Welcome to Californarado, where we'll tax your cats, dogs, goldfish, ant farms, rabbits, snails, etc., etc., etc., and you'll keep voting for us!
https://gazette.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-new-bill-would-tax-ants-snails-frogs-and-dogs/article_b78b5156-c3b6-11ee-97df-33c85e147a9a.html
It's no surprise that thousands have migrated away from Commie-Cali to red and swing states.
shareThey actually had the nerve to say it would reduce the burden on shelters! Sure, people who have a hard time already will just suck it up, right?
Monday mornings at the shelters wouldn't find their parking lots full of hundreds of animals in crates or chained to their front doors. Nuh-uh!
East California is lost thanks to the leftists.
Wouldn't call that tax an insanity but how does it remotely compare to the outlawing of women's reproductive choice throughout the south? Now that is insanity--fascist insanity.
shareSomeone thinking that outlawing murder is insanity, is insane.
You're a leftist. I'm sure you don't have kids, but are you willing to pay a tax on your animal "children"?
If your parents were as radical and brainwashed as you are today, YOU would not be around today to make those asinine claims.
shareSame ridiculous arguments as ever from the keep-women-barefoot-in-the-kitchen deplorables. How did your mothers raise you that you hate women so much?
shareHow did your parents raise you that you hate children so much?
shareA fetus is not a child. Have you no sense at all?
shareIf your parents had that same attitude, you would not be alive today. Have you no common sense at all?
shareSo a parent who recognizes the difference between a fetus and a child would not want to have a child? Makes sense(less).
shareDummy, if they had the same attitude as you about a fetus vs a child, they would have used it as an excuse to abort you.
shareYou are by far the stupidest person I have ever had the misfortune to interact with on this miserable board. Good luck!
shareWhat a great rebuttal. LMAO 🤣🤣🤣
shareYou are by far the stupidest person I have ever had the misfortune to interact with on this miserable board. Good luck!
Spin it however you want. A fetus is a child and abortion is murder.
shareBlue states, which contain the great centers of science, culture, industry, and forward thinking in this country, have a different attitude, and believe women are fully able to make their own life choices. They neither deny an abortion nor enforce it, but let the women decide for themselves.
shareStill murder.
shareHow many unwanted children have you and your ilk adopted or fostered? You only care about fetuses until they are born. After that you do not care at all. This is evident because you want to eliminate programs that would directly benefit these unwanted children like SNAP, WIC, school lunches, medical care, housing, etc. As usual you are a hypocrite.
shareWho said I want to eliminate those programs, leftist?
shareOf course you want to eliminate those programs. It's what conservative morons like you have been screaming about forever. Doesn't supporting these programs make you a Socialist?🤣
shareSo you're a mind reader now. I'm definitely in favor of people who NEED help. Unfortunately there are millions of scabs out there just want a free ride on the backs of those who work hard.
shareHow many migrants have you taken in?
shareNone. I think every single illegal alien in the US should be deported to whatever shithole they came from. With billions of dollars in trade crossing the southern border everyday the border can't be closed but security could be better. How come the Republicans in Congress are doing nothing to combat this issue? Here's an idea. Put people who hire illegal aliens in jail. If there are no jobs for illegals then they wouldn't cross the border.
shareIncorrect.
shareDon't live in those states.
shareC'mon lefties! Defend this.
shareI know it's dead. That doesn't mean this leftist wacko, who was voted in by leftist wackos didn't try it.
shareThere are stupid dumbass laws proposed all the time in every US state
shareSo you're opposed to this?
share"HB24-1163 would have required pet owners to register their animal annually for a fee. It would cost $8.50 a year for pets that have a designated caregiver, $16 for dogs or cats that are not spayed or neutered with a designated caregiver, and $25 for pets without a designated caregiver. The caregivers would act as a safety net for the animals, in case of emergency situations with their owners."
Yes, seems stupid. Unncecessary.
Well, I'm glad to see you have some sense.
shareThere are stupid dumbass laws proposed all the time in every US state
How many of these went anywhere? Some of them seem genuinely fine and are concerned with preventing potential parental abuse.
>Yes, especially laws proposed by the same alphabet cult that you are always supporting, endorsing and defending.
And I am defending their right to exist, to their culture, to make music, art, tv, film, video games, literature without bloodthirsty violent fascist scumbags such as yourself suppressing them. You continue to be a piece of shit, waste of space, evil fascist.
>• Bill - AB 957 Would brand parents abusive if they refuse to affirm their transgender children's identity - and let social workers take youngsters into care. Parents could lose custody of their child if they do not affirm their gender.
"Family law: gender identity.Existing law governs the determination of child custody and visitation in contested proceedings and requires the court, for purposes of deciding custody, to determine the best interests of the child based on certain factors, including, among other things, the health, safety, and welfare of the child.This bill, for purposes of this provision, would include a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression as part of the health, safety, and welfare of the child."
This incorporates it as a consideration, not as a sole condition.
>• Bill - SB 14 California Assembly blocks legislation that would have made child trafficking punishable by life in prison. Human trafficking is currently defined as a non-serious crime, and cannot be considered a strike under California’s three-strikes law.
Are you saying SB 14 was blocked by other legislation, or that SB 14 does this? Because that doesn't seem to be the case at all.
Some of them seem genuinely fine and are concerned with preventing potential parental abuse.
>Wrong, that is how they are all falsely and deceptively presented in order to push and pass those bills.
Provide evidence for this claim.
>The same way that all your precious "fact-checkers" are deceptively worded and phrased.
Provide evidence for this claim.
--
Fascist piece of shit
Here's the interesting part about Colorado: in most of the state, people vote Republican. It's only people in big cities like Denver that vote Democrap. The problem is, the highest population of people are in the cities, so they are the ones making the state blue.
It's also a haven for hippies, which is one of several reasons pot became legal in that state first. Incidentally, the govt. officials had to cover up all the car accidents and sudden sharp rise in crime rates that ensued as a result of that.
Even on "Dr. Jeff, Rocky Mountain Vet," (which takes place in Denver) there have been problems with recreational marijuana and pets, because stupid people will buy pot edibles, not properly protect them from their dogs or cats, the animals break into the stuff, and then have to go to the vet to get anti-poisoning treatment as a result.
>Here's the interesting part about Colorado: in most of the state, people vote Republican. It's only people in big cities like Denver that vote Democrap. The problem is, the highest population of people are in the cities, so they are the ones making the state blue.
This is a long way to say "Most people in Colorado actually vote Democrat".
>It's also a haven for hippies, which is one of several reasons pot became legal in that state first. Incidentally, the govt. officials had to cover up all the car accidents and sudden sharp rise in crime rates that ensued as a result of that.
Any evidence for this?
Fair enough. Although the raw numbers still apparently are completely dwarfed by regular drunk-driving incidents there.
shareIf someone is impaired and is involved is an accident, does it matter what impaired them?
Impaired driving is illegal.
No. I was just noting that it's like, idk, the growth of Satanism adherents in the last 10 years. Massive increase, but the numbers are still tiny.
shareDeaths and injuries that could easily be avoided. One of the many reasons I'm completely anti-drug/alcohol.
shareYou want to ban alcohol too?
I thought you presented yourself as a moderate.
Not a good hill to die on Skav. Alcohol has ended and or ruined BILLIONS of lives over the course of history.
shareIt's literally you against most of western society. Also alcohol is just flat-out used normally in cooking. Prohibition was a total failure and alcohol consumption is normalised. If you want alcohol banned, that is prudish and puritan, it is not moderate.
Didn't have you pegged for an Islamist
You're right. Alcohol will never go away even though it should, as well as drugs and I was not talking about cooking (obviously).
However, if you don't think the world would be a better place without something with such a HUGE path of destruction, I can't help you.
I'd prefer those BILLIONS of lives not be decimated. Wow! What a puritanical prude I am!! Lol!
>You're right. Alcohol will never go away even though it should, as well as drugs and I was not talking about cooking (obviously).
How do you ensure alcohol is literally only used in cooking? You can't.
>However, if you don't think the world would be a better place without something with such a HUGE path of destruction, I can't help you.
There are a lot of things that could disappear that might make the world a "better place", but to do it would require a huge level of state intrusion and big government into people's lives that would in itself make the world a worse place.
I said I know it will never go away and it's really a shame.
Drugs and alcohol are stupid, selfish and childish, but people are inherently self destructive. They just "have to get high", no matter the cost.
The only way it would ever go away is if at the grassroots level, people would take their and other people's lives seriously. Never happen en masse, but I for one, will never endanger myself or anyone else by being an irresponsible child who "has to get high".
If you can't put down drugs and/or alcohol, you have a problem.
Yeap, and there are also natural remedies and cures for almost everything.
No excuses to take drugs or pills.
To be clear, I'm talking about drugs used for the sole purpose of "getting high". We definitely need medicinal drugs (antibiotics, insulin, etc.) but intoxicants, generally no.
shareThis is one of the most moronic, most stupid idiotic things you've said.
How do we treat cancer, you deranged fascist fuckwit? How do we treat tooth infections? You're coming across as a literal anti-technological caveman.
>Drugs and alcohol are stupid, selfish and childish, but people are inherently self destructive. They just "have to get high", no matter the cost.
It would also be a better world if we could get rid of guns, but you presumably don't seem to mind the continual cost of tragedy measured in multiple school/supermarket shootings per month.
The cultural and social impact of removing alcohol would be pretty high. But also the methods to do it would require heavy servings of authoritarianism, which would be bad.
How do you ensure alcohol is literally only used in cooking?
And alcohols usage in medicine? In sterilising?
Are you also an Islamist prude? So you want the state to smash down LGBT peoples doors and arrest them. You want to mass-ban alcohol across the entire country.
You are an authoritarian anti-american, anti-western fascist.
And alcohols usage in medicine? In sterilising?
How do we treat cancer
It would also be a better world if we could get rid of guns
>There are alternatives for rubbing alcohol to sterilize; besides, drinking rubbing alcohol will kill.
So alongside being a fascist, your moral worldview aligns with Islamofascists. You really want the state to make everyone miserable by imposing morality laws on them. You are an authoritarian, fascist, anti-american, anti-western scumbag.
You revolting piece of shit.
>There are natural remedies, treatments and cures for that as well.
Provide evidence for this.
How do you propose we operate on people?
>You did that in your country and they are still murdering each other with knives, blunt objects, hands, feet, etc. by the thousands each year.
The overall UK murder rate and violent crime rate is **LESS** than the USA.
The USA has a higher knife-crime rate: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/stabbing-deaths-by-country
>Your country gave up your firearms and now you are slaves.
Slaves to what?
We have more criminals and more mentally ill persons...Oh and a larger population.
Your link confirms that giving up firearms don't prevent people from harming and killing others.
>We have more criminals and more mentally ill persons...Oh and a larger population.
It's per capita, you simple minded fascist. It's knife crime per 100,000 people.
Are you that fucking stupid?
>Your link confirms that giving up firearms don't prevent people from harming and killing others.
I never claimed that it literally stopped all crime.
Scumbag
That doesn't matter, per capita or not, we still have more criminals and mentally ill.
I knew you were going to use the "per capita" card...you are a predictable shill.
I never claimed that it literally stopped all crime.
>That doesn't matter, per capita or not, we still have more criminals and mentally ill.
Per capita functionally *does matter* in identifying crime rates. All countries have different populations. Judging crime rates per 100,000 people is how we equalise it. The USA has a much higher crime rate and knife crime rate than the UK per 100,000 people.
>I knew you were going to use the "per capita" card...you are a predictable shill.
I'm not convinced you have a clue what that means, you simple minded fascist. Explain to me what you think "per capita" means.
>Firearms will still be used by criminals and/or will be substituted by other means/methods to commit crimes.
Yet there is almost no gun crime in the UK, and the USA still has more knife crime per capita.
"Yet there is almost no gun crime in the UK"
Hence, the keyword "Almost", and as I have already stated, the crimes and killings were substituted with other weapons.
You idiots managed to disarmed yourselves for nothing.
>Hence, the keyword "Almost", and as I have already stated, the crimes and killings were substituted with other weapons.
Yes. "Almost". It's much less than the USA.
And even with that, the UK still has much less crime per capita than the USA. Why is this?
>You idiots managed to disarmed yourselves for nothing.
So all preventative measures against crime are worthless if they don't actually literally stop all crime?
This would seem a weirdly bizarre stance for you all of people to take.
Fascist scumbag.
"Why is this?"
Less criminals and less mentally ill.
So all preventative measures against crime are worthless if they don't actually literally stop all crime?
>Less criminals and less mentally ill.
And why do we have less criminals and mentally ill people **PER CAPITA**?
>Dumbass, giving up firearms had nothing to do with stopping and preventing crime.
Yes it did. It was the reaction to a school shooting.
Fascist
A school shooting that left less than 20 people dead.
How many people are still been murdered each year by sharp objects, blunt objects, hands, feet, poisoning, etc?
Has it stopped and prevented those? No.
The ban had nothing to do with stopping and preventing crimes/killings.
It was used as a deceptive excuse to disarm the civilian population so that they would never protect themselves from an over-reaching government or dictatorship.
100+ million have been slaughtered after they gave up their firearms.
You are spineless slaves and you have been pwned.
>A school shooting that left less than 20 people dead.
Okay. So? It was enough.
>How many people are still been murdered each year by sharp objects, blunt objects, hands, feet, poisoning, etc?
Lots, but less than the USA per capita.
>Has it stopped and prevented those? No.
That was never its goal to stop those. It had a specific remit to reduce gun crime, which it did.
>The ban had nothing to do with stopping and preventing crimes/killings.
Guns are a dangerous tool used effectively to much more damage than a knife.
>It was used as a deceptive excuse to disarm the civilian population so that they would never protect themselves from an over-reaching government or dictatorship.
No reason to believe this. People were calling for gun control, and the government reacted.
>100+ million have been slaughtered after they gave up their firearms.
Notably, not the UK.
>You are spineless slaves and you have been pwned.
And you are an anti-american, anti-western, reactionary fascist piece of shit who hates freedom and wants to use a morality police to conscript people behaving like you.
Should LGBT people arm themselves to protect themselves from the likes of you?
Has more than 20 people been killed by firearms since the ban? Yes or No?
shareI will answer this if you answer my questions.
Why do we have less criminals and mentally ill people **PER CAPITA** than the USA?
You always move the goalpost so no point in answering your strawman bullshit.
I will answer it for you:
The answer is yes, many more than 20.
Which means that the gun-ban was a deceptive excuse perpetrated by your own governments to disarm the law abiding citizens.
>Which means that the gun-ban was a deceptive excuse perpetrated by your own governments to disarm the law abiding citizens.
No, it does not. Again: So all preventative measures against crime are worthless if they don't actually literally stop all crime they intend to stop?
And I'll ask my question again: Why do we have less criminals and mentally ill people **PER CAPITA** than the USA?
Banning guns is not preventive measures.
shareYes it is. Making it harder for people to access. Now the UK has much less gun crime.
And I'll ask my question again: Why do we have less criminals and mentally ill people **PER CAPITA** than the USA?
“Making it harder for people to access. Now the UK has much less gun crime.”
Less gun crime but still many more than a single mass shooting and the rest is substituted with other weapons.
Banning something does not prevent people from getting access to them; you just admitted that they still have gun crimes. LMAO
>Less gun crime but still many more than a single mass shooting and the rest is substituted with other weapons.
And our overall crime is much less.
>Banning something does not prevent people from getting access to them; you just admitted that they still have gun crimes. LMAO
Substantially less than the USA per capita. You keep avoiding my question:
And I'll ask my question again: Why do we have less criminals and mentally ill people **PER CAPITA** than the USA?
Fascist
"And our overall crime is much less."
It didn’t stop gun crimes, or knife crimes, or blunt object crimes, or any other crimes.
>It didn’t stop gun crimes, or knife crimes, or blunt object crimes, or any other crimes.
A gun control law, funnily enough, isn't designed to do that. Other laws might be passed to stop those.
And I'll ask my question again: Why do we have less criminals and mentally ill people **PER CAPITA** than the USA?
Fascist
And it will still not make any difference.
You surrendered your firearms for nothing.
You were deceived.
>And it will still not make any difference.
No reason to believe this.
And I'll ask my question again: Why do we have less criminals and mentally ill people **PER CAPITA** than the USA?
And you, again, didn't answer my question:
Why do we have less criminals and mentally ill people **PER CAPITA** than the USA?