The bum's bill of rights (San Francisco, Sacramento: apartment, crime, eviction)

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

Sorry for the confusion but are you referring to the current Bill before the Assembly? I did read it (well, most of it) and there is refernce to items you listed.

Of course, non-homeless people steal, nullgeo. You know very well they do. And yes, I did set court dates for them, as well. We're not discussing non-homeless people, though. You are deflecting from the topic but that's quite common on these threads.

Again, a deflection away from the topic but I will agree with it. If they don't see it, they think it doesn't exist ... or rather it doesn't exist in their neighborhood. It's an age-old problem of ignoring what they don't see.

As long as we're deflecting, I'll comment on the new soda tax. Charging a penny an ounce on soda because they are all so concerned about Californians' health. Why not put a penny tax on beer, wine and hard liquor, too? Those cause health problems just as much (if not more) than soda.

See? I can deflect away from the topic just as well as others here.

Now Mars, you and I have an interesting relationship on the forum, don't we? You know I like and appreciate you and your attitude a lot ... but we do disagree fairly often as well. And I disagree with your thought that I am "deflecting". I was referring to the US constitutiional bill of rights that you referenced -- not this new bill.

It's not deflecting from the topic to point out that non-homeless are guilty of the same crimes that are being ascribed to only the homeless. The fact that some people who steal are homeless does not correlate to "homeless people are thieves" That would be a false syllogism. Now I know you didn't say that all homeless steal ... but the fact that you identified it as "a" problem with homelessness calls for clarification ... it is "a" problem with all levels of society, all around the world, all throughout time.

As for "sin taxation" ... I am all for it ... lots of it ...

[pch1013]

Originally Posted by Phil306

MANY homeless people are nothing more then wastes of oxygen, who refuse to accept help. They DO NOT want your limp wristed, liberal help and refuse. MOST homeless people are drug addicts, alcoholics, and mental patients. The mental patients refuse to take their medications and self medicate with drugs and alcohol.

Apart from the gratuitous swipes at liberals (is St. Anthony's a "limp-wristed liberal" group? is the Salvation Army?), I agree with 100% of your post.

SF District 8 supervisor Scott Wiener, who would be classified as a far-leftist anywhere else in the country, is vehemently opposed to Ammiano's proposal. As are the vast majority of his liberal constituents -- myself included.

My own attitude toward the homeless is:

If you're homeless by choice, go away.

If you're not, here's some help.

Don't want help? You're homeless by choice. Go away.

Homeless "advocates" (whose "advocacy" more often than not serves the needs of those who profit from homelessness, like the flea-pit SRO operators who rake in millions from city agencies that steer homeless "clients" their way, and the operators of corner malt-liquor shops/illegal drug markets) invariably respond to that by shrieking "it's not that simple."

But actually, it is that simple.

In the immortal words of Barbara Billingsley in "Airplane!": chump don't want da help, chump don't get da help.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by pch1013

My own attitude toward the homeless is:

If you're homeless by choice, go away unless you're mentally ill and don't have capacity to choose.

If you're not truly by choice, here's some help.

Don't want help and you are cognitive? You're homeless by choice. Go away.

Homeless "advocates" (whose "advocacy" more often than not serves the needs of those who profit from homelessness, like the flea-pit SRO operators who rake rein millions from city agencies that steer homeless "clients" their way, and the operators of corner malt-liquor shops/illegal drug markets) invariably respond to that by shrieking "it's not that simple."

But actually, it is that simple.

In the immortal words of Barbara Billingsley in "Airplane!": chump don't want da help, chump don't get da help.

"YES!" with the caveats above!

[jimhcom]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Good morning jim. As long as we're going to entertain your viewpoint punctuated by quotations [by conservatives] let's share some Abraham Lincoln, shall we?


It isn't that the 1% at the top of the food chain can't see how they destroy America ... it's that they don't care. They create the money [out of nothing], [backed by nothing more than illusion] ... they market the dream of wealth to people who will never have any ... and they conspire to market the illusion that welfare is robbing the nation of what they -- the 1% -- have created only for themselves.

This results, among other things, in turning brother against brother as lives and homes are sacrificed to poverty.

And you, jim, are their tool. All the money ever spent on welfare is not a drop in the bucket to what the master manipulators have created and sequestered entirely for themselves. Look up "corporate welfare" jim. I'll start you off:
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/03-7
Facts on Corporate Welfare | Center for Effective Government
Corporate Welfare | OurFuture.org

Then maybe move on up to the LIBOR and ISDAfix credit / interest rate / swaps fixing scandals ... how prices are rigged for precious metals ... and every other financial instrument and product in the world ... rigged by a fractional percentage of even the tiny top 1% ers. You like to read Thomas Sowell? Try Matt Taibi:
The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever | Politics News | Rolling Stone

But you won't read the full spectrum and think it through will you? Easier to bully the little guys that literally don't have a pot to pi** in.

The problem with liberals is that they all suffer from ADHD. It is impossible to discuss any issue without them jumping all over the place in some futile effort to excuse one wrong by identifying another. By the way I am not bullying anyone, I simply do not want to support the sh*t bum lifestyle.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by TrueTimbers

I agree to some extent on the basic standards of behavior. A level of social "respect" and "responsibility" exists in those societies, I do not see as frequently here. IMO we used to have it, but our society has broken down past that level. IMO Our prosperity has made us selfish, spoiled, greedy and lazy.....

The entitlement knife cuts both ways, those that expect hand outs and those that feel they do not owe society anything, everything they earned is theirs. (Neither are desirable.).

I'm glad we mostly agree on this point. Financially speaking, I do believe (most) rich folks are paying their fair share financially. Even leftists like Bill Maher recently said the same thing. That said, there is also a certain kind of "I got mine and I don't give a darn if it comes at someone else's expense" attitude in America among rich and poor alike that I find very distasteful.

Originally Posted by TrueTimbers

I suppose there are some "far left".. I don't think that is the problem though.... We can not point fingers at either extreme right or left..... Our problem is ours, and we as a society need to deal with it... A complex issue, and until our politicians stop talking in polarizing sound bites to get votes, it will be difficult if not impossible to address beyond providing things such as toilets and basic needs to lessen the impact on the non-homeless portion of society.

To actually address how and why a society can let some fall so far, would take some "humbility" and soul searching on all of our parts... A level of maturity too many Americans seem not to posses.

The problem is that it's always the extremists, right or left, who dominate the discussions on just about everything. The people in the middle have been complacent (because, once again, they don't care about anything that doesn't have a direct impact on them...the "I got mine" attitude.) They have not been willing to make the necessary sacrifices to set things straight, on this issue and many others. I think most of us are at least a little guity as far as that goes.

[Social Democrat]

Originally Posted by pch1013

Apart from the gratuitous swipes at liberals (is St. Anthony's a "limp-wristed liberal" group? is the Salvation Army?), I agree with 100% of your post.

SF District 8 supervisor Scott Wiener, who would be classified as a far-leftist anywhere else in the country, is vehemently opposed to Ammiano's proposal. As are the vast majority of his liberal constituents -- myself included.

My own attitude toward the homeless is:

If you're homeless by choice, go away.

If you're not, here's some help.

Don't want help? You're homeless by choice. Go away.

Homeless "advocates" (whose "advocacy" more often than not serves the needs of those who profit from homelessness, like the flea-pit SRO operators who rake in millions from city agencies that steer homeless "clients" their way, and the operators of corner malt-liquor shops/illegal drug markets) invariably respond to that by shrieking "it's not that simple."


But actually, it is that simple.

In the immortal words of Barbara Billingsley in "Airplane!": chump don't want da help, chump don't get da help.

Thank you for saving me from a lot of typing! There are services currently available for those that chose to use them and if they don't, well, that's their choice isn't it?

[Kafkaesque]

Originally Posted by Phil306

This "man," read waste of oxygen, has been to rehab, more time then you have hair on your head. Last time I dealt with him, he was a .54. But keep on spending that money liberals. Its not yours.

What do you propose to do with him then?

[pch1013]

Originally Posted by Kafkaesque

What do you propose to do with him then?

Put him into "wet housing" where he can drink all he wants without using up police and EMS resources.

The Wet House: Homeless People with Alcoholism Drink Less When Booze Is Allowed | TIME.com

[Kafkaesque]

Originally Posted by pch1013

Put him into "wet housing" where he can drink all he wants without using up police and EMS resources.

The Wet House: Homeless People with Alcoholism Drink Less When Booze Is Allowed | TIME.com

Sounds like a good idea.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Now Mars, you and I have an interesting relationship on the forum, don't we? You know I like and appreciate you and your attitude a lot ... but we do disagree fairly often as well. And I disagree with your thought that I am "deflecting". I was referring to the US constitutiional bill of rights that you referenced -- not this new bill.

It's not deflecting from the topic to point out that non-homeless are guilty of the same crimes that are being ascribed to only the homeless. The fact that some people who steal are homeless does not correlate to "homeless people are thieves" That would be a false syllogism. Now I know you didn't say that all homeless steal ... but the fact that you identified it as "a" problem with homelessness calls for clarification ... it is "a" problem with all levels of society, all around the world, all throughout time.

As for "sin taxation" ... I am all for it ... lots of it ...

Yes, nullgeo, we do and I also can appreciate where you are coming from with your views. I may not always agree with them but I respect them. Turns out I was confused about your comment regarding the BOR. I was thinking the one before the Assembly now and not the U.S. Constitution. My apologies.

And thanks for clarifying that I never said all homeless people are thieves. I will agree that there are problems in all areas of society so it's important to keep those in perspective.

I happen to agree with the concise statements made by pch, though.

If you're homeless by choice, go away.

If you're not, here's some help.

Don't want help? You're homeless by choice. Go away.

I am sympathetic to the conditions of those who have, not by their own choice, found themselves homeless today. I understand that they may not have family or friends who are willing to help them but when someone makes the choice to be homeless, yet expects society to bend over backwards to make their life easier, I take offense with that. I worked damned hard to keep a roof over my head and food on the table. I took nothing from my family to do it. I don't expect the government to help me, either.

These whiny citizens today who think the government should be taking care of them are disgusting, imo. If they don't have a mental illness, have no disabilities that would keep them from holding down a full-time job, and have an IQ above 100, there is no reason for them to be sitting on their can, begging for money and sleeping on the streets. Laziness isn't attractive and California is a haven for these types, it seems. 'Course, who could blame them when we pay the highest amount in welfare benefits and cater to them, as if they were actually contributing to keep the state running.