California, FIX YOUR PROBLEMS NOT YOUR STRAWS!

California, FIX YOUR PROBLEMS NOT YOUR STRAWS! | BAN PLASTIC STRAWS FIX ACTUAL PROBLEMS | image tagged in memes,two buttons | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
share
30,679 views, 185 upvotes, Made by aragorn13 3 months ago memestwo buttons
Two Buttons memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
14 ups, 1 reply
Too Damn High Meme | CALIFORNIAN POLITICIANS ARE TOO DAMN HIGH! | image tagged in memes,too damn high | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Gotta be the explanation.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
10 Guy Meme | particularly in California I wanna go into politics | image tagged in memes,10 guy | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Roll Safe Think About It Meme | AT LEAST CALIFORNIA POLITICIANS HAVE AN EXCUSE FOR COCKING UP | image tagged in memes,roll safe think about it | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
sulu | OKAY,  WHEN YOU SAY "COCKING UP" . . . | image tagged in sulu | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
HOLD UP | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
picard grin | YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN WITH THIS ONE, JIM | image tagged in picard grin | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
lol
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
I'VE ENDED UP IN THE KOBIYASHI MARU AGAIN, HAVEN'T I? | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Immensely!
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Lol
reply
2 ups
Lol
reply
9 ups, 2 replies
reply
[deleted]
5 ups
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
Upvoted
reply
8 ups, 2 replies
i.imgflip.com/2exptl.gif (click to show)

Yes! Terrible problems like the world's 5th largest economy, a budget surplus, faster economic growth than the rest of the nation (especially MAGA-land), and they have legal weed. It's truly hell...
reply
4 ups, 4 replies
And lowest quality of life, an out of control homeless problem, dirty needles in the streets, the decriminalization of knowingly spreading HIV, the list goes on. Keep deluding yourself, Trucker
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
It's better than YOUR dirty af state
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
He's right though.. to the rest of the country California is a total joke. The only people who seem to be impressed by it are the people who are from there. But I'm sure people are leaving Cali in droves because it's such a wonderful place, right?
reply
4 ups, 3 replies
http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/california-population/

.61% annual population growth is over 242,000 people per year.
reply
4 ups
And by rat I mean rate, of course.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/19/californians-fed-up-with-housing-costs-and-taxes-are-fleeing-state.html

https://www.curbed.com/2018/2/27/17058006/california-housing-crisis-rent-migration-texas

https://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/article32679753.html

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/californians-doing-the-once-unthinkable-leaving-california/

Rush Limbaugh, right..
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Let me congratulate you on using sources. I upvoted.

The population of the state is increasing, but my read on the migration out of the state is that the economic forces pushing poor people out are largely due to housing costs...ironically a product of unrestrained capitalism, as much as you people like to sh*t all over Cali for socialism. People who complain about high taxes are as likely as not to be property owners and they are highly incentivized to sell their expensive properties and move to a place like Nevada or Texas and pocket a handsome profit. I lived in Oregon for over a decade and Oregonians have been complaining about Californians driving up the real estate prices for 30 years.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Do you mean 1.61% growth rate? Because a .61% "growth" rate is actually just the population going down.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
That would be true if we were talking about exponential growth rates, but we aren't. A growth rate of .61% is still a population increase
reply
0 ups
Actually, I take that back. 1.61% exponential growth is still a decrease.
reply
3 ups
reply
5 ups
reply
3 ups
reply
1 up
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Oh, like 1/4 of of the nations homeless population. I'm sure it's nice for those people.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
It's almost as if California has warm weather and compassionate people who follow Christ's instructions better than his so-called followers in cold-ass flyover states. This isn't that hard to figure out.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
This is the same god who commanded that a guy be put to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath and says slavery is OK, so I'm not about to get my morality from a piece of crap like him.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Octavia, Jesus said in the New Testament to disregard the old laws in the Torah (the books written by Moses). Those old laws including someone to be put to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, making slaves of the Canaanites is O.K., and putting men who have sex with men to death. Jesus changed all of that. I simply put the Bible verse in there from the book of Leviticus to show that God despised homosexuals 3,475 years ago. God needed to enforce those laws to keep Israeli's morality in check. He needed to put in the law about homosexuals in order to stop Israel from turning into another Sodom or Gomorra. He needed to put the other law about the Sabbath to make sure that people have one day of rest, and that the working people have a chance to re - cooperate.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
So having insanely cruel and barbaric laws was ok, because it was to keep their "morality in check"?

How does owning slaves keep their morality in check? And why did Jesus never say "you can't own another human being as property"?
reply
0 ups
Hey Octavia, every time a Christian apologist piece of shit tries to say the Old Testament doesn't count, quote them this wonderful verse that says otherwise:

Matthew 5:17: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Christians are so busy spreading lies on the internet like the Old Testament not part of the Bible to justify their argument while not reading their OWN piece of shit book.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
This is a verse from 1st Timothy 1: 9-10.We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine. So, it explicitly stated here that slave traders go against the "sound doctrine." Yes, this is technically the only verse in the Bible that goes against slavery, and there are many Bible verses saying for slaves to treate their masters with respect, and for masters to treat their slaves well. There is even a Bible verse where Paul tells some slave master to treat his slave like a brother in Christ. In the New Testament, there are versus saying for slaves to treat their masters well as to provide a good example in Christ. Slavery is also used as a metaphor throughout the New Testament as a slave in Christ. Well, I never said that God said it was o.k. to keep slaves to keep the Jewish morality in check. Here is an interesting essay for the reason why the Old Testament allowed for the owning of other people as property: https://www.compellingtruth.org/slavery-Old-Testament.html. Also, after you read some of this article, and you ask yourself, "If God exists, then why don't we live in a perfect world?" I would respond by telling you to read about the fall of man in the Old Testament. Before you ask why God allowed Adam and Eve to be tempted by the Devil, I would tell you because God created free will. WE are all free to do whatever we want, and if God had to stop everything that was wrong about man and angels, then man and angels would just be like robots, biological robots under complete and utter control. Sorry it took so long to respond, but I just didn't feel like continuing a debate yesterday and the day before yesterday, I have been debating too much on this website.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Oh and by the way, when the Jews owned slaves, they were not cruel to them (or at least the Old Testament forbid this) in any way whatsoever). In many ways, owning a slave actually could have been good for the slave back then, if the slave was incredibly poor. I mean, whats better, begging for money on the streets, or working for someone and being able to eat, drink, and live in a shelter? I would rather be a slave then live on the streets in ancient Israel if you were to ask me.
reply
0 ups
I'm glad you posted the link to that article. The reason I'm glad is because I read it, and it served to further confirm in my mind why the Bible is such a horrible book that doesn't deserve my respect.

The person who wrote that article tried so hard to downplay and rationalize and justify slavery, and they failed miserably at every turn. First of all, he (conveniently) didn't even mention the verse that says you can beat your slaves as long as they don't die right away. He mentioned that foreign slaves could be kept as property forever. Hebrew slaves had to be released after a certain number of years, but foreign slaves were your property until they die. And if you die first, they can be passed down to your children as property.

Female slaves essentially went from being the property of their fathers to the property of their masters, until they were given in marriage.

The article tried to make it sound like slavery was unavoidable. It even called slavery a "sad necessity". That's garbage. Slavery is never a necessity.

The article said "Like divorce and polygamy, slavery was never in God's perfect plan. But, because of sin, for a time and place, slavery was permitted by God, with certain restrictions."

I thought god's plan was perfect. If it was actually perfect, why did he allow for things he was opposed to? That makes no sense. Either his plan was perfect or it wasn't. And if it wasn't, then he wasn't, because a perfect god can't make an imperfect plan. Also, when did slavery stop being okay? If slavery used to be okay, and morality is unchanging, then it is still okay. And if it's not okay today, then it wasn't okay back then. You can't have it both ways.

As far as free will, how does that excuse what god did wrong? He was the one who put the forbidden tree in the garden in the first place, not Satan. God is the one that paved the way for the fall, not Satan. Should a parent with a small child keep a loaded gun laying around, because the child has free will? Or should the parent keep the gun away from the child so they can't hurt themselves or others?

"Oh and by the way, when the Jews owned slaves, they were not cruel to them (or at least the Old Testament forbid this) in any way whatsoever."

They could beat their slaves viciously, as long as the slave didn't die right away (Ex 21:20-21). That is being cruel to them.
reply
0 ups
"I would rather be a slave then live on the streets in ancient Israel if you were to ask me."

Then that tells me you don't seem to understand what slavery is. You are not a human being. You are property. You can be bought and sold like livestock. I would rather be poor and free than be a slave, any day of the week.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Ah, I devotee of Republican Jesus. I look forward to reading your Republican Bible someday. Here's what the regular one says that Jesus says about the poor:

Luke 14:13 - But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind:

Deuteronomy 15:11 - For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.

Proverbs 19:17 - He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again.

Mark 10:21 - Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Luke 4:18 - The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
reply
2 ups
reply
1 up, 2 replies
C;mon, read my comment, or are you just bad at reading. I could probably read that much in 40 seconds or less. It isn't that hard. I never said that I don't like taxes, and I never said that liberals are evil for using them to help the poor. Actually read what I said, or maybe you just don't wish to face the truth.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
I read them and they were another example of epic “waddaboutism” so I disregarded them. We were talking about poor homeless people, which is a subject that makes religious conservatives extremely uncomfortable because Jesus was all about them and modern Christians are all too often not. I will wager that you’ve spent more time making fun of the homeless on this website than you’ve ever spent trying to help them. Maybe I’m wrong, but I doubt it.

If California has 1/4 of the nation’s homeless, where do you think Jesus would be today? Trump Tower? Or the worst neighborhood in San Francisco?
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
You are wrong. I have never made one meme (I might have made one a year ago and forgotten about it) making fun, and teasing, the homeless. And to answer your question, Jesus said: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” Obviously Jesus would not go among the more christian neighborhoods, but the ones riddled with gangs, druggies, alcoholics, prostitutes, and other such people. Jesus Christ would probably go to the Worst of the worst neighborhood in San Francisco, not the Trump tower. I mean, he might could go to the Trump tower if Trump needs some spiritual assistance in guiding his country, but I think not.
0 ups
Your original comment denigrated California for having a high homeless population, and when I suggested that perhaps that was because they offer services to the homeless, and that is more Christ-like than many other states, you became very offended.

You have obviously never helped a homeless person in your life, and spent dozens, if not hundreds, of hours making memes.
reply
1 up
*"C'mon, *reading? - grammar mistakes
reply
0 ups
If Christianity leads people to help their struggling neighbors, shouldn't the states in the Bible Belt have, like, zero people on welfare?

You talk about liberals only caring for other liberals. I couldn't begin to count the number of times I've heard someone on Christian radio talk about what helps other Christians, or what benefits other Christians, or how they can care for other Christians. It's clear to me that many conservative Christians only care about other Christians like them.
reply
4 ups
reply
8 ups, 2 replies
reply
[deleted]
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
6 ups
reply
1 up, 3 replies
I support no-nonsense environmental consciousness, and actually agree that most plastics are a terrible waste of resources. However, banning straws is not the answer. The best way to promote environmental consciousness is to do away with public property, and make each person fully responsible for their own land
reply
4 ups
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups
It'll be Armegeddon,,,
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Good Lawd pass me some of dhat shit yer smokin,,,
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Private ownership provides a natural incentive for responsibility, as it is to a person's direct benefit to care for land that they own. Meanwhile, private ownership also allows people to sue when someone else pollutes their land.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
No, it doesn't, otherwise they would have been doing so without big goverment compelling them to do so by law. AKA pollution is a thang *cough cough*

Same big socialist goverment with it's overreaching laws and bloated court system and onerous bureacracy allows for civil lawsuits, although there are legal authorities to that function in the capacity of regulation.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Actually, much pollution comes from government sub-contracted waste removal services or from people dumping their pollution into public property.

The problem with public property is that responsibility for it is diluted among many people. Each person can easily shrug and hope the next person cleans up after them.

If we had more private ownership, and a more efficient court system, much pollution would be stopped.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
1 up
National and state parks could easily still exist in a system of private property. In fact, their are already many amusement parks that are privately owned and operated, so it would not be a far stretch for somebody to open a park with a patriotic theme in a fully-privatized society.

In fact, such parks would likely be far better than the ones we have today. Their survival would be directly connected to their quality. If such a park fell upon hard times, then they would have to increase their quality or rethink their prices (both of which would be good for attendees) in order to stay in business, instead of merely taxing other people's businesses to keep themselves afloat.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Just stop, you're getting ever sillier, and it ain't helping to fill that hole you're digging in the sand for your head.

Pollution removal and hikers in Yosemite is the the source of much pollution, get off.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Government-funded waste removal has a near guarantee of revenue, and thus has very little incentive to manage waste efficiently or restore it for reuse (most government-run waste facilities are inefficient, and even most recycling processes today release toxic byproducts into nearby soil, water, or air.)

When I said "dumping pollution into public property", I was not mainly referring to hikers littering. What I had in mind was more like businesses polluting rivers and lakes. Most waterways are considered public property, and thus it is very rare for an individual to be specifically responsible for them. It is easy to pollute something when everyone has a right to it, but nobody has specific ownership of it.

If someone pollutes only what they own, then they simply reap what they sow. If someone pollutes that which an other individual has direct ownership and authority over, then the owner has every incentive to protect their property and press charges against the offender.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
What are you even saying, that the land should be socialistically divided up and granted to all individuals and they'll just be all giddy to do maintainance?

Google that image, it's THE reason we have the Clean Water Act, and one why we have the EPA.

Google acid rain, 1980s, Ronald Reagan.

Google "The Silent Spring"

FUN FACT: American setters were always drunk. Water was so polluted in Europe, they wouldn't drink, eat from, or bath in it even when they got to the pristine waters in America. They stank really bad. They drank beer or hard cider. The first Thanksgiving? Waters were crammed with fish, but they'd rather starve than touch it, they thought it was so toxic. The Thames river spotted it's first fish - an eel - in centuries just a couple of decades ago. That's how polluted it was.

Seriously, when were you born? Where do you live? What are fantasy are you talking about.

Nice c/p first paragraph, btw.
reply
0 ups
about?*

Goodness, I just saw what you posted below.

The area of the Grand Canyon itself was in danger of being developed, THAT'S WHY it was turned into a park.
Sure, let's turn Yellowstone into a Trump golf resort, Yosemite into a ski resort.
Never mind that parks DO charge entrance fees and have all sorts of for profit concessions, they're still not economically viable independently, nor will be no matter how cute a neon sign you might hoist over the entrance.

"instead of taxing other people's businesses to keep themselves afloat."

We already do that to keep afloat ranchers who graze on PUBLIC LAND and farmers and, oh yeah, YOU. Thafuq you think builds your stuff, FOX News? You're gonna build your own roadways, sewage, powerlines, or satellites for your cell phone too?
reply
3 ups
reply
4 ups
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiVWu4XX8DI
reply
3 ups
reply
2 ups
Keep 'em sucking!
reply
2 ups
Nail you have hit on the head!
;^)
reply
3 ups
reply
2 ups
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
Yeah, they should've fixed their own problems.
reply
1 up
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
5 ups, 3 replies
Seriously, is this another California privilege?
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
This is actually a problem with a pretty simple fix, but...NIMBY and all.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
If you flip that image back, you can see the phone number starts with 229. That area code is southwestern Georgia, not Texas.
reply
4 ups, 4 replies
California has some of the highest taxes in the country. The problem sounds more like it's coming from the money handlers.
reply
9 ups
I'm not entirely familiar with the situation, but it's probably an urban planning problem, and that involves dealing with businesses and developers. They generally hate homeless people, and therefore: not enough public toilets and plenty of street poop. NIMBY...not in my my backyard.
reply
3 ups
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
No the problem comes from rich liberal companies creating thousands and thousand of jobs and paying their employees a lot of money, which drives up local housing prices, and forces folks not earning a college educated engineers salary to not have enough to pay a mortgage. Stop complaining, try offering real solutions, stop mocking your own country.. California IS America... as is Florida ... as is Wyoming.... pick a side.... USA or Russia
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Russia doesn't have anything to do with this.

The only one mocking the country is you. I defend this country as a whole, but there are many individual small governments within the whole that destroy it from within. California is just one of many.
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
I have 3 numbers. CA, NY and EU area codes. The world of cellphones, changes what you are thinking. That said. Does not matter, makes a point.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
If you pay to use a toilet, you're stupid.
reply
3 ups
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
yea better to do it on the street. stfu. gtfo of your freaking fishbowl and see the world. everytime you say something, it just sounds like some hillbilly who never left his county
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups
reply
2 ups
True nonetheless...
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups
Shut up and go troll someone else, dummy. It's a known fact there are problems with public defecation in San Francisco. I don't just hear it from Fox.

And I have been to San Francisco, troll.
reply
2 ups
Flip Settings
Two Buttons memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

EXTRA IMAGES ADDED: 1
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
FIX ACTUAL PROBLEMS; BAN PLASTIC STRAWS
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
Feedback