Jump to content

California (again)


Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, B-Man said:

California use of loopholes allows 800,000 people avoid food stamp work requirement

  Posted by Leslie Eastman    August 24, 2018
 
California massages statistics, producing a high unemployment rate during a time of YUGE prosperity.

 

Takes a real coward to walk away from this kind of progressive state-wide competence.

 

How can anyone be so cowardly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

And again.....

 

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/california-moves-to-mandate-female-board-directors-1535571904

 

Next it will be people of color, certain sexual orientation etc etc. Why is it the left that always wants to put people in boxes?  

 

Sounds like Delaware is going to have a lot more corporations registered under its laws very soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Koko78 said:

 

Sounds like Delaware is going to have a lot more corporations registered under its laws very soon.

 

Well it says where they are based not incorporated. I can see it now. XYZ Corporation moved from California because they hate women. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Well it says where they are based not incorporated. I can see it now. XYZ Corporation moved from California because they hate women. ?

 

The author likely doesn't know the difference. Without looking at the actual legislation (which I have zero interest in doing so), it's hard to say one way or the other.

 

However, if the criteria is "based" in CA, then everyone's 'headquarters' just moved to a PO Box in Vegas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/31/2018 at 6:18 AM, Chef Jim said:

And again.....

 

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/california-moves-to-mandate-female-board-directors-1535571904

 

Next it will be people of color, certain sexual orientation etc etc. Why is it the left that always wants to put people in boxes?  

 

The answer is simple: you need only one man on the board to say he identifies as a woman.

 

Period.

 

If children in CA public schools can get a note from their parents saying the child identifies as the opposite gender, and these children can consequently have full access to all things tied to that gender, then there is no reason it won't work in the boardroom. None.

 

Ridiculous. Yes. Will it work? Let's find out.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

The answer is simple: you need only one man on the board to say he identifies as a woman.

 

Period.

 

If children in CA public schools can get a note from their parents saying the child identifies as the opposite gender, and these children can consequently have full access to all things tied to that gender, then there is no reason it won't work in the boardroom. None.

 

Ridiculous. Yes. Will it work? Let's find out.

 

 

I don't know why that isn't more obvious to people. 

 

I don't know why it's not more obvious to idiot California legislators who embrace the whole "gender self-identification" thing while simultaneously pushing bills that require gender to be externally defined?  How the !@#$ do they not see this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, #34fan said:

 

90% of the porn you losers beat-off to is made right here in the Golden State!

 

 

Not me.  I got sick of the "contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer" Prop 65 warnings all over 'em.

  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DC Tom said:

I don't know why it's not more obvious to idiot California legislators who embrace the whole "gender self-identification" thing while simultaneously pushing bills that require gender to be externally defined?  How the !@#$ do they not see this?

 

Because they're too busy promoting  CA porn business to be smart enough to see the obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
×
×
  • Create New...