California, the land of insanity and intolerance for diversity

California has somehow become even more radical in its "soft on crime" approach. The state has now lessened the punishment for knowingly exposing someone else to HIV.

Now, if you knowingly expose a partner to HIV in California, the crime is a mere misdemeanor rather than a felony. Per The Los Angeles Times:

   Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill Friday that lowers from a felony to a misdemeanor the crime of knowingly exposing a sexual partner to HIV without disclosing the infection.

Moreover, the measure is expanded to knowingly giving HIV-positive blood to a blood bank.

The extreme move is, of course, being made under the guise of tolerance.

"Today California took a major step toward treating HIV as a public health issue, instead of treating people living with HIV as criminals," said Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener. "HIV should be treated like all other serious infectious diseases, and that’s what SB 239 does."

Although people still die from AIDS, exposing people to HIV without their knowledge or consent was justified because "modern medicine allows those with HIV to live longer lives and nearly eliminates the possibility of transmission," per Weiner and Democratic Assemblyman Todd Gloria.

This destructive, immoral move is apparently not isolated to the loons in California. Planned Parenthood, America's largest abortion mill and one of the most powerful unofficial arms of the Democratic Party, claimed not disclosing HIV to partners was a "right."

The Daily Wire reported in December of 2016:

   Kimberly Ells of The Federalist exposed the tax-dollar funded corporation for their despicable view, which they advocate via literature like the International Planned Parenthood Federation’s booklet, directed toward the HIV-positive youth in America, called “Healthy, Happy and Hot”:

   It says, “Young people living with HIV have the right to decide if, when, and how to disclose their HIV status.” It continues: “Sharing your HIV status is called disclosure. Your decision about whether to disclose may change with different people and situations. You have the right to decide if, when, and how to disclose your HIV status.”

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22060/california-no-longer-felony-knowingly-expose-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

Madness.
The maximum sentence if a person was found guilty of deliberately passing on a life altering/threatening condition through having sexual activity with them is ONE year.....probably half that.

And they are then free to infect others.

Syl wrote:Madness.
The maximum sentence if a person was found guilty of deliberately passing on a life altering/threatening condition through having sexual activity with them is ONE year.....probably half that.

And they are then free to infect others.

agree it is total madness

the face of liberal tolerance

Syl wrote:Madness.
The maximum sentence if a person was found guilty of deliberately passing on a life altering/threatening condition through having sexual activity with them is ONE year.....probably half that.

And they are then free to infect others.

Is that the status of the law in the UK? It sounds similar to this law in California.

I mean, one year is he maximum time to which someone may be sentenced as a misdemeanor. So, reducing it to a misdemeanor is adjusting the law to bring it into conformity with other areas.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Madness.
The maximum sentence if a person was found guilty of deliberately passing on a life altering/threatening condition through having sexual activity with them is ONE year.....probably half that.

And they are then free to infect others.

Is that the status of the law in the UK?  It sounds similar to this law in California.  

I mean, one year is he maximum time to which someone may be sentenced as a misdemeanor.  So, reducing it to a misdemeanor is adjusting the law to bring it into conformity with other areas.

No its not the UK law Quill, I looked up the maximum sentence for a misdemeanor in California and its 365 days....and thats for the most serios misdemeanor.

Sentences here seem to vary from 5 to 7 years for recklessly infecting an unsuspecting partner ..so far.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Is that the status of the law in the UK?  It sounds similar to this law in California.  

I mean, one year is he maximum time to which someone may be sentenced as a misdemeanor.  So, reducing it to a misdemeanor is adjusting the law to bring it into conformity with other areas.

No its not the UK law Quill, I looked up the maximum sentence for a misdemeanor in California and its 365 days....and thats for the most serios misdemeanor.

That's what I just said:

Original Quill wrote:... one year is he maximum time to which someone may be sentenced as a misdemeanor.

Read more carefully...one year = 365 days.

Syl wrote:Sentences here seem to vary from 5 to 7 years for recklessly infecting an unsuspecting partner ..so far.

What is the citation for the precise law? Also, give the sentencing guidelines. I'll look it up for you. I'd like to know, too.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

No its not the UK law Quill, I looked up the maximum sentence for a misdemeanor in California and its 365 days....and thats for the most serios misdemeanor.

That's what I just said:

Original Quill wrote:... one year is he maximum time to which someone may be sentenced as a misdemeanor.

Read more carefully...one year = 365 days.

Syl wrote:Sentences here seem to vary from 5 to 7 years for recklessly infecting an unsuspecting partner ..so far.

What is the citation for the precise law?  Also, give the sentencing guidelines.  I'll look it up for you.  I'd like to know, too.

I did read carefully, I was explaining that the law in the UK is different to California law.
I agreed that maximum sentence for a misdemeanor in California is a year....the link I read explained it as 365 days.....I know it adds up to the same.  

Maybe you will understand better than me the UK law re deliberately or recklessly infecting someone with aids...or indeed any STD.The links I read seem vague.

Quill...have a look at this, some of the max sentence are ridiculously low.....and I cant see anything relating to deliberately infecting someone.

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/maximums.php

hey quill, the sooner the aids loving California fucks off from the rest of the USA the better i think, where can i sign your petition for cali to leave??

California Law Allows Jail For Using Wrong Gender Pronoun

Violations can be punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or "by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year."

Under a new California law, those who work in health care who use the wrong gender pronoun when referring to a transgender patient could face prison time.

The new law, signed last week by California Gov. Jerry Brown, will punish any health care worker who “willfully and repeatedly” does not use the “preferred name or pronouns” of transgender patients, Fox News reports.

Behind the bill is Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener who argues that no one will face criminal prosecution for using the wrong gender pronoun — even though the bill leaves the possibility open.

“It’s just more scare tactics by people who oppose all LGBT civil rights and protections,” Wiener insisted.

The bill states:

It shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to take any of the following actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status.

The law states that violations can be punishable by a fine “not to exceed one thousand dollars” or “by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year,” or both, Fox News notes.

Wiener was also behind California’s push to lessen the punishment for knowingly exposing other people to HIV including through the donation to blood banks, and legislation that takes sex offenders off the sex offender registry.

“Today California took a major step toward treating HIV as a public health issue, instead of treating people living with HIV as criminals,” Wiener said in a Friday statement.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22091/california-law-allows-prison-using-wrong-gender-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

Berkeley Students Protest Exam, Demand ‘Take Home Essay’ Because White Privilege And Stuff


A video has surfaced on YouTube showing students at the University of California, Berkeley protesting an exam, and demanding a "take-home essay with significant time to prepare." The reason? "Our well-beings are being put on the line because of our emotional, mental, and physical stress that [Berkeley] is compounding with what is already going on in our every day lives," according to one of the students in the video.

"The content of this class and the way it is being taught is not satisfactory. And even if it is ... we feel that we haven't had the opportunity to interact with the text and information. We demand that you make and [hold space] to [study] the voices of students of color," one protester stated.

After nearly four minutes of non-stop speaking, one student asked if this was "a filibuster." A female protester was outraged by his sarcasm:

You listen! You have to listen, okay? Listen to us, okay? You talk so much already, okay?... Are you trying to silence us right now? Is that what you're trying to do?

The student responded: "I'm trying to take my test." Another protester snapped back: "We're trying to live our lives ... white boy with privilege."

When the protesters finally allowed Professor Harley Shaiken to speak, he only eked out about one sentence before he was interrupted:

On a campus like the University of California, Berkeley, I am not about to let 50 right-wing demonstrators —

"There's not 50, there was over 200. In [an] email, it said over 200 people," one of the protesters interjected.

Professor Shaiken continued:

Let's say it's 200. To allow 200 right-wing demonstrators [to] shut down a university — I am in demonstrations all the time in Latin America — as recently as the end of August, just before the first day of class. You keep the integrity of the institution you are a part of. For 50 people or 200 people or 1,000 people to be able to shut this enterprise down I think is deeply flawed.

A female protester wearing a striped dress countered:

That's not the point of the matter. We are talking about communities of color. You have people in our homelands who are experiencing devastation ... students that are undocumented ... how can you [inaudible] to prepare for this exam with all this going on?

Unshaken, the professor continued, and proceeded to bring the heat:

I'm not going to get into a debate about all these issues right now. I be pleased to address them at the beginning of class on Thursday. In fairness to everyone who's here — and I deeply appreciate all of you being here — because it is something for a campus to be able to stand up by conducting its activities.

This is a campus that is truly related throughout Latin America to the notion of free speech. Student demonstrations in Chile; student demonstrations in Mexico, in Guatemala. Yesterday, there were enormous demonstrations in Guatemala to have the president impeached and imprisoned. Anyone who marched in those was truly risking their lives.

At the University of San Carlos, which we are in touch with, they held classes, they gave exams. You may disagree with it — and I respect your opinion for disagreeing with it; I respect you getting up here and stating your disagreements — but with that, we are going to go ahead with the exam, not despite the demonstrations, but to show that all of us, as part of a community, are capable of doing what a university does absent that kind of interference. Otherwise, anytime 25, 50, or 1,000 people want to stop this dead, it becomes their possibility, and we've demonstrated that that's what will happen.

Shaiken’s words fell on deaf ears, as one protester smugly stated: "Understand your privilege."

The students told Shaiken that they were going to take their complaints to the Department of Ethnic Studies, to which the professor responded: "You are more than welcome to do that."

Just as the group was leaving, one stayed behind to tell off the rest of the class:

I don’t know why you’re still, like, sitting down, y’all. I don’t understand. I really don’t understand. Y’all can take your f**king test, but people are dying out there. ... Y’all can take your test, but this [university is] protecting white supremacists, and y’all are protecting them, too.

Kudos to Shaiken for standing his ground. The Daily Wire has reached out to the professor for comment, but as of this publication, he has yet to respond.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22073/berkeley-students-protest-exam-demand-take-home-frank-camp?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

i wonder if quill got his spy training at Berkeley

smelly-bandit wrote:hey quill, the sooner the aids loving California fucks off from the rest of the USA the better i think, where can i sign your petition for cali to leave?

This will get you started:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/history/americas-economic-history/california-files-petition-to-secede-from-usa-calexit/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_and_secession_in_California

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:hey quill, the sooner the aids loving California fucks off from the rest of the USA the better i think, where can i sign your petition for cali to leave?

This will get you started:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/history/americas-economic-history/california-files-petition-to-secede-from-usa-calexit/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_and_secession_in_California

So where I sign up??

Smelly's brain pan...

That empty land of no original thought, and even less actual intelligence..

smelly-bandit wrote:i wonder if quill got his spy training at Berkeley

I think it was helpful.  The three best institutions of higher learning in the United States are Berkeley, Stanford, and Harvard University.  Grades and test scores, as well as university of origin, are the only real objective indicia for evaluation and entrance.

Coming from Berkeley, I personally have experienced some preferential treatment.  For instance, while a doctoral student at Rutgers I was given a TA position and allowed full control over my classes as if an assistant professor.  I was able to get news media jobs in New York City for the asking.

It's tough to know, had I stayed with the State Department, what they had in mind for me.  But Berkeley sure didn't hurt.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

This will get you started:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/history/americas-economic-history/california-files-petition-to-secede-from-usa-calexit/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_and_secession_in_California

So where I sign up??

Are you a California citizen?

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:i wonder if quill got his spy training at Berkeley

I think it was helpful.  The three best institutions of higher learning in the United States are Berkeley, Stanford, and Harvard University.  Grades and test scores, as well as university of origin, are the only real objective indicia for evaluation and entrance.

Coming from Berkeley, I personally have experienced some preferential treatment.  For instance, while a doctoral student at Rutgers I was given a TA position and allowed full control over my classes as if an assistant professor.  I was able to get news media jobs in New York City for the asking.

It's tough to know, had I stayed with the State Department, what they had in mind for me.  But Berkeley sure didn't hurt.

Does part of your spy training involve you bragging online about how top secret you are??

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

So where I sign up??

Are you a California citizen?

No, but I'm not a british citizen either and I still managed to vote for Brexit.

With the Democrats and crooked Hillarys love of voter fraud I'm sure a little thing like not being a yank won't matter.

Besides I'm voting FOR you guys to piss off

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Are you a California citizen?

No, but I'm not a british citizen either and I still managed to vote for Brexit.

With the Democrats and crooked Hillarys love of voter fraud I'm sure a little thing like not being a yank won't matter.

Besides I'm voting FOR you guys to piss off

I know.  You are a Ruski from the International Research Agency-fake news institute in St. Petersburg, Russia:

Daily News wrote:The Internet Research Agency creates hundreds of online personas that support the Russian government and burn the Obama administration, the New York Times Magazine reported.

Though the purpose of the agency — like its dealings — are shady, the IRA has been linked to hundreds of social media accounts that claim fake U.S. disasters are occurring: a chemical leak in Louisiana, an Ebola outbreak in Atlanta and a fatal police shooting of an unarmed black woman.

"I can't say they clearly explain to you what your purpose there is," former employee Ludmila Savchuk said. "But they created such an atmosphere that people would understand they were doing something important and secretive and very highly paid."

So, you've decided we are important enough to pay us a visit.  We are all very flattered.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/russian-agency-creates-army-trolls-spread-propaganda-article-1.2243950

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think it was helpful.  The three best institutions of higher learning in the United States are Berkeley, Stanford, and Harvard University.  Grades and test scores, as well as university of origin, are the only real objective indicia for evaluation and entrance.

Coming from Berkeley, I personally have experienced some preferential treatment.  For instance, while a doctoral student at Rutgers I was given a TA position and allowed full control over my classes as if an assistant professor.  I was able to get news media jobs in New York City for the asking.

It's tough to know, had I stayed with the State Department, what they had in mind for me.  But Berkeley sure didn't hurt.

Does part of your spy training involve you bragging online about  how top secret you are??

Top secret?  I don't know what you are talking about.  The only thing classified were the places I visited.  It had nothing to do with my work.

Besides, that was ages ago. The Soviet Union no longer even exists.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Does part of your spy training involve you bragging online about  how top secret you are??

Top secret?  I don't know what you are talking about.  The only thing classified were the places I visited.  It had nothing to do with my work.

Besides, that was ages ago.  The Soviet Union no longer even exists.

yet your paranoia remains

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Top secret?  I don't know what you are talking about.  The only thing classified were the places I visited.  It had nothing to do with my work.

Besides, that was ages ago.  The Soviet Union no longer even exists.

yet your paranoia remains  

Why? You raised it. I am nonchalant, at best. It's old news.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

yet your paranoia remains  

Why?  You raised it.  I am nonchalant, at best.  It's old news.

no you raised it.

you're so paranoid that you have convinced yourself i work for Putin

its mildly amusing i have to say

Last time I was in Cali, I felt like I was in slightly different country. I often get that feeling when I travel to other states, but only a small inkling. In Cali, it's different, and I was in San Diego, where the normal people live.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Is that the status of the law in the UK?  It sounds similar to this law in California.  

I mean, one year is he maximum time to which someone may be sentenced as a misdemeanor.  So, reducing it to a misdemeanor is adjusting the law to bring it into conformity with other areas.

No its not the UK law Quill, I looked up the maximum sentence for a misdemeanor in California and its 365 days....and thats for the most serios misdemeanor.

Sentences here seem to vary from 5 to 7 years for recklessly infecting an unsuspecting partner ..so far.

Offence : Administering poison or noxious thing with intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy

Legislation : Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Section : Section 24

Maximum Penalty : 5-years imprisonment


Although I would expect there to be other criminal charges and tougher sentences available for OP...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

No its not the UK law Quill, I looked up the maximum sentence for a misdemeanor in California and its 365 days....and thats for the most serios misdemeanor.

Sentences here seem to vary from 5 to 7 years for recklessly infecting an unsuspecting partner ..so far.

Offence : Administering poison or noxious thing with intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy

Legislation : Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Section : Section 24

Maximum Penalty : 5-years imprisonment


Although I would expect there to be other criminal charges and tougher sentences available for OP...

Would HIV or other sexually transmitted infections be covered by 'poison or noxious thing' I wonder?
I read of a case where a man was given a 7 year sentence for deliberately passing on HIV ....so there is some leeway in the max sentence.

Maddog wrote:Last time I was in Cali, I felt like I was in slightly different country. I often get that feeling when I travel to other states, but only a small inkling. In Cali, it's different, and I was in San Diego, where the normal people live.  

Yeah, San Diego is a big Navy town, so it's a lot of temporary people from elsewhere.

But I agree that the west coast has nothing in common with the rest of the nation. With such discomfort as you feel, why would anyone want to mix the two populations.

This is the strongest argument to devolve, and the way for reasonable people to agree to separate the US from the Pacific States of America. We don't need another civil war, we can just come to an amicable divorce. We have no common belief system, no common culture even. The US is rapidly going over Neo-Nazism, and the south has always been white supremacist, and the west coast wants none of that. That's why states such as Washington and Hawai'i bring lawsuits against the Feds. It's a clash of cultures.

So it's time for a separation.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Last time I was in Cali, I felt like I was in slightly different country. I often get that feeling when I travel to other states, but only a small inkling. In Cali, it's different, and I was in San Diego, where the normal people live.  

Yeah, San Diego is a big Navy town, so it's a lot of temporary people from elsewhere.

But I agree that the west coast has nothing in common with the rest of the nation.  With such discomfort as you feel, why would anyone want to mix the two populations.  

This is the strongest argument to devolve, and the way for reasonable people to agree to separate the US from the Pacific States of America.  We don't need another civil war, we can just come to an amicable divorce.  We have no common belief system, no common culture even.  The US is rapidly going over Neo-Nazism, and the south has always been white supremacist, and the west coast wants none of that.  That's why states such as Washington and Hawai'i bring lawsuits against the Feds.  It's a clash of cultures.

So it's time for a separation.

While that would be cool, it's never going to happen.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Why?  You raised it.  I am nonchalant, at best.  It's old news.

no you raised it.

you're so paranoid that you have convinced yourself i work for Putin

its mildly amusing  i have to say

Here's what you posted:

SB wrote:Does part of your spy training involve you bragging online about how top secret you are??

"Top secret"? That's paranoia.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

no you raised it.

you're so paranoid that you have convinced yourself i work for Putin

its mildly amusing  i have to say

Here's what you posted:

SB wrote:Does part of your spy training involve you bragging online about  how top secret you are??

"Top secret"?  That's paranoia.

you're the one claiming to be some state department spook visiting top secret sites.

you talk a good war quill

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yeah, San Diego is a big Navy town, so it's a lot of temporary people from elsewhere.

But I agree that the west coast has nothing in common with the rest of the nation.  With such discomfort as you feel, why would anyone want to mix the two populations.  

This is the strongest argument to devolve, and the way for reasonable people to agree to separate the US from the Pacific States of America.  We don't need another civil war, we can just come to an amicable divorce.  We have no common belief system, no common culture even.  The US is rapidly going over Neo-Nazism, and the south has always been white supremacist, and the west coast wants none of that.  That's why states such as Washington and Hawai'i bring lawsuits against the Feds.  It's a clash of cultures.

So it's time for a separation.

While that would be cool, it's never going to happen.

That's what they said about a paedophile and child-rapist ever becoming president. http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/ Trump has changed the boundaries of normalcy. Haven't you gotten the message? There is no longer any such thing as "it's never going to happen."

It actually falls right into sequence. The west coast is farthest from Washington DC, and farthest from the Neo-Nazi and white supremacist tendencies of the rest of the nation. It's a natural separation, and the closest to normalcy we can come. After all, we didn't leave them; they left us.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Here's what you posted:



"Top secret"?  That's paranoia.

you're the one claiming to be some state department spook visiting top secret sites.

you talk a good war quill

Why would a diplomatic service department have any need for spooks? It just shows your tendency for paranoia.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

While that would be cool, it's never going to happen.

That's what they said about a paedophile and child-rapist ever becoming president.  http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/  Trump has changed the boundaries of normalcy.  Haven't you gotten the message?  There is no longer any such thing as "it's never going to happen."  

It actually falls right into sequence.  The west coast is farthest from Washington DC, and farthest from the Neo-Nazi and white supremacist tendencies of the rest of the nation.  It's a natural separation, and the closest to normalcy we can come.  After all, we didn't leave them; they left us.

But Trumps election was legal, unlike secession. We are not talking about statistical events.

It's stupid to hit a 17 in black jack, but it's not against the rules, and it might even work on rare occasions.

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

you're the one claiming to be some state department spook visiting top secret sites.

you talk a good war quill

Why would a diplomatic service department have any need for spooks?  It just shows your tendency for paranoia.

You talk a good war Quill

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's what they said about a paedophile and child-rapist ever becoming president.  http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/  Trump has changed the boundaries of normalcy.  Haven't you gotten the message?  There is no longer any such thing as "it's never going to happen."  

It actually falls right into sequence.  The west coast is farthest from Washington DC, and farthest from the Neo-Nazi and white supremacist tendencies of the rest of the nation.  It's a natural separation, and the closest to normalcy we can come.  After all, we didn't leave them; they left us.

But Trumps election was legal, unlike secession. We are not talking about statistical events.

It's stupid to hit a 17 in black jack, but it's not against the rules, and it might even work on rare occasions.

It's not an improbability. These bizarre things are happening routinely. It's no longer taboo to grab ladies pussies in public, or shit on war heroes because they were POW's. It's apparently acceptable to have sex with under-aged children. Or, sell one's office to the enemy. And fuck the vets; they're a bunch of losers, anyway. Our intelligence services are useless. The generals are rubbish. Gold star families should be pissed on.

The times they are a-changing. All you have to do is get used to it. Succession is perfectly reasonable if both sides agree. If it requires a change in a law, or a simple agreement, we can do that. There's nothing to stop it if all agree.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Why would a diplomatic service department have any need for spooks?  It just shows your tendency for paranoia.

You talk a good war Quill

I believe you've lost. I'll accept your mea culpa anytime.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Offence : Administering poison or noxious thing with intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy

Legislation : Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Section : Section 24

Maximum Penalty : 5-years imprisonment


Although I would expect there to be other criminal charges and tougher sentences available for OP...

Would HIV or other sexually transmitted infections be covered by 'poison or noxious thing' I wonder?
I read of a case where a man was given a 7 year sentence for deliberately passing on  HIV ....so there is some leeway in the max sentence.

Section 24 would be...

Offence : Administering poison or noxious thing with intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy


I don't think this would be the offence under which a person would be charged for deliberately infecting another with HIV, but which would of course be maliciously, and would also fall into the scope of numerous other serious crime categories...


But I'm just showing that even if it was prosecuted under the much lesser charge example I gave... then it would be at the most serious end of that charge, and warranting the 5 years jail...


I'm sure there are more serious charges and much heavier sentences available... and I think they should be used...!!!

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

You talk a good war Quill

I believe you've lost.  I'll accept your mea culpa anytime.  

Lost what??

Your mind is broken, you're ranting about how you're going to impeach trump.......... Tomorrow, how you have him where you want him but are waiting for...........
Something to happen first

You're shrieking about me being a Russian agent

You're telling me Brexit is dead but think article 50 is article that allows for new fishing agreements.

You're bragging about visiting top secret sites for the state department

Then you're some super duper lawyer / judge / prosecutor who is going to lead California into independence.

I can't tell where your joking begins and where you're reality ends

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I believe you've lost.  I'll accept your mea culpa anytime.  

Lost what??

Your mind is broken, you're  ranting about how you're going to impeach trump.......... Tomorrow, how you have him where you want him but are waiting for...........
Something to happen first

You're shrieking about me being a Russian agent

You're telling me Brexit is dead but think article 50 is article that allows for new fishing agreements.

You're bragging about visiting top secret sites for the state department

Then you're some super duper lawyer / judge / prosecutor who is going to lead California into independence.

I can't tell where your joking begins and where you're reality ends

Blah, blah, blah. You lost sweet-pea. Next?

Original Quill wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Lost what??

Your mind is broken, you're  ranting about how you're going to impeach trump.......... Tomorrow, how you have him where you want him but are waiting for...........
Something to happen first

You're shrieking about me being a Russian agent

You're telling me Brexit is dead but think article 50 is article that allows for new fishing agreements.

You're bragging about visiting top secret sites for the state department

Then you're some super duper lawyer / judge / prosecutor who is going to lead California into independence.

I can't tell where your joking begins and where you're reality ends

Blah, blah, blah.  You lost sweet-pea.  Next?

Someone's been taking lessons from didge on how to "win" a debate.

Anyway this isn't a debate, there isn't anything to debate, it's a thread about how shit California is

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yeah, San Diego is a big Navy town, so it's a lot of temporary people from elsewhere.

But I agree that the west coast has nothing in common with the rest of the nation.  With such discomfort as you feel, why would anyone want to mix the two populations.  

This is the strongest argument to devolve, and the way for reasonable people to agree to separate the US from the Pacific States of America.  We don't need another civil war, we can just come to an amicable divorce.  We have no common belief system, no common culture even.  The US is rapidly going over Neo-Nazism, and the south has always been white supremacist, and the west coast wants none of that.  That's why states such as Washington and Hawai'i bring lawsuits against the Feds.  It's a clash of cultures.

So it's time for a separation.

While that would be cool, it's never going to happen.

"Never say 'never'.."

When Egypt had an empire, it lasted over a thousand years --  look at them now...
The Roman Empire survived for a few hundred years..
The British Empire was the largest in history --  but look at them now..
The Soviet Union barely passed 75 years..

How much longer before the good ol' USA devolves into 3,  4  or even 5 smaller entities  ?!?
Especially with Donald the Dumpster now at the helm..        

It's increasingly becoming a matter of "not if,  but when."

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

While that would be cool, it's never going to happen.

"Never say 'never'.."

When Egypt had an empire, it lasted over a thousand years --  look at them now...
The Roman Empire survived for a few hundred years..
The British Empire was the largest in history --  but look at them now..
The Soviet Union barely passed 75 years..

How much longer before the good ol' USA devolves into 3,  4  or even 5 smaller entities  ?!?
Especially with Donald the Dumpster now at the helm..        

It's increasingly becoming a matter of "not if,  but when."

I'm a Texan. I have been raised around the whole idea of secession. It's not allowed, as we have been told, ad infinitum, for 100 years. If Trump becomes too much of a problem, he will be removed. The country won't split into multiple countries because of one bad President. We fought a bloody war over this topic once. It was decided then, that you are going to have to fight your way out, if you want out. No offense to my California brethren, but fighting ain't their long suit. They could win a wine making and surfing contest though.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Blah, blah, blah.  You lost sweet-pea.  Next?

Someone's been taking lessons from didge on how to "win" a debate.

Anyway this isn't a debate, there isn't anything to debate, it's a thread about how shit California is

Sometimes it has to end. It's like wrestling...when I've got you pinned, and there's nothing but spitting and swearing, that's the time to end it.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


"Never say 'never'.."

When Egypt had an empire, it lasted over a thousand years --  look at them now...
The Roman Empire survived for a few hundred years..
The British Empire was the largest in history --  but look at them now..
The Soviet Union barely passed 75 years..

How much longer before the good ol' USA devolves into 3,  4  or even 5 smaller entities  ?!?
Especially with Donald the Dumpster now at the helm..        

It's increasingly becoming a matter of "not if,  but when."

I'm a Texan. I have been raised around the whole idea of secession. It's not allowed, as we have been told, ad infinitum, for 100 years. If Trump becomes too much of a problem, he will be removed. The country won't split into multiple countries because of one bad President. We fought a bloody war over this topic once. It was decided then, that you are going to have to fight your way out, if you want out. No offense to my California brethren, but fighting a'int their long suit. They could win a wine making and surfing contest though.  

The civil war need not be dragged out.  No violence is necessary.  All it takes is the recognition that we don't have anything in common.

No American is a very good fighter, to hear Trump tell it. They are all losers, and the generals and admirals are rubble.  Tough talk is cheap; but it's all girly-boys trying to sound big.  Korea, Vietnam, Iraq...we tough Americans turned tail and ran.  And don't tell me a Texan is any better; those sissies in Harris County were whining like stuck pigs during Hurricane Harvey.

Is Trump what you want to fight for?  Good luck.  One minute he'll pat you on the back, the next minute he'll stab you in the back.  Sessions?  Ryan?  McConnell?  Tillerson?  Ask them.  It's not worth fighting for; not even those big, tough, yipper dogs, the Texans.

There's no need for a civil war.  All we have to do is put down our tools, bring out the folding chairs, and stop pulling.  They'll soon get the idea.  They can't build a tank if no one turns a wrench.  And all the munitions, ships and aircraft are built right here in Southern California, computers in Silicon Valley, with Boeing and Microsoft in Seattle.  There's no WE anymore.

Add to that, why would they want to  have any joining with us?  We are not white-supremacists, not KKK'ers, not Neo-Nazis, and they'll never convince us that is the right path.  There's no common culture.  You can't build a brick wall with no mortar; a stiff wind blows it over.  Devolution will come of it's own accord.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm a Texan. I have been raised around the whole idea of secession. It's not allowed, as we have been told, ad infinitum, for 100 years. If Trump becomes too much of a problem, he will be removed. The country won't split into multiple countries because of one bad President. We fought a bloody war over this topic once. It was decided then, that you are going to have to fight your way out, if you want out. No offense to my California brethren, but fighting a'int their long suit. They could win a wine making and surfing contest though.  

The civil war need not be dragged out.  No violence is necessary.  All it takes is the recognition that we don't have anything in common.

No American is a very good fighter, to hear Trump tell it.  Tough talk; it's all girly-boys trying to sound big.  Korea, Vietnam, Iran...we tough Americans turned tail and ran.  And don't tell me a Texan is any better; they were whining like stuck pigs during Hurricane Harvey.

Is Trump what you want to fight for?  Good luck.  One minute he'll pat you on the back, the next minute he'll stab you in the back.  Sessions?  Ryan?  McConnell?  Tillerson?  Ask them.  It's not worth fighting for; not even for big, tough, yipper dogs like Texans.

There's no need for a civil war.  All we have to do is put down our tools, bring out the folding chairs, and stop pulling.  They'll soon get the idea.  Add to that, why would they want to  have anything to do with us.  We are not white-supremacists, not KKK'ers, not Neo-Nazis, and they'll never convince us that is the right path.  You can't build a brick wall with no mortar.

Spin it however you like. The United States military will be sent into any state that decides to secede. It doesn't matter if you have a good reason to do so.

I have no desire to fight for Trump at all, nor will it ever be something I have to deal with.

Trump will limp along, maybe get removed, maybe not, and the country will go on like before.

As for Texans, we are 1 and 0 in wars to secede from a country.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The civil war need not be dragged out.  No violence is necessary.  All it takes is the recognition that we don't have anything in common.

No American is a very good fighter, to hear Trump tell it.  Tough talk; it's all girly-boys trying to sound big.  Korea, Vietnam, Iran...we tough Americans turned tail and ran.  And don't tell me a Texan is any better; they were whining like stuck pigs during Hurricane Harvey.

Is Trump what you want to fight for?  Good luck.  One minute he'll pat you on the back, the next minute he'll stab you in the back.  Sessions?  Ryan?  McConnell?  Tillerson?  Ask them.  It's not worth fighting for; not even for big, tough, yipper dogs like Texans.

There's no need for a civil war.  All we have to do is put down our tools, bring out the folding chairs, and stop pulling.  They'll soon get the idea.  Add to that, why would they want to  have anything to do with us.  We are not white-supremacists, not KKK'ers, not Neo-Nazis, and they'll never convince us that is the right path.  You can't build a brick wall with no mortar.

Spin it however you like. The United States military will be sent into any state that decides to secede. It doesn't matter if you have a good reason to do so.

I have no desire to fight for Trump at all, nor will it ever be something I have to deal with.

Trump will limp along, maybe get removed, maybe not, and the country will go on like before.

As for Texans, we are 1 and 0 in wars to secede from a country.    

How will the US Army get around with no trucks to drive, no ships to sail, no aircraft to fly, no petrol to burn, no guns to shoot, etc.? Pretty soon they'll get bored, buy a surfboard and join those happy dudes on Santa Monica beach.

We'll co-opt them. It's a lot more fun than killing blacks, waving Nazi flags and marching around guano splattered statutes of Robert E. Lee.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:
Spin it however you like. The United States military will be sent into any state that decides to secede. It doesn't matter if you have a good reason to do so.

I have no desire to fight for Trump at all, nor will it ever be something I have to deal with.

Trump will limp along, maybe get removed, maybe not, and the country will go on like before.

As for Texans, we are 1 and 0 in wars to secede from a country.    

How will the US Army get around with no trucks to drive, no ships to sail, no aircraft to fly, no petrol to burn, no guns to shoot, etc.?  Pretty soon they'll get bored, buy a surfboard and join those happy dudes on Santa Monica beach.  

We'll co-opt them.  It's a lot more fun than killing blacks, waving Nazi flags and marching around guano splattered statutes of Robert E. Lee.  

You may be able to co-opt them, after the killing gets fairly gruesome. It's not 1861, and many US soldiers may not follow orders to kill fellow Americans. More could do the same if things got particularly gruesome. But you're going to have to be prepared for a fairly substantial conflict in the short run. You are going to have to force them to kill Californians first, to garner sympathy from the military and the rest of the country. If you just roll over, it's not going to work. Better get some practice in down at the range.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

How will the US Army get around with no trucks to drive, no ships to sail, no aircraft to fly, no petrol to burn, no guns to shoot, etc.?  Pretty soon they'll get bored, buy a surfboard and join those happy dudes on Santa Monica beach.  

We'll co-opt them.  It's a lot more fun than killing blacks, waving Nazi flags and marching around guano splattered statutes of Robert E. Lee.  

You may be able to co-opt them, after the killing gets fairly gruesome. It's not 1861, and many US soldiers may not follow orders to kill fellow Americans. More could do the same if things  got particularly gruesome. But you're going to have to be prepared for a fairly substantial conflict in the short run. You are going to have to force them to kill Californians first, to garner sympathy from the military and the rest of the country. If you just roll over, it's not going to work. Better get some practice in down at the range.

Frankly, I don't think it will ever come to that.  It's tough to kill folks who really don't want to fight.  See, in the 1860's the south had a venom, and the north had right on it's side.  

But this time nobody gives a shit.  Fighting to promote a swastika flag???  It no longer rises to that level.  They'll be surfing together in a week.  Y'all might lose a few Nebraskans.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You may be able to co-opt them, after the killing gets fairly gruesome. It's not 1861, and many US soldiers may not follow orders to kill fellow Americans. More could do the same if things  got particularly gruesome. But you're going to have to be prepared for a fairly substantial conflict in the short run. You are going to have to force them to kill Californians first, to garner sympathy from the military and the rest of the country. If you just roll over, it's not going to work. Better get some practice in down at the range.

Frankly, I don't think it will ever come to that.  It's tough to kill folks who really don't want to fight.  See, in the 1860's the south had a venom, and the north had right on it's side.  

But this time nobody gives a shit.  Fighting to promote a swastika flag???  It no longer rises to that level.  They'll be surfing together in a week.  Y'all might lose a few Nebraskans.

I can assure you, that the federal government gives a shit. And it's not about a flag either.

As for the South, Lincoln used force for one reason. To keep the union together. He didn't fight the south to free the slaves but to preserve the union.