4/21 Further evidence of how fucked up California, in
particular SF, has become (a multicultural utopia).
Bill would force hiring of cross-dressers
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32177
-ax
\_ and the Klan has to hire them black people to do their organizing!
\_ No bible shop is complete without a flaming queen cross dresser.
\_ If you don't like California so much, why not move to a place more
to your liking? I hear they kick some faggot ass up in Laramie,
Wyoming.
\_ Funny how when the other side says to folks, "America, love it
or leave it", you lefties get upset but it's ok for you to
blather out little lines like that.
\_ Because "Love it or leave it" has an implicit threat. His
question is formed as just that. A question.
\_ good point!
\_ I know you are but what am I?
\_ A hypocrite if you're a "California, love it or
leave it!" leftist.
\_ I also love how you completely missed the
reference to Matthew Shepard.
\_ I didn't miss it. I ignored it because it was
meaningless in this context. It may come as a
shock to you but some people who don't share
your politics read newspapers and watch cnn.
\_ You don't know jack shit about what was here before 1960.
Read a little history. This place has been a little different
since the first tent went up in Yerba Buena. Of course straight
idiots have decorated it from time to time.
-- born here, been here.
\_ actually that's not true.
\_ You have no sense of history. Kerouac and the rest of
the beatniks (a term coined by Herb Caen) were here in
the 50's, and were attracted to the area by its alternative
culture. -tom
\_ Ding! Indeed. Also, read up on the suffrage movement,
the hallucinigen researchers in the 30's and 40's, etc.
My family has lived here since well before the turn of
the century. California has always been "progressive",
though I think a better term is "tolerant." --scotsman
\_ Really? Tell that to the natives, the Spanish and
the Mexicans.
\_ Okay, granted, my use of the term "always" was
ill-advised, but this comment is irrelevant to
the current discussion. --scotsman
\_ Not if you're a native, or Spanish or Mexican.
The fact is this state has only been so-called
'progressive' if you're part of a big group that
has votes, money, power, or some other form of
control over the government and media.
\_ California has been the land of the risk-takers and the eccentric
since the gold rush in 1849. For example, Joshua Norton, a failed
speculator on the rice market, flipped his lid in the 1850s and
declared himself Norton I, Emperor of the United States and
Protector of Mexico, becoming the first famous homeless person
in San Francisco. Tourists from all over the country knew his
name. He minted his own money, dissolved the union in the Civil
War, and declared there should be a suspension bridge connecting
Oakland and San Francisco, at the time a ridiculous notion.
He also was known for stopping a race riot, making him one of
the earliest Bay Area activists. -brain
\_ The gold-mad and profiteers are a big part of the story, but
the Mormon settlement Brennan created amidst the Russian
holdings can't be ignored when trying to understand how we
found enough stability to keep the region from tearing
itself apart.
\_ What does some random insane guy from the 1800s have to do with
modern politics in CA?
\_ Not just any random insane guy. Over 10,000 people attended
his funeral.
\_ Yes, that still has nothing to do with anything regarding
politics in CA in the last century.
\_ HISTORY HAS NO EFFECT UPON THE PRESENT! NOTHING
HAPPENED BEFORE 1900! HISTORY IS A LIE!
\_ What's 1900? This is the year "03" and there
aren't any non-positive years, right?
\_ Idiot, don't put words in my mouth. I said no such
thing and claiming it in ALL CAPS doesn't make it so.
The funeral attendance for one insane guy from 150+
years ago has *nothing* to do with modern politics in
this state. That is at best a minor footnote in the
history of this state. Why do I respond to such
infantile noise anyway?
\_ They already have laws like this in much of Europe and somehow
the sky hasn't fallen in there. -ausman
\_ Really? Seen the unemployment rate in Germany and many other
EU countries? Their economies are wrecked. Ours is doing
fantastically well by comparison. Not only that but we have the
additional burden of essentially being the EU military. Let's
bring the troops home, let the EU defend themselves and see
what happens. I bet the sky falls.
\_ not discriminating against cross dressers leads to
the economy falling apart?
4-6% are "discouraged" workers, which don't count in
\_ Nice try. Go check the unemployment stats. I'll explain
since you insist on being intentionally stupid: having an
endless array of laws that restrict and over control the
economy leads to inefficiencies which leads to a poor
economy and high unemployment rates. See the Soviet
Union for a great example of what should have been a
power house economy collapsing in on itself due to
over control and lack of incentive.
\_ Hm, I suspect that you're neglecting to take
into account that the Soviet Union was a massive
military state. I'd be willing to bet that had more
to do with it's complete collapse than 'over control'.
-mice
\_ The US was also a massive military state during the
same period of time. Yet they collapsed and the
US only grew stronger.
\_ Not really. I can probably dredge
up numbers if you care, but the soviet union
was maintaining an active wartime economy
for decades. Compare the relative sizes of
the militaries for the US and Soviet Union
in the late 80's. If my memory serves
correctly (at least wrt to armor units) the
Soviets had NATO outnumbered by a factor of
3-1 or something obscene like that. As a side
note, I don't think the US has had a wartime
economy since WWII, though I'm probably
mistaken. You might also want to recall that
the degree of corruption was obscene and
certainly didn't help.
\_ cross-dressing laws are like communism? go
fucking read atlas shrugged five more tiems or
something
\_ I'm done responding to the intentionally stupid.
If you don't have a real response, don't bother.
I've been trolled enough by you and have given up
trying to draw you into a real conversation on the
topic.
\_ I'll take that bet.
\_ If you can get the troops home and get the EU to pay for
their own defense I'd vote for you for President and
happily concede the bet.
\_ Don't kid yourself. GDP/hour worked has been increasing
faster in Western Europe than in the US for over a
generation. They also have more free time, longer,
healthier lives and a more even income distribution. The
US unemployment figures only look good because 2% of
our working age population is in prison and another
2-6% are "discouraged" workers, which don't count in
the official statistics. Germany and France are running
favorable trade surpluses and have a smaller government
deficit. I agree with you about bringing the troops
in Europe home, though. We cannot afforde to subsidize
European defence any longer. -ausman
\_ Do you have figures for GDP/hour worked? Not the rate of
increase but the raw value, like $x/1hour? What's x?
Rates aren't that interesting if it'll take 50 years to
catch up.
\_ Unemployment in Germany in >25% in many areas (e.g.
Berlin). The only commercially viable area is Bavaria.
Most of Europe enforces a maximum work week of
35-40 hours to keep unemployment down - this is a sign
of a strong economy? French and German
pension liabilities are
well in excess of their GDPs, and in France between
1/3 and 1/2 of all children under 10 are Muslim.
Europe is economic powerhouse, indeed. Their are
Muslim slums in France where the police do not ever
go, they have lost complete control of these areas. |
http://csua.com/feed/