California (again)

[IDBillzFan]

20 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

They’re everywhere. Not just in downtown LA or SF. 

 

This is kind of the sad truth. SFO, LA and NY get the photos ops because their policies have led 10s of thousands of people to congregate in large pockets. But go to Portland, or Seattle, or Spokane, or Albuquerque or Denver, or many smaller cities, and they're everywhere. 

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

Startup rents bunkbeds in San Francisco for $1,200 per month.

 

 

.

 

 

The Tendernob?  What the ***** is that?

28 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

The point I was trying to make is that this is relatively new phenomenon. If we are at full employment and if thousands of immigrants are pouring into California (and working and living here), then what’s the reason for all of these ‘privileged’ white people to roaming the streets like the walking dead all day long??? They’re everywhere. Not just in downtown LA or SF. To answer my own question, it has to be a sudden, new drug epidemic. All of these folks weren’t released from institutions in the last couple of years. And they all didn’t suddenly lose their jobs! The economy is booming. We can fix this if we attack the root cause. Building homes for homeless people is not the answer! That’s ‘fixing’ the symptom, not curing the disease.

 

I've lived here for nearly 40 years.  Mostly in SoCal but a few years in NorCal. This is not new.  There has ALWAYS been a homeless problem here.  I'm not sure if the percentage increase is that much more now but it's always been here.  I think the issue is it's now gotten to the breaking point.  

[3rdnlng]

13 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

The Tendernob?  What the ***** is that?

 

I've lived here for nearly 40 years.  Mostly in SoCal but a few years in NorCal. This is not new.  There has ALWAYS been a homeless problem here.  I'm not sure if the percentage increase is that much more now but it's always been here.  I think the issue is it's now gotten to the breaking point.  

Lower Knob Hill. Near Lafayette Park.

[IDBillzFan]

5 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

I've lived here for nearly 40 years.  Mostly in SoCal but a few years in NorCal. This is not new.  There has ALWAYS been a homeless problem here.  I'm not sure if the percentage increase is that much more now but it's always been here.  I think the issue is it's now gotten to the breaking point.  

 

The breaking point for CA, unfortunately, was an LA deputy city attorney (Elizabeth Greenwood) getting diagnosed with Typhus.

 

A quick Google search says Greenwood says she has a Juris Doctorate from Loyola and a bachelor's degree in Quantitative Economics and Political Science from Cal State Dominguez Hills.

 

I'm no lawyer holding a juris doctorate, but I'm pretty damn sure she didn't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to earn some top-scale law degree so she could step over feces and rats on her way to the office every day.

 

Now granted, she can leave and find work elsewhere, but first she needs to win her $5M lawsuit against the city.

 

 

 

[Azalin]

11 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

I've always heard that the Reagan administration was directly responsible because of Stockman's budget cuts.

 

Jesus...I tried to google it, and the first three pages I got were anti-Trump stories from liberal news sites like Mother Jones. 

 

I heard all kinds of reasons why Reagan was responsible, but I've come to believe that he gets the blame largely because it happened during his administration, not as a direct result of his administrations policies.

[SoCal Deek]

20 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

The Tendernob?  What the ***** is that?

 

I've lived here for nearly 40 years.  Mostly in SoCal but a few years in NorCal. This is not new.  There has ALWAYS been a homeless problem here.  I'm not sure if the percentage increase is that much more now but it's always been here.  I think the issue is it's now gotten to the breaking point.  

I’ve been here since 1981 and I would disagree. There’s been a significant increase in the last four or five years. It’s gotten to the point where nobody even blinks anymore. These walking dead don’t ask you for money and nobody makes eye contact. They’re like drugged out zombies roaming every community; not just the urban centers.

[Chef Jim]

18 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’ve been here since 1981 and I would disagree. There’s been a significant increase in the last four or five years. It’s gotten to the point where nobody even blinks anymore. These walking dead don’t ask you for money and nobody makes eye contact. They’re like drugged out zombies roaming every community; not just the urban centers.

 

It’s been like that in the Bay Area for a very long time. We were visiting 15 plus years ago. We were in North Beach and the power in the whole ciru went out.  We walked to our hotel off Market and it was like Escape From New York. No exaggeration. 

[B-Man]

[Chef Jim]

32 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Those of us with an ounce of a brain knew this.  This was the last person I wanted "running" this state.  I almost feel like pulling all my money out of my retirement accounts and pay the taxes now.  As a financial advisor I do not approve of this message so consult your personal advisor/tax advisor before doing something stupid.  

 

<Enter the BigMcD in 3.....2.....1......  to say something childish and extremely boring.>

Edited June 8, 2019 by Chef Jim

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Those of us with an ounce of a brain knew this.  This was the last person I wanted "running" this state.  I almost feel like pulling all my money out of my retirement accounts and pay the taxes now.  As a financial advisor I do not approve of this message so consult your personal advisor/tax advisor before doing something stupid.  

Roth conversion, hypothetically speaking?  That hypothetically might hypothetically make the most hypothetical sense if you're planning to hypotheticall stick around for a while.  A fellow I know cashed out about 8-10 years ago, paid the mill or so to the king and is so happy to have followed that course of action. 

[Chef Jim]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Roth conversion, hypothetically speaking?  That hypothetically might hypothetically make the most hypothetical sense if you're planning to hypotheticall stick around for a while.  A fellow I know cashed out about 8-10 years ago, paid the mill or so to the king and is so happy to have followed that course of action. 

 

Yes hypothetically.  However my taxes will in reality likely be lower during retirement because I'll be making less money and the first couple years of expenses will be from after tax cash I'll have piled up. I think more importantly for him he rid himself of the pesky 70 1/2 rule.  I know they are talking about raising the age and reworking the amortization table on that.  With people living so much longer the RMD's are draining their IRA's too quickly. **

 

**The above message was for illustrative purposes only.  Please consult your advisor before doing something stupid.  I mean really really stupid. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

7 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Yes hypothetically.  However my taxes will in reality likely be lower during retirement because I'll be making less money and the first couple years of expenses will be from after tax cash I'll have piled up. I think more importantly for him he rid himself of the pesky 70 1/2 rule.  I know they are talking about raising the age and reworking the amortization table on that.  With people living so much longer the RMD's are draining their IRA's too quickly. **

 

**The above message was for illustrative purposes only.  Please consult your advisor before doing something stupid.  I mean really really stupid. 

If by "advisor", you mean Google, we are on the same page.  It tells you everything it wants you to know. 

[Chef Jim]

5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

If by "advisor", you mean Google, we are on the same page.  It tells you everything it wants you to know. 

 

I remember years ago when I first got in the advisory business I google something to do with estate planning.  It didn't sound right.  It was from a site in the UK.  LOL 

[Koko78]

3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

If by "advisor", you mean Google, we are on the same page.  It tells you everything it wants you to know. 

 

Google?!? Real men get their bad investment advice from YouTube.

[B-Man]

 

 

"California" won't pay anything.................Californians will

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

"California" won't pay anything.................Californians will

 

 

.

 

I like it.  No more "migrants" dying in CBP custody...just release them all in CA, and they'll be cured.

[Tiberius]

Pretty soon you guys will be complaining about Texas being terrible, even though it will be better under Democratic rule. 

 

How's West Virginia doing now? 

6 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

"California" won't pay anything.................Californians will

 

 

.

Pro-Life policy 

[B-Man]

 

[B-Man]

Awesome. . . . . . California Democrats Redefine First Amendment

The recent Democratic Convention in San Francisco produced all sorts of popcorn-munching moments for conservatives looking for a few laughs. Many of these came from the slate of 2020 presidential primary candidates who showed up to flail wildly at Joe Biden, despite the fact that he was on the other side of the country. But the big shindig wasn’t just speeches and photo ops. The various committees had plenty of official business to attend to, including passing a new batch of resolutions for the coming election cycle.

 

Most of it appears to have been fairly rote material that you’d expect from the California franchise of the party, but one, in particular, has caught some media attention. It appears that the dreary old First Amendment we’ve all been stuck with for centuries just isn’t working for California Democrats anymore. As such, they decided to insert some modifications. Josh Hammer at The Daily Wire has the details. 

 

 

The Daily Wire has dug a little more deeply into the California Democratic Party’s resolutions produced as a result of the convention, and the Golden State’s Democrats appear to have a wee bit of a free speech problem. Specifically, one of the recitals that opens California Democrats’ Resolution 19-05.94 seems to state that the protection of the First Amendment, while generally “critical,” is nonetheless “limited to exclude hate speech.” Yes, seriously. Here is the full text of the recital (with emphasis added):

WHEREAS, Protecting First Amendment rights is critical, but is also limited to exclude hate speech using the concept that offending statements first should be viewed through the lens of the party experiencing the hate, and that Jews, LatinX, African-American, Asian Pacific Islander, Muslims, Disabilities and LGBTI communities can be targets of oppression and hate speech for a variety of reasons.

Ah, yes. Here we go again with the “hate speech” and the liberal love of thought crimes. As Josh points out, in the vast majority of cases, the term “hate speech” in this context actually just means any speech that liberals don’t care for or find offensive.

 

The problem with that is that unpopular speech has always been recognized as the most important speech to protect from government oppression or suppression. The First Amendment protects your right to speak your mind, including if you hold some seriously offensive ideas, like claiming that one race is inherently inferior to another. The flawed arguments that such speech isn’t protected are generally based on a single Supreme Court ruling dealing with “fighting words,” but that doesn’t apply here.

 

More at the link: https://hotair.com/archives/2019/06/09/awesome-california-democrats-redefine-first-amendment/

 

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

Awesome. . . . . . California Democrats Redefine First Amendment

The recent Democratic Convention in San Francisco produced all sorts of popcorn-munching moments for conservatives looking for a few laughs. Many of these came from the slate of 2020 presidential primary candidates who showed up to flail wildly at Joe Biden, despite the fact that he was on the other side of the country. But the big shindig wasn’t just speeches and photo ops. The various committees had plenty of official business to attend to, including passing a new batch of resolutions for the coming election cycle.

 

Most of it appears to have been fairly rote material that you’d expect from the California franchise of the party, but one, in particular, has caught some media attention. It appears that the dreary old First Amendment we’ve all been stuck with for centuries just isn’t working for California Democrats anymore. As such, they decided to insert some modifications. Josh Hammer at The Daily Wire has the details. 

 

 

The Daily Wire has dug a little more deeply into the California Democratic Party’s resolutions produced as a result of the convention, and the Golden State’s Democrats appear to have a wee bit of a free speech problem. Specifically, one of the recitals that opens California Democrats’ Resolution 19-05.94 seems to state that the protection of the First Amendment, while generally “critical,” is nonetheless “limited to exclude hate speech.” Yes, seriously. Here is the full text of the recital (with emphasis added):

WHEREAS, Protecting First Amendment rights is critical, but is also limited to exclude hate speech using the concept that offending statements first should be viewed through the lens of the party experiencing the hate, and that Jews, LatinX, African-American, Asian Pacific Islander, Muslims, Disabilities and LGBTI communities can be targets of oppression and hate speech for a variety of reasons.

Ah, yes. Here we go again with the “hate speech” and the liberal love of thought crimes. As Josh points out, in the vast majority of cases, the term “hate speech” in this context actually just means any speech that liberals don’t care for or find offensive.

 

The problem with that is that unpopular speech has always been recognized as the most important speech to protect from government oppression or suppression. The First Amendment protects your right to speak your mind, including if you hold some seriously offensive ideas, like claiming that one race is inherently inferior to another. The flawed arguments that such speech isn’t protected are generally based on a single Supreme Court ruling dealing with “fighting words,” but that doesn’t apply here.

 

More at the link: https://hotair.com/archives/2019/06/09/awesome-california-democrats-redefine-first-amendment/

 

 

So, they want white SJW's to look at a particular statement through the lens of a group that they clearly believe is too weak, incompetent, and stupid to be able to defend themselves?