It's been 24 hours since....

Katamarino said:
Maybe it's time to set up border controls on all roads out of California; and perhaps a wall!
Click to expand...
I think it would make more sense to do that at the border of your home state.
 
Palmpilot said:
I think it would make more sense to do that at the border of your home state.
Click to expand...

The UK? Already did (wall excepted, we have sea). So the EU's failure to protect its borders doesn't affect the UK quite as badly as it otherwise would.
 
flhrci said:
I would support Trump's wall if and only if it contained California. Only POA members may come and go freely.
Click to expand...
Nice, I make the cut lol

Palmpilot said:
The U. S. attorney general has decided to end a policy that required federal prosecutors to look the other way in states that allowed marijuana use.
Click to expand...

Since we're talking about California, here is a full article that breaks down the changes quite nicely: https://qz.com/1168530/on-jan-1-california-is-basically-becoming-a-different-state/

Some questions.. and this is coming from a relatively socially liberal (I don't care who you marry) but financial conservative (let me keep the money I earned) person

*immigration
-Existing laws should be enforced. An "open border" policy will ultimately starve the country
-BUT, let's say you are here legally, documented, etc., but you are not Caucasian. I can imagine it would be very intrusive to be harassed by law enforcement about your legal status, immigration, etc. at every turn. We have a fair amount of random checkpoints on the highways here and they always bother me... I shouldn't have to prove my citizenship at random on a checkpoint on a highway... isn't that some soviet USSR level garbage?

*lifestyle
-don't have to list gender on your birth certificate. whatever, makes no difference to me

*education
-not denying school lunch to poor families, etc, I can get behind that, I just ask the money be spent wisely. IE, instead of building a new multimillion dollar school, how about just give that money to the teachers and for student supplies

*work
-$11/hr.. I won't even bit on this :-)

*personal finance
-when you refi you have to pay a $75 fee to low income housing. Doesn't really make sense, we pay enough tax as it is.. but w.e.

*weapons
-leaving this one alone too..

*juveniles
-families won't have to pay for their children's legal fees
--fine, I get that, but then make the person pay it back at some point.. don't stiff the tax payer with a delinquent's legal fees

*marijuana
-great, who cares. As long as we've set the bar with cigarettes and alcohol I don't see how marijuana is any new evil..

*road ettiquette
-$20 fine for not wearing a seatbelt on a bus. Weird, but whatever, I don't ride the bus and don't ever intend to

*health
-"knowingly transmitting HIV will no longer be a felony" <-- have a hard time with that, how is knowingly giving someone a deadly disease not a felony?? I don't really see the upside to that new law or who it is intending to protect
 
gkainz said:
what other stupid **** did I see in the paper that is slated to start yesterday?
.
.
Click to expand...

It's like the assembly at the beginning of their term asked themselves: 'What can we come up with that makes our state look moonbat crazy to the outside world ?' and then proceeded to pass everything that came to their minds.
 
^when you tip the country all the nuts roll left! I just see all of this as "general weather tax" so I can enjoy palm trees and 65-85 degree dry sunny weather year round. Plus, if you earn reasonable enough income most of this stuff doesn't directly affect you (but I guess that depends on one's definition of being "directly" affected)
 
gkainz said:
what other stupid **** did I see in the paper that is slated to start yesterday?

http://abc30.com/society/a-new-year-will-mean-new-restrictions-for-california-gun-owners/2848826/
Can no longer have ammo shipped to your house - has to go to a FFL holder
Ammo sellers now required to be licensed by DOJ.
Anyone convicted of crimes will have to surrender their firearms before the case is closed.

http://www.kcra.com/article/18-new-california-laws-you-should-know-going-into-2018-1/14480391
Vehicle registration fee increase: As part of SB 1, drivers will pay between $25 and $175 more for vehicle registration at DMV. The fee, which goes into effect Jan. 1, is based on the vehicle's current value...



http://www.bakersfield.com/news/new...cle_25a7e0b8-ecd7-11e7-a1cf-eb5a8bcd0cfa.html
A new ban on guns on school campuses, even for those with concealed carry permits, whether school boards OK them or not...

Senate Bill 54 allows state authorities to refuse cooperation with some federal immigration laws. In essence, it makes California a sanctuary state, limiting state and local law enforcement efforts when dealing with immigration.

It also would make public schools, hospitals and courthouses safe havens for California residents, regardless of immigration status.

Under the new law, local law enforcement cannot arrest, detain, interrogate or inquire about a person's immigration status unless they have committed one or more offenses from a list of about 800 crimes. The list of crimes includes felony DUI, child abuse and gang-related offenses.


https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/New-California-Laws-You-Need-to-Know-for-2018-467025293.html
SALARY INFORMATION (Assembly Bill No. 168): Under the new bill employers are prohibited from asking salary information of an applicant. Employers are also prohibited from relying on salary history as a factor in determining salary for a new employee.

EMPLOYERS BANNED FROM ASKING CRIMINAL HISTORY ON APPLICATIONS (Assembly Bill No. 1008): This new law bans employers, state agencies, and public utilities with five or more workers from including, on any application, any questions about an applicant’s conviction history.

WORK SITE IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND PROTECTIONS (Assembly Bill No. 450): This law protects workers from immigration enforcement while on the job. An employer or someone acting on behalf of an employer is not allowed to let an immigration agent enter non-public areas of a work place unless the agent has a warrant.

Elementary School history (starting with 2nd graders) has been re-written with an LGBT alphabet soup twist and parents cannot opt out. Can't find a link for the San Diego Tribune article I read. One commenter who reviewed the books said that in them, "everyone in history has been addressed as "could have been" lgbt whatever based on supposition and circumstance".

Assembly Bill 830 eliminates the high school exit exam, which was instituted, beginning with the Class of 2006, to ensure that students demonstrated a minimum proficiency in English and math before graduating. Tens of thousands of students never passed the exam and consequently never received a diploma. A decade later, lawmakers suspended the requirement to rewrite the test; now, they are simply doing away with it instead.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article191348244.html#storylink=cpy
Click to expand...
Way too long for a tweet, so must be fake news
 
Katamarino said:
The UK? Already did (wall excepted, we have sea). So the EU's failure to protect its borders doesn't affect the UK quite as badly as it otherwise would.
Click to expand...

Then why would care at all about California? What do you personally have against California?
 
weilke said:
It's like the assembly at the beginning of their term asked themselves: 'What can we come up with that makes our state look moonbat crazy to the outside world ?' and then proceeded to pass everything that came to their minds.
Click to expand...
By the way, in light of the complaints in this thread, consider this: California has had term limits for years, so anyone who thinks they are going to solve anything might want to reconsider.
 
Palmpilot said:
I think it should contain Ohio.
Click to expand...

Agreed. We recently had some extended family visit from Tennessee and Kentucky and the topic of the removal of Confederate monuments came up. The exact quote was- "Nobody where we live gives a damn about that. The only people that care are people living in Ohio."

Yes. Wall in the red hats.
 
flhrci said:
lol Nah. We are peaceful here and have a legislature that is not on crack, errr, pot.
Click to expand...
Aren't Ohio voters part of the reason why we have a virtual crack-head occupying the Oval Office?
 
gkainz said:
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/New-California-Laws-You-Need-to-Know-for-2018-467025293.html
SALARY INFORMATION (Assembly Bill No. 168): Under the new bill employers are prohibited from asking salary information of an applicant. Employers are also prohibited from relying on salary history as a factor in determining salary for a new employee.
Click to expand...


INSANE!!!! How is the market supposed to work if you can't gauge the worth of an applicant???

EMPLOYERS BANNED FROM ASKING CRIMINAL HISTORY ON APPLICATIONS (Assembly Bill No. 1008): This new law bans employers, state agencies, and public utilities with five or more workers from including, on any application, any questions about an applicant’s conviction history.
Click to expand...

This one I actually partially agree with. Philosophically I don't; I don't think private employers should be restricted in any way in their hiring other than race, but in the real world we have created a huge problem by incarcerating so many of our citizens for non-violent drug offenses. Something like 1/3 of us have some type of criminal record. (By "us" I don't mean me. :D) If anyone with a criminal record cannot get a job, that's a huge part of the economy permanently affected which in many cases leaves them no choice but to mooch off someone else or go back to criminal activity to survive.

But this law goes too far. In my opinion it should have been written to include only non-violent offenses, or possibly allow job related offenses to be seen such as embezzlement. Better yet, we need to completely overhaul the drug laws, heck just dump the DEA completely and start from scratch.

WORK SITE IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND PROTECTIONS (Assembly Bill No. 450): This law protects workers from immigration enforcement while on the job. An employer or someone acting on behalf of an employer is not allowed to let an immigration agent enter non-public areas of a work place unless the agent has a warrant.
Click to expand...

Oh Lord don't get me started. And really don't get me started about the ammunition one. And the English proficiency one. But:
Elementary School history (starting with 2nd graders) has been re-written with an LGBT alphabet soup twist and parents cannot opt out. Can't find a link for the San Diego Tribune article I read. One commenter who reviewed the books said that in them, "everyone in history has been addressed as "could have been" lgbt whatever based on supposition and circumstance".
Click to expand...

/facepalm
 
Rushie said:
INSANE!!!! How is the market supposed to work if you can't gauge the worth of an applicant???
Click to expand...
Yeah. I think their intention was to give people an opportunity to step up, IE, push for $80K at your next job, even if your last only paid $60K. But.. the last place you worked is also a good thermometer for your worth (like you said), and generally if you are seen as a valuable asset to a company they'll see your old salary and at least better it by some percentage or give some kind of signing bonus... especially if they're competing for you. I wonder if there's a way potential employers can opt out of that by the applicant "volunteering" that info?

Rushie said:
This one I actually partially agree with. Philosophically I don't
Click to expand...
Same here. When I hire someone I should be able to make a full, well rounded decision.. but this also, like you said, screws a lot of people out of actually contributing to society again
 
Incidentally "it was 24 hrs since PoA had a thread turn political"

I think the last one was the tax reform one? Although the 0/0 takeoff thread got pretty passionate as well lol!
 
Tantalum said:
*health
-"knowingly transmitting HIV will no longer be a felony" <-- have a hard time with that, how is knowingly giving someone a deadly disease not a felony?? I don't really see the upside to that new law or who it is intending to protect
Click to expand...

Should knowingly giving the flu to someone be a felony? About 5 times more people die that way than of HIV.
 
Palmpilot said:
One of those articles mentioned new restrictions on pesticide spraying within 1/4 mile of a school during school hours. Since the nearest school is within that distance from my house, I looked up the regulation and found that it only covers "pesticide applications made for the production of an agricultural commodity," so I don't have to worry.
Click to expand...

We used to run behind the DDT truck and play in the fog.
 
deonb said:
Should knowingly giving the flu to someone be a felony? About 5 times more people die that way than of HIV.
Click to expand...
People do seem to have a tremendous lack of regard when their sick. Our office has a very lenient work from home policy, I never understand when people come in to the office looking like death coughing on everything "oh man, I threw up this morning but I wanted to come in for the meeting" <- I'm like, we have phones?

Most (healthy) people though the flu is an inconvenience, and not a lifelong condition. Knowingly giving someone something that never goes away, and will most likely be ultimately deadly, is pretty lousy. The key word there of course is "knowingly"
 
Shawn said:
That would be a 49% increase over the CA drivers that currently use their blinkers pre-pot...

While I am neither much of a pot head nor fast food aficionado, Jack in the Box continues to be one of my favorite companies...

Jack in the Box Cooks Up ‘Munchie Meals’ for California Stoners

With California’s legalization of recreational marijuana taking effect Monday, fast-food chain Jack in the Box plans to take full advantage of the pot smokers by offering a new meal aimed at anyone with the munchies.

The weed-themed Merry Munchie Meal will be available beginning mid-January and includes half servings of curly fries and onion rings, two tacos, five mini churros, three crispy chicken strips and a small drink. You get all of this for the on-theme price of $4.20 plus tax.
Click to expand...

This is genius. Great idea Jack in the Box!
 
Palmpilot said:
The U. S. attorney general has decided to end a policy that required federal prosecutors to look the other way in states that allowed marijuana use. Now it will be up to individual federal prosecutors to decide how aggressively to enforce the federal prohibition.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ap-newsbreak-us-end-policy-legal-pot-flourish-52134725
Click to expand...

I really love how conservatives talk the talk of a weak federal government and state's rights... until they don't and want to stamp down anything coming from a state they don't like. And so the idiotic war against a pretty harmless plant continues... :rolleyes:
 
jkaduk said:
as noted we do have term limits.
Click to expand...
Which means that anyone who can actually do the job can't keep it, but on the other hand, it provides lots of openings for the nut case extremists. (At least, that's how it works here.)
 
jkaduk said:
You know they can always be voted out. And as noted we do have term limits.
Click to expand...

Q: Why do I love having Darrel Steinberg as the mayor of Sacramento?

A: It keeps him out of the State Assembly.

Seriously, who enforces term limits? Jerry Brown has been governor for a total of... how many years? Seven consecutive years from the late seventies to the early eighties? He's currently governor since 2011? What happened to the two lifetime four year term limit?
 
Dav8or said:
I really love how conservatives talk the talk of a weak federal government and state's rights... until they don't and want to stamp down anything coming from a state they don't like. And so the idiotic war against a pretty harmless plant continues... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Right?...wasn't that the conservative's argument against Gay Marriage equality nationally?..."It should be up to the states" was their answer if I remember correctly
 
A similar version of the "don't ask about their current or past salaries" recently went active in NYC itself.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Which means that anyone who can actually do the job can't keep it, but on the other hand, it provides lots of openings for the nut case extremists. (At least, that's how it works here.)
Click to expand...
Another problem with term limits is that candidates who don't have the incumbent advantage are more likely to need campaign donations from special interests.
 
denverpilot said:
What does it accomplish? I can’t figure it out.
Click to expand...

Likely it won't accomplish anything, but it's intention is to try to address the wage and salary bias against women. The bias is real. Generally speaking, a woman gets paid less for the exact same job as a man does across the entire employment spectrum.

This law hopes that an employer will not get to know how much the applicant made at their last job, so won't have a basis to figure how little they can get away with paying them. However this is the information age and there is the internet. While I think this law has good intentions, it is likely to be ineffective and pointless. I hope I am wrong.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Q: Why do I love having Darrel Steinberg as the mayor of Sacramento?
A: It keeps him out of the State Assembly.
Click to expand...

I still lived in California when Maxine Waters left the state house for DC. I was so happy to see her go because I figured she'd be less of a pain in the ass.

She sure proved me wrong.
 
Dav8or said:
Likely it won't accomplish anything, but it's intention is to try to address the wage and salary bias against women. The bias is real. Generally speaking, a woman gets paid less for the exact same job as a man does across the entire employment spectrum.

This law hopes that an employer will not get to know how much the applicant made at their last job, so won't have a basis to figure how little they can get away with paying them. However this is the information age and there is the internet. While I think this law has good intentions, it is likely to be ineffective and pointless. I hope I am wrong.
Click to expand...

Seems like the wrong way to fix that. Don’t think it’ll work.

And is the law written in such a way that one can’t ask the candidate, or can’t ask anyone? Because recruiters always know exactly what the last person they got placed, got paid.

And why do I have a feeling at least one State will write this the wrong way and everyone will just hire through recruiters? LOL.

Good time to be a recruiter in those states.
 
Tantalum said:
*road ettiquette
-$20 fine for not wearing a seatbelt on a bus. Weird, but whatever, I don't ride the bus and don't ever intend to
Click to expand...

Bet that doesn’t apply to government run school busses. And if the kids are fined, and go to court, mom and dad don’t have to pay the legal fees anyway, right? LOL. Government can sue itself. Awesome. Hahahaha

Tantalum said:
*health
-"knowingly transmitting HIV will no longer be a felony" <-- have a hard time with that, how is knowingly giving someone a deadly disease not a felony?? I don't really see the upside to that new law or who it is intending to protect
Click to expand...

Is this really just a nod to higher survival rates? Could the person still be charged with murder if the dice roll doesn’t work out for their victim? Can the victim still sue for civil damages?


Tantalum said:
Yeah. I think their intention was to give people an opportunity to step up, IE, push for $80K at your next job, even if your last only paid $60K. But.. the last place you worked is also a good thermometer for your worth (like you said), and generally if you are seen as a valuable asset to a company they'll see your old salary and at least better it by some percentage or give some kind of signing bonus... especially if they're competing for you. I wonder if there's a way potential employers can opt out of that by the applicant "volunteering" that info?
Click to expand...

It’ll cut both ways. “I made X at my last job...” “Yeah, we don’t care, you’re only worth X-$30,000 to us.”

That’ll lead to regulation. It’s essentially a move to break a market so the market later will have to be regulated. Have to break it fully first to claim a crisis.


Dav8or said:
I really love how conservatives talk the talk of a weak federal government and state's rights... until they don't and want to stamp down anything coming from a state they don't like. And so the idiotic war against a pretty harmless plant continues...
Click to expand...

There aren’t any conservatives in DC. Literally. None. They do not exist. Find me one.

deonb said:
It's been coming for a while:
Democrats and Republicans have virtually switched sides on states' rights
Click to expand...

Remember when being a flipper-flopper was bad? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
 
Last edited:
Dav8or said:
Likely it won't accomplish anything, but it's intention is to try to address the wage and salary bias against women. The bias is real. Generally speaking, a woman gets paid less for the exact same job as a man does across the entire employment spectrum.

This law hopes that an employer will not get to know how much the applicant made at their last job, so won't have a basis to figure how little they can get away with paying them. However this is the information age and there is the internet. While I think this law has good intentions, it is likely to be ineffective and pointless. I hope I am wrong.
Click to expand...
One of those things "everyone knows is true", but isn't, really. One group of woman are paid slightly more than men, doing the same job - single women, with no kids, make a tiny fraction more than men in the same jobs/industries. Seems once married, women get stuck with (and/or accept) a disproportinate share of domestic duties, child care, etc. The disparity is more a cultural issue than a corporate bias one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top