grandpa did it. Removing the clit from teenaged girls is ok because grandma's grandma ruined her clit with a knife. Thousand year old traditions are 100% immutable and can never ever be challenged or changed, true fact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:laws are legal Psh, you only say that because you disagree with them. If you asked them, they'd say their opinion was better than yours!
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
On a topic other than concern-trolling the thread, apparently Newman's leading over Chang now, and it's been sloooowly growing. We may well have a Democratic supermajority for the state.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
I voted for Newman but man I got shitloads of mailers from some oil company superpac against him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:On a topic other than concern-trolling the thread, apparently Newman's leading over Chang now, and it's been sloooowly growing. We may well have a Democratic supermajority for the state. edit: apparently it was a section of a bill; section got struck out and rest of the bill passed quote:The third major component of the bill -- a target to reduce oil use in cars and trucks by 50 percent over the next 15 years -- was struck down earlier in the week. The measure was strongly opposed by oil industry groups, including the Western States Petroleum Association, which insisted that the target would cripple California’s economy and even lead to bans on SUVs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 11:11
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Does that mean we could pass that law about 50% fossil fuels in the state or whatever (can't remember exactly what it was) that failed last time around? quote:and even lead to bans on SUVs. Jesus Christ, I wish.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:On a topic other than concern-trolling the thread, apparently Newman's leading over Chang now, and it's been sloooowly growing. We may well have a Democratic supermajority for the state.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Jesus Christ, I wish.  , they make it sound like a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
FMguru posted:In less-great news, it looks like Applegate's challenge to Darrell Issa is going to fall juuuust short. Dammit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Issa went on Breitbart news saying he's down with Trump draining the swamp. Issa is literally the picture definition of The Swamp. You'd think with him narrowly winning this time around he'd soften some of his shitbaggery but nope.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
This might be a shot in the dark, but does anyone here know something about the history of Mormonism in California? Specifically Sam Brannan, early Mormon settlers, the Gold Rush era. I am looking for some sources outside of Wikipedia...
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
Fall Sick and Die posted:This might be a shot in the dark, but does anyone here know something about the history of Mormonism in California? Specifically Sam Brannan, early Mormon settlers, the Gold Rush era. I am looking for some sources outside of Wikipedia... I don't know poo poo about Mormons in California, but there was one particularly unique episode that I got to learn about when I worked in San Diego's Old Town - See, in 1846, some ultra-nationalist by the name of Polk goes to war with Mexico for about 90% of what is today known as the American West. The Mormons, who had been living as a quasi-fiefdom state for a while decided they would do their part, as good Americans. One problem though: Iowa is today -charitably- the middle of loving nowhere, and this was even more so back in 1836. So the Mormons raised a I believe the vast majority of the men that came with him stayed in California, having some pivotal influence when the Gold Rush began in earnest the next year. A Festivus Miracle fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Nov 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
San Bernardino was to be the second largest outpost of Mormons outside of Deseret, due to California's comparative non-shittiness in relation to Salt Lake, Utah. Joseph Smith called all of the Mormons back from California in in like 1860ish though, fearing that they would break off and become a more proposerus Mormon community, again due to California's comparative non-shittiness in relation to Salt Lake, Utah. That's a pretty lovely summation but it is why to this day there is a huge concentration of Mormons in the Inland Empire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
I had done some reading about Sam Brennan, a Mormon newspaperman in San Francisco, and how he'd tried to convince Brigham Young to settle in California rather than Salt Lake City but the guy would have none of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
jeeves posted:California's comparative non-shittiness in relation to Salt Lake I didnt even really read the rest, but sometimes true truths need quoting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
Fall Sick and Die posted:I had done some reading about Sam Brennan, a Mormon newspaperman in San Francisco, and how he'd tried to convince Brigham Young to settle in California rather than Salt Lake City but the guy would have none of it. Thank you brigham young
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
What's this poo poo I'm hearing about, "Oh prop 57 makes assault on a cop a misdemeanor!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 08:19
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
Aeka 2.0 posted:What's this poo poo I'm hearing about, "Oh prop 57 makes assault on a cop a misdemeanor!" Sounds related to the poo poo about how it would flood the streets with kid diddlers, arsonists, and whatever else you can come up with that sounds awful.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
Where should I be watching for updates on the Newman-Chang race?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
fronz posted:Where should I be watching for updates on the Newman-Chang race? http://sos.ca.gov
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:What's this poo poo I'm hearing about, "Oh prop 57 makes assault on a cop a misdemeanor!" 57 offers early parole for anyone convicted of a non-violent felony, but does not at any point define what constitutes a "non-violent felony." The only way the term is defined in CA law is PC 667.5, which reduces parole credits for persons convicted of certain specific crimes. The argument is that the proposition purports to offer early release for non-violent criminals, but that due to the authors' failure to identify what constitutes a non-violent offense, the law makes eligible for early release people convicted of crimes like assault w/ a deadly weapon on a peace officer, regular ADW, battery w/ serious bodily injury, solicitation to commit murder, or exploding a destructive device with intent to cause injury, all of which are violent felonies by any normative definition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
All that voter fraud is paying off https://twitter.com/passantino/status/803410122844180480
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Vote fraud failed to boot Issa, though. We need to fraud harder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
maybe the close election in his district will cause him to moderate his posit-ahahahahahahaha who am i kidding.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:What's this poo poo I'm hearing about, "Oh prop 57 makes assault on a cop a misdemeanor!" Dead Reckoning posted:It doesn't make it a misdo, but the language of the proposition would appear to consider it a non-violent felony. To expand on this, they are eligible for parole once they serve the full length of their primary sentence. So let's say you get three years for hitting a cop, plus ten more years for the dozen or so enhancements put on (extra years for gang affiliations or prior convictions or whatever else the DA can tack on there). Under the new law, you are eligible for parole in three years because that's what the primary charge called for. And you only get out if the parole board agrees that you're not a risk to the community. Granted, the parole board is pretty lenient, but the nonsense about cop killers flooding the streets is the usual BS you get whenever something like this passes. And nothing in prop 57 changed what is or isn't a misdemeanor or felony, so if you hear anyone saying that you know they don't actually know what the law says.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
Also, unironically, the cops need to be hit more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Also, unironically, the cops need to be hit more. A good post. I'm quoting it because I normally get probated when I express a similar sentiment so I'll let you say it instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
I'm kind of glad Newman won aside from the supermajority. He's an endearingly weird guy who clearly put together large parts of his campaign website personally. I mean look at the picture his campaign gave the LA times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
Well, it looks like Rep. Xavier Becerra is going to be the new Attorney General to replace Harris.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Well, it looks like Rep. Xavier Becerra is going to be the new Attorney General to replace Harris. I wonder if he'd consider running for governor against Newsom? Mind you, I still consider myself a part of the Chiang gang.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Bizarro Watt posted:I wonder if he'd consider running for governor against Newsom? I think it's more likely that he runs for reelection as AG in 2018, but who knows. Also he's already made a "come at me bro" statement towards Trump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:I think it's more likely that he runs for reelection as AG in 2018, but who knows. Been real proud of CA the past month
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
Becerra's pretty cool (at least in the active in the community outreach and appearing to be available to constituents part) but what are his leanings? I'm asking because we've had like the assistant DA or something come to a local school here in LA and basically say "Pot has no medicinal value and we are going to close down all these shops, especially the ones by schools". So I'm wondering how much of that is repeated in the LA politics circle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 07:50 |
|
|
FCKGW posted:Been real proud of CA the past month Yeah sweeping in a democratic super majority and having the collective state government flip the double bird at Trump has cheered me up considerably. For the most part we also nailed it with the propositions, the results of which I was absolutely dreading given the sheer number of them. The whole "let's accelerate the death penalty and make death row inmates slaves" vote still stings but this election made it clear that as a nation we're just not quite there yet in regards to abolishing the death penalty so maybe it was unrealistic of me to assume California would be so drastically ahead of the curve 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:50
|
|
