There Outta Be a Law: Californians Getting 725 New Ones in 2011

lamesa.patch.com ^ | 12/31/2010 | staff

[drpix]

Californians will welcome 725 new laws on Jan. 1. Here's a glance at some of the laws taking effect when you ring in the new year:

■SB 782 prevents landlords from evicting tenants who are victims of domestic or sexual abuse or stalking.

■AB 715 makes a change to the California Green Building Standards code. The change will require new California buildings to be energy efficient.

■SB 1399 allows California to medically parole state prison inmates with physical incapacitating conditions and ultimately shifts some of the cost of care to the federal government.

■AB 97 bans the use of trans-fats in food facilities.

[Excellence]

The comments are great. “God has fewer laws than California.”

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks drpix.

[Pagey]

bttt

[NormsRevenge]

How shall the Republic perish?

It shall crumble from within.

[tubebender]

I think 725 new laws is down from the normal 1125 per year...

[Defiant]

Those who can't spell with some level of competence risk having their thoughts considered simplistic. At least, when you are trying to reach an educated audience. Someone who asks us to look at his blog should know the difference between "out" and "ought". And "aught", for that matter.

Substantively, you did a good job. Now, work on your anger issues and your spelling.

[Stayfrosty]

It’s getting to the point where conservatives will have to make hard decisions or just be considered weak. Quit California and move out of the state (mass boycott) or shutup. democrats wanted to boycott az, well let’s show them what will happen if conservatives leave, they will have no one to pay for the 80% of vermin living in the trash heap.

[Stayfrosty]

time to quit california if you are a true conservative. put up or shutup time.

[drpix]

"Those who can't spell with some level of competence risk having their thoughts considered simplistic. At least, when you are trying to reach an educated audience. Someone who asks us to look at his blog should know the difference between "out" and "ought". And "aught", for that matter."

"Substantively, you did a good job. Now, work on your anger issues and your spelling."

Since I always copy & paste thread titles and excerpts - and never type them myself - whatever "outta"/"ought"/"aught" issues you have may annoy me, but they do not anger me. It does seem that the website did change their title from the time of posting's "Outta" to the "Ought" now displayed.

For those so simplistically fixated, see below link & screen capture as proof. For all the other posters on this thread, thank you for your thoughtful comments. It is the exchange of those comments - not spelling gotchas - that brings me to FR.

---

Link:

Google results listing the article in "Patch - Hoa Quach - Dec 31, 2010"
under
"There Outta Be a Law: Californians Getting 725 New Ones in 2011" target="_blank"

---

Screen capture:

---

[ExTexasRedhead]

Try to sell a house CA these days and get anything for it. Tell me who locks the door and walks away when they own a house? Who, when they own their home and are retired, can walk away from their home? Go where, with what, and purchase with what? California is a huge state and there are millions of Conservatives living among the kooks. Even Texas, as Conservative as it is, has towns like Austin and Houston full of useful idiot, mindless, Kool Aid Liberals. Liberals are infesting the country just like the Muslims and illegals. Welcome to reality. We The People must wake up and work to vote out the corrupt, amoral, power-hungry sleaze that infests our government at every level from local, to state, to the DC sewer.

[Defiant]

My comment was directed at the blog author, whose title was glaringly inept. Since you responded so vociferously, I assumed it was your article. Now you claim you copied and pasted the title from a third party article. If so, I don't know why you cared about my comment that was directed to the article's author.

I am increasingly dismayed by the failure of print media to understand grade school level grammar, and, like many others here, mention it when it is inescapable. It is also a reflection on you that you would direct a vulgarity at someone who merely commented on the author's failing, and even more odd considering that you didn't write the headline.

I'd look seriously into the anger issues and maybe some problems with narcissism, too.

[DennisR]

Just proves that any state run by Democrats is destined to be run by clueless utopians. Unreal. We live in WA State, so we are only one inch behind CA.

[Defiant]

I gave you a chance to be gracious, but you just don't want to take it, do you? We don't allow profane personal attacks on this forum. You might want to take it to a news feed or yahoo groups if that's what you like. If pointing out a very poorly written headline that you didn't even write is enough to set you off, God only knows what would happen if someone disagreed with you.

Yes, most of the new laws in California are a travesty. No one is going to take the commentary seriously, though, where the author of an article that appears in some kind of La Mesa news blog, doesn't know the difference between "out" and "ought". If they want to be thought of as citizen journalists, they "ought" to be able to self-edit. So should you, and the next time you are angry and depressed, and unhappy with your life and you take to the interwebs to channel some of that anger, and you would like to use profanity in the midst of a civil discussion, you might consider backing away from the keyboard for a minute.

[drpix]

After posting an article and comment - concerning serious matters that should be seen as threats to the Republic - I found a reply that advocated driving either or both from the internet, because of spelling errors, extremely offensive.

Not knowing the motivation, I could only deem it a #$%@$$ annoyance and told that poster so. After the exchange of a few more comments, along the same lines, that poster had my last comment (#34) using the same #$%@$$ adjective "removed by Moderator".

Has that poster finally dropped the cause of spelling purity and gone directly to the cause of silencing others. After all, while the adjective I used was scatological and to some vulgar, it certainly was not profane. Moreover, before using that adjective the 2nd time, I checked Google for accepted use on FR. Google searchs return 4,250 results for the (vulgar?) root alone (LINK) and 329 results for the specific variation I used (LINK). ]

Does scratching the surface of a spelling-nazi reveal a speech-nazi? Whatever the answer, since what I had to say was more important than the use of that particular word, here is that removed comment, minus the word in question:

  Politicians enacting more laws against the law abiding & not criminals IS anger provoking.

  A state's chief law enforcement officer campaigning against the fear of crime & not crime
  itself IS anger provoking.

  A poster's dismissive reply about spelling errors (in the article or my comment) IS a 
  #$%$#!& annoyance.

  A poster assuming the role of another's school counselor IS a pompous absurdity.

  I do not read or post on FR for discussions on spelling or for liberal psychobabble on 
  anger management.

  ENOUGH of this foolish diversion!

I truly hope the administrators & moderators of FR remain free from influence of those who would silence patriotic freedom loving American voices - by using the pretense of being offended by words already commonly used on FR or by mispellings.

[Defiant]

Dude, give it a rest. Your posts got "zoughted", due to profane attacks by you on a forum member. This is not a grade school playground, and vulgar name calling will get a post pulled every time.

You seem to fit in here politically, you just need to learn how to interact with others. I hope you do.

[drpix]

"Profanity?" As proven in my last post, you had my comment removed for an adjective* that (with its "vulgar" root) has been used 4,579 times on FR (statistically daily) over the 13 years you've been a member. The feelings of a 13 year member seem to count for more than the facts.

This came after your 1st comment advocated that the writer of a posted article be driven from the internet over a misspelling.

Since you've offered me your personal counseling several times, let me return the favor. Your longstanding FR membership must mean we fall on the same Right side on most issues. However, you also have a dangerous urge that clearly lies on the Left. It is the Left that tries to silence people, while the Right only tries to expose them. Deal with that urge and our interactions would be problem free.

* Describing your comment (not you) and defined by American Heritage® Dictionary as "foolish or contemptible."

[Admin Moderator]

You both ought to or outta knock it off, please. Your choice.