Leach kicked the California legislature's

[425cougfan]

Here's the thing. I voted Republican in every presidential election from 1988 to 2012. I'm a moderate conservative who is now considered a "liberal" because my viewpoint hasn't shifted to the right with many of the people in the Republican Party. My frustration with the Republican Party (and red states) isn't because I'm a "liberal". I've watched that party turn into a bunch of people that don't give a crap about anyone but themselves and their very narrow talking points.

The issues in our country go way beyond immigrants, gun control and abortion.....but you wouldn't know it by talking to people around here. Maybe Texas is different, but Kansas is dominated by people that feel that their primary obligation is to vote Republican and go to church on Sunday.....and worry about themselves the rest of the time. Kindness and generosity is reserved for people that want to come to their church for assistance. There are a lot of exceptions of course, but the "mainstream" of this red state is not one that is based on Christian principles any more. Those anecdotes that you dismiss are not solitary experiences but just individual examples. I could outline another ten paragraphs of the silliness of the notion that people in red states are kind and generous to others but I won't bore you with that. Just suffice to say......it's a myth. Not saying liberal states are filled with generous people that think only of others and the democrats don't have some truly stupid ideas, but red states are loaded with people that have absolutely no empathy for people that aren't exactly like them.

Want to make sure to respond to acknowledge your points and to let you know I understand where you're coming from. Things are way too polarized in our political system and its coverage. I acknowledge the hypocrisy of many people in red states, and I have seen a lot of it in blue states as well. Both sides, including many people in red states in your example, deserve to be called out on it. Most issues that our country faces are complex and go well beyond the facile descriptions, or purported solutions, both sides will throw out there, each blaming the other. Unfortunately, that's how our political system and our media work. It sucks when we avoid reasonable approaches that the seemingly mythical "middle of the road" voter would support, owing to bullshit in the media, polarization, lobbying, corporate interests, political correctness, and various other garbage from both sides.

 

[dgibbons]

So homeless people can stroll into city hall and drop a deuce if they want? No security will be there to stop them?

Well, the problem is they let it loose on the sidewalk, stairwell, wall, etc.

But, yes I believe they can.

 

[wazzucougs96]

You said that I didn't.

You should try if you're that curious. And if you can, don't wipe feces on the walls like a 3 year old.

And if you can't, maybe it's because someone did just that and the cost to maintain and repair outweighed being compassionate, "Kate".

I literally said nothing of the sort. I just asked where they are supposed to go. The implication being that no one allows homeless people to use their facilities but they are still humans and humans have to poop from time to time. To that end, they have no where to do this, which is why it ends up on the street, because republican lead efforts have cut social services budgets to the absolute bone.

 

[wazzucougs96]

Why don't you invite them to crap in your yard seems how you don't mind them doing it in the streets.

I never once said it was ok. Try to keep up, sport.

 

[wazzucougs96]

Well, the problem is they let it loose on the sidewalk, stairwell, wall, etc.

But, yes I believe they can.

I get the complaint. But no one seems to care that homelessness is a nationwide crises and these people have to go to the bathroom somewhere. No, it does not make it ok to do on the street. But we should be coming up with solutions so they have somewhere else to do it. Building more parking lots or throwing them all in jail is not a sustainable or realistic solution.

Anyone who thinks people choose to be homeless are out of their damn minds. These people are homeless because they are out of options. The fact that there so many of them should be triggering alarm bells for all of us that something is seriously wrong with our society, but instead people just want to make lazy "blame the liberals!" arguments.

 

[wazzucougs96]

would rather you do the work while he reaps the benefits.

That is called capitalism, sport.

 

[CougEd]

Winner.

Am I repulsed? No. I do know on many levels how this affects WSU. The "super conference" affects WSU. There will be a time when WSU gets left out in the cold. They tried to get rid of us in the late 70's, early 80's. WSU brings nothing economically to the table. There are Texas high school stadiums that are half our size.

But on the very surface, it seems a bit strange by the original member who posted this as a "leftist" issue. College football as it is currently constituted is a huge socialist experiment. If I was a hard core republican who believed in totally unfettered free trade and free enterprise, I would be all for paying the kids for their photo likeness.

And let's not fool anyone about the student athlete experience. I would suspect the top players from any recruiting class whose ambition was to play pro football would do what many of the top baseball players do and choose the minor leagues if there was that option. At some point that will have to happen, and then we can really talk about the student athlete experience.

 

[CougEd]

They are still bound by scholarship limits. The impact will be nominal at best. But feel free to do the chicken little act if it helps you feel better.

What you say is true, they can only have so many players. But it is where the players will go. For example, "back in the day" I had a former teammate go off to play QB at USC. Late 70's. He had a great job during the off season. He was paid 10.00 dollars an hour to monitor the sprinklers. That meant he went around campus to make sure the sprinklers turned on and off.

Now, a kid who goes to WSU late 70's, where does he work? Say the old Palouse Producers. The guy working for double P is actually working, changing combine tires in the middle of the wheat field and he is making half what the guy is making to monitor the sprinklers. Plus the kid at USC has many more opportunities to work. That is why the whole income restriction came about. Kids in LA could work for the studios.

So yes it will change the landscape of college football, tip the scales even further. WSU just happens to be on the wrong side of the scale.

 

[Observer11]

I literally said nothing of the sort. I just asked where they are supposed to go. The implication being that no one allows homeless people to use their facilities but they are still humans and humans have to poop from time to time. To that end, they have no where to do this, which is why it ends up on the street, because republican lead efforts have cut social services budgets to the absolute bone.

In the future, you should probably refrain from the use of the word 'literally'.

Because what you meant was 'figuratively' or perhaps 'rhetorically'.

And as dgibbons pointed out anyone 'can' empty their bowels wherever they want - stairwells, hallways, sidewalks. Whether they should or whether that is a socially acceptable or legal act is an entirely different question. Next time I"m strolling downtown in a business suit, I'll just drop trou and lay a big log in front of your place of business...K?

It is also interesting to note that because others disagree with what you consider proper enforcement of the law as it is written or what level of socially acceptable behavior (or lack thereof) is tolerated, THEY are the ones who don't care about the homeless.

Those heartless bastards.

 

[CougEd]

Breaking the law while homeless is still breaking the law. Property crimes, assault, defecating in public, sex trafficking, sales and use of illegal drugs.....all against the law.

Housing status is not a protected class against the consequences of breaking the law or infringing on those who do behave lawfully. Everything else is just noise until that basic premise can be accepted.

There are many flavors of why someone is homeless and how to prevent it or rectify it. That has nothing to do with minimum standards of acceptable and lawful behavior in a civilized society. Pooping on sidewalks, not cool. Shooting up in parks, not cool. On and on. Being homeless isn't a crime. Committing crimes is a crime.

Compassion ends when basic behavioral expectations of a 9 year old are ignored. That's when enforcement needs to start. Enforcement coupled with either confinement or treatment, if not both. Very simple. Too many resources are wasted dealing with the habitual offenders and the ripple effect to other's in the homeless community sucks them into the abyss too.

Until that, all this talk of 'solving' homelessness is just a political circle jerk.

Well...I have heard what not to do, but what what should be done? To be honest until about the last year I hadn't been exposed to the problem. I have heard about the frustrations people had with everything down town, but I don't get down town all that often so I don't see it. Then about a year ago they moved a tent city at northgate and I would drive by it daily to get to my office. They had a port o potty near by, and they lived there probably four months before everything was bull-dosed. They came back two weeks later and once again stayed for about three weeks. They just happen to be trying to live on ground where the light rail project is going.

Your criteria is have a decorum, behave better than a 9 year old would. I am not saying that shouldn't be the case, but I always look at what is real, not what I hope it is. In any world, do I expect someone drugged up so much they live out on the street to have the capability of living above what my expectation of a 9 year old would be?

 

[CougEd]

In the future, you should probably refrain from the use of the word 'literally'.

Because what you meant was 'figuratively' or perhaps 'rhetorically'.

And as dgibbons pointed out anyone 'can' empty their bowels wherever they want - stairwells, hallways, sidewalks. Whether they should or whether that is a socially acceptable or legal act is an entirely different question. Next time I"m strolling downtown in a business suit, I'll just drop trou and lay a big log in front of your place of business...K?

It is also interesting to note that because others disagree with what you consider proper enforcement of the law as it is written or what level of socially acceptable behavior (or lack thereof) is tolerated, THEY are the ones who don't care about the homeless.

Those heartless bastards.

Not sure heartless is the right word. What I don't see is action ona federal level, state level or a local level to come to get the right answers. I see people called "leftists", libs, Libitards from the right, and the left has their own names I am sure for people of the right. And you know what, nothing is ever accomplished.

One solution seems to let them be homeless in the city, and another side seems to say lets cut off revenue and potentially jail them with money we really don't have. And not once do I EVER hear a solution that remotely solves the problem.

 

[KingTrump]

Not sure heartless is the right word. What I don't see is action ona federal level, state level or a local level to come to get the right answers. I see people called "leftists", libs, Libitards from the right, and the left has their own names I am sure for people of the right. And you know what, nothing is ever accomplished.

One solution seems to let them be homeless in the city, and another side seems to say lets cut off revenue and potentially jail them with money we really don't have. And not once do I EVER hear a solution that remotely solves the problem.

Watch this if you haven't already, and I encourage anyone that has commented in this thread to also watch it. There are good suggestions in the video.

 

[CougInSpain]

That is called capitalism, sport.

Not if he isn't getting paid for the work (and we know you're not going to pay), then its communism dum dum... Try and keep up Sport!

 

[CougInSpain]

I never once said it was ok. Try to keep up, sport.

By not offering alternatives and the language you use in regards to these topics suggests that you support the current situation. I'm on top of it as usual and I am exposing you for what you are, a self-loathing American who feels like the government should run our lives. Pretty ironic for someone who hates the country they live in yet wants the government of that very country to control you.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Want to make sure to respond to acknowledge your points and to let you know I understand where you're coming from. Things are way too polarized in our political system and its coverage. I acknowledge the hypocrisy of many people in red states, and I have seen a lot of it in blue states as well. Both sides, including many people in red states in your example, deserve to be called out on it. Most issues that our country faces are complex and go well beyond the facile descriptions, or purported solutions, both sides will throw out there, each blaming the other. Unfortunately, that's how our political system and our media work. It sucks when we avoid reasonable approaches that the seemingly mythical "middle of the road" voter would support, owing to bullshit in the media, polarization, lobbying, corporate interests, political correctness, and various other garbage from both sides.

You just touched on my greatest frustration with the more outspoken people in Kansas. In 2013, the Tea Party was ruling the state and the mantra here was "Compromise is not acceptable!". They would rather pass a bad law that pissed off the left than to cooperate with the relatively small liberal element in the Kansas legislature. Unfortunately for them, their dumb plans proved to be as bad as everyone thought, the Kansas economy floundered and most of them have since been voted back out. Still, that kind of bullheaded attitude is still noticeable in local politics (and nationally as well).

What's kind of sad is that my daughter has decided that she will not go to Kansas State because my brother-in-law and his son are unapologetic MAGA idiots who just do stuff to be obnoxious when it comes to Trump and their support of him. They are KSU fans and she now associates KSU with that type of thinking. What's really sad is that as long as you avoid politics.....you'd find my brother-in-law to be one of the best people in the world to hang out with.

 

[Observer11]

Not sure heartless is the right word. What I don't see is action ona federal level, state level or a local level to come to get the right answers. I see people called "leftists", libs, Libitards from the right, and the left has their own names I am sure for people of the right. And you know what, nothing is ever accomplished.

One solution seems to let them be homeless in the city, and another side seems to say lets cut off revenue and potentially jail them with money we really don't have. And not once do I EVER hear a solution that remotely solves the problem.

I’m just asking that the CRIMINAL homeless be treated with the same level of social norms as a 9 year old with regards to public behavior. If people can't get on board with that as a starting place, then I honestly don't know what to say.

Enforcement of existing laws coupled with aggressive drug treatment programs is a good place to start as far as changing the momentum of what eventually will be the single biggest threat to this country, in my opinion. As a taxpayer, I can fully support rehabilitation and a path out rather than enabling programs like needle exchanges and paying for blue lights so addicts can't shoot up in libraries and public facilities.

Continuing to do what has 'literally' (use of quotes intentional for mocking effect) destroyed most major west coast cities is insanity.

I'd couple that with an all out onslaught on big pharma and medical professionals who dish out opioids like they are candy. Won't happen because both parties are more concerned about taking PAC money and building their war chests than doing the right thing. We the people are suckers to continue voting the same cast of clowns back in election after election so terms limits is a good place to begin cleaning things up, too.

 

[CougEd]

By not offering alternatives and the language you use in regards to these topics suggests that you support the current situation. I'm on top of it as usual and I am exposing you for what you are, a self-loathing American who feels like the government should run our lives. Pretty ironic for someone who hates the country they live in yet wants the government of that very country to control you.

Just out of curiosity, how do you get a pretty liberal person such as 96 (assumption by reading his/her posts) hates the country they live in?

 

[CougEd]

I’m just asking that the CRIMINAL homeless be treated with the same level of social norms as a 9 year old with regards to public behavior. If people can't get on board with that as a starting place, then I honestly don't know what to say.

Enforcement of existing laws coupled with aggressive drug treatment programs is a good place to start as far as changing the momentum of what eventually will be the single biggest threat to this country, in my opinion. As a taxpayer, I can fully support rehabilitation and a path out rather than enabling programs like needle exchanges and paying for blue lights so addicts can't shoot up in libraries and public facilities.

Continuing to do what has 'literally' (use of quotes intentional for mocking effect) destroyed most major west coast cities is insanity.

I'd couple that with an all out onslaught on big pharma and medical professionals who dish out opioids like they are candy. Won't happen because both parties are more concerned about taking PAC money and building their war chests than doing the right thing. We the people are suckers to continue voting the same cast of clowns back in election after election so terms limits is a good place to begin cleaning things up, too.

Not sure I disagree with a lot of what you are saying. But not sure I would ever "EXPECT" someone on meth to behave any higher than the level of a three year old. That is the crux of the problem.

I had two great conversations with two prominent business people who in terms of politics I probably vote very differently than they do. But at a Christmas party one CEO I spoke to told me how they do a lot of work volunteering for the homeless effort to stem the problem. The first thing out of their month for the homeless there are resources, the problem comes into play they have to be sober. So again, the problem points back to drugs.

The second person I talked to was at a party this summer. The family has a very large retail restaurant chain. And we were talking and both of us said at the same time there are abandoned facilities, military facilities for one that can house the rehab of these people who are addicted. They have two choices, prison/jail and rehab.

There has to be layers, there has to be a coordination between federal and local government, and there has to be funds that come from big pharma who created this crisis.

The family of Purdue Pharma should not be allowed to file BK. There should be a legal way to extract many more billions of dollars from their accounts, and each should asked to live on 250 mil. The rest goes to fix the drug problem.

When I voted for the legalization of pot, my intent was to have that additional revenue go towards facilities like I just mentioned above.

Until Seattle votes for people who realize this is a drug problem, and the homeless is a symptom of the problem it will not get resolved.

 

[CougEd]

You just touched on my greatest frustration with the more outspoken people in Kansas. In 2013, the Tea Party was ruling the state and the mantra here was "Compromise is not acceptable!". They would rather pass a bad law that pissed off the left than to cooperate with the relatively small liberal element in the Kansas legislature. Unfortunately for them, their dumb plans proved to be as bad as everyone thought, the Kansas economy floundered and most of them have since been voted back out. Still, that kind of bullheaded attitude is still noticeable in local politics (and nationally as well).

What's kind of sad is that my daughter has decided that she will not go to Kansas State because my brother-in-law and his son are unapologetic MAGA idiots who just do stuff to be obnoxious when it comes to Trump and their support of him. They are KSU fans and she now associates KSU with that type of thinking. What's really sad is that as long as you avoid politics.....you'd find my brother-in-law to be one of the best people in the world to hang out with.

Does your brother-in-law and son ever say what time period they are looking for to make America great again? Do they give specific examples of not only the time frame but what they wanted to see "change" to make it great again? I have yet to here the answer to that.

 

[Observer11]

Not sure I disagree with a lot of what you are saying. But not sure I would ever "EXPECT" someone on meth to behave any higher than the level of a three year old. That is the crux of the problem.

I had two great conversations with two prominent business people who in terms of politics I probably vote very differently than they do. But at a Christmas party one CEO I spoke to told me how they do a lot of work volunteering for the homeless effort to stem the problem. The first thing out of their month for the homeless there are resources, the problem comes into play they have to be sober. So again, the problem points back to drugs.

The second person I talked to was at a party this summer. The family has a very large retail restaurant chain. And we were talking and both of us said at the same time there are abandoned facilities, military facilities for one that can house the rehab of these people who are addicted. They have two choices, prison/jail and rehab.

There has to be layers, there has to be a coordination between federal and local government, and there has to be funds that come from big pharma who created this crisis.

The family of Purdue Pharma should not be allowed to file BK. There should be a legal way to extract many more billions of dollars from their accounts, and each should asked to live on 250 mil. The rest goes to fix the drug problem.

When I voted for the legalization of pot, my intent was to have that additional revenue go towards facilities like I just mentioned above.

Until Seattle votes for people who realize this is a drug problem, and the homeless is a symptom of the problem it will not get resolved.

Yup - "it" is absolutely a drug and crime problem. There's not a soul among us who doesn't feel empathy for the mom with an abusive spouse who fled for her child's safety. Or lost their job through no fault of their own or just hit a rough patch and wants to start fresh.

But there are bad players out there - some are good folks caught in the throes of addiction, some are just bad folks. Hard to sort them out without at least getting them into some form of assessment program to see where the next logical stop should be. Some should just flat out go to jail, do not pass go. Some should be placed in drug treatment programs. Some (gasp) should probably be institutionalized. But just letting them wander the streets aimlessly in the name of 'tolerance' or 'compassion' just isn't cutting the mustard any longer.

 

[CougEd]

Yup - "it" is absolutely a drug and crime problem. There's not a soul among us who doesn't feel empathy for the mom with an abusive spouse who fled for her child's safety. Or lost their job through no fault of their own or just hit a rough patch and wants to start fresh.

But there are bad players out there - some are good folks caught in the throes of addiction, some are just bad folks. Hard to sort them out without at least getting them into some form of assessment program to see where the next logical stop should be. Some should just flat out go to jail, do not pass go. Some should be placed in drug treatment programs. Some (gasp) should probably be institutionalized. But just letting them wander the streets aimlessly in the name of 'tolerance' or 'compassion' just isn't cutting the mustard any longer.

It is a multi-prong approach. Part of the problem from a federal level is funds have been reduced on the mental health side. Not sure how we increase the funding in that endeavor, but it is so clear we have to approach the problem as compassionate loving parents whose "children" need to

I have exposed to the whole heroin epidemic. A BBall coach I know has a son who is an addict. Started with pills then went down a dark path. I watched the coach leave at halftime because his son OD'ed. He now has even more complications from shooting up. The coach doesn't have the resources for extensive treatment, and not sure if they would work if they did. My last convo the son found his way to get methadone, and not sure were that puts the kid. And when I say kid, I mean 33 year old adult.

A second case was a former coworker, she hurt her back in 2006. She retired just prior to that. It was about 6 years later I saw her at a party and told my wife the woman was stoned out of her gord, and my guess is she was taking pills. Each year I would see her and an dit was clear her addiction was getting worse. Last summer after getting down to 85 pounds she died. She didn't have a heart condition, her lungs were fine. The pills just ravished her body.

While I am at the service a woman who use to be my assistant was in the waiting room before the service and she is watching a video of the deceased on a TV as they were showing pictures of her in the better times. My former assistant is crying and I thought it was because she lost a friend. She explained it was a dual pain, one for the loss of her friend, but she also told me her son was addicted to pills then when he couldn't afford that he moved to heroin. He is now on the street and or in jail. In all three cases it started by taking pain pills after a surgery. In the case of the woman who died, her husband made enough money where she never had to switch to heroin.

All three people never had a criminal element in their body. None smoked weed then transitioned. All three are white, formerly middle class American citizens, so it is not a gender issue, a class issue, or a racial issue.

And Big pharma should have this exacted out of their back side. .

 

[KingTrump]

Does your brother-in-law and son ever say what time period they are looking for to make America great again? Do they give specific examples of not only the time frame but what they wanted to see "change" to make it great again? I have yet to here the answer to that.

"The Buck stops here" - Did the buck ever stop under Truman? If the Buck did stop, can you give specific examples of when that happened?

"I like Ike" - Did everyone like Ike? What was the time frame as to when everyone liked Ike, and what did they like about him?

"I still like Ike" - Did everyone ever like Ike? If they still liked Ike, can you give a specific time period of when everyone still liked Ike?

"All the way with LBJ" - Did LBJ ever go all the way? If he did, can you state the time frame, and/or date that occurred and where?

"A leader for a Change" - Was Carter ever a leader? Can you give a time frame when he might become a leader for a change?

"Building a bridge to the 21st century" - Did Billy Boy ever build that bridge to the 21st century? If that bridge was built, can you state what year?

"Compassionate Conservatism" GW - Were conservatives ever compassionate? If so, can you state the time frame that compassion took place?

"Change we can believe in" BO - Was their change? If there was change, can you state when that change changed to a new change with a change of presidents? If so, can we still believe in BO's change when none of his change is left?

 

[CougEd]

"The Buck stops here" - Did the buck ever stop under Truman? If the Buck did stop, can you give specific examples of when that happened?

"I like Ike" - Did everyone like Ike? What was the time frame as to when everyone liked Ike, and what did they like about him?

"I still like Ike" - Did everyone ever like Ike? If they still liked Ike, can you give a specific time period of when everyone still liked Ike?

"All the way with LBJ" - Did LBJ ever go all the way? If he did, can you state the time frame, and/or date that occurred and where?

"A leader for a Change" - Was Carter ever a leader? Can you give a time frame when he might become a leader for a change?

"Building a bridge to the 21st century" - Did Billy Boy ever build that bridge to the 21st century? If that bridge was built, can you state what year?

"Compassionate Conservatism" GW - Were conservatives ever compassionate? If so, can you state the time frame that compassion took place?

"Change we can believe in" BO - Was their change? If there was change, can you state when that change changed to a new change with a change of presidents? If so, can we still believe in BO's change when none of his change is left?

I can start with two then I will read the others . The “buck” yeah it did, meant Truman was the final decision maker . When he dropped the bomb it was his call. Don’t place the blame on the Secretary of State.

I like Ike? I think the people who wore the hat liked ike. Not sure that was all that difficult .

All the way with lbj meant they were supporting him all the way .

In terms of time frame it was when it happened.

That wasn’t that hard .

Your turn .

 

[kayak15]

This was true at one time, but it hasn't been this way since before Reagan. Republicans recognized that Democrats were giving things to people and generally controlled the Senate and House. During Reagan and after, they started giving away things more than the Democrats ever did and it has worked for them. It is the reason why the national debt has gone up more during Republican Presidents more than Democrat Presidents since Reagan.

Quite a bit of truth in your reply to my post, 1990. Yes, Republican administrations have more than their share of the problem. The basis of the problem in deficit escalation, as I see it, is the rotating administrations. Republicans tend to be willing to spend on defense while ignoring as much as possible, social considerations. Then the Democrats come in and make up for lost time by accentuating social issues, pouring money into that realm while giving as little as required to national defense. Back to the Republicans who make up the defense deficit while compromising meagerly on social issues. On an on we go; hard left, hard right, hard left etc. Each adding to the problem by addressing what they view as the inadequacy of the previous administration. Military expenditure is a large portion of the national budget, quite reasonably as defending the nation is the primary task of any President. Thus, Republican presidencies tend to add to the budget deficit more than Democratic ones.

I dread the next cycle. Trump has added to the military. Bernie and Warren are waiting in the wings shouting free medicine, free college tuition, free this and free that. If any mention by the Democratic contenders of military preparedness has been stated then I missed it.

I would trade an arm and a testicle of your choice for a moderate middle-of-the-road party in power but you and I both know that ain't gonna happen. As this thread demonstrates, most voters have made their choices and are at one end or another of the political spectrum.

 

[KingTrump]

I can start with two then I will read the others . The “buck” yeah it did, meant Truman was the final decision maker . When he dropped the bomb it was his call. Don’t place the blame on the Secretary of State.

I like Ike? I think the people who wore the hat liked ike. Not sure that was all that difficult .

All the way with lbj meant they were supporting him all the way .

In terms of time frame it was when it happened.

That wasn’t that hard .

Your turn .

 

[cougarhawk1]

California is a disaster and calling out communist nutjob gavin newsom isn't "controversial" , that's the last person you want meddling with college athletics. Everything he touches turns to fecal matter.

 

[wazzucougs96]

In the future, you should probably refrain from the use of the word 'literally'.

Because what you meant was 'figuratively' or perhaps 'rhetorically'.

And as dgibbons pointed out anyone 'can' empty their bowels wherever they want - stairwells, hallways, sidewalks. Whether they should or whether that is a socially acceptable or legal act is an entirely different question. Next time I"m strolling downtown in a business suit, I'll just drop trou and lay a big log in front of your place of business...K?

It is also interesting to note that because others disagree with what you consider proper enforcement of the law as it is written or what level of socially acceptable behavior (or lack thereof) is tolerated, THEY are the ones who don't care about the homeless.

Those heartless bastards.

In the future, you should consider reading what I actually said, before replying to what you think I said.

 

[wazzucougs96]

By not offering alternatives and the language you use in regards to these topics suggests that you support the current situation. I'm on top of it as usual and I am exposing you for what you are, a self-loathing American who feels like the government should run our lives. Pretty ironic for someone who hates the country they live in yet wants the government of that very country to control you.

Your attempts at McCarthyism are sad. Pathetically sad. I genuinely feel sorry for people who lack cognitive reasoning skills such as yourself.

 

[wazzucougs96]

If you live your life in daily fear of homeless people, then you are a giant pussy and a complete disgrace to real American men everywhere. Real Americans simply ignore losers who beg for money and go on about their day. Seems to me all you hear from the Trumper snowflakes these days is crying about everything like babies rather than act like real men about it. It is a sad commentary on how far our great society has fallen.

 

[CognitiveDissonance]

This might be a crazy thought... I don't know. A lot of posts addressing the homeless problem in this country. This is an idea I've always had.

I almost wish there was some sort of a social system in place where you could give homeless people the option to seek rehabilitation provided by the government while living in government funded housing and then be given options to work in industries that undocumented immigrants tend to occupy (janitorial work, farm jobs, construction) once they're healthy or ready to go. Almost like... we're going to give you the resources to get better/on your feet and you can pay the state back by working jobs where large sums of tax payer dollars go and tax exemptions are afforded.

It would solve a few issues: no more greedy business owners hiring undocumented workers to avoid having to pay people, it would address the issue of undocumented immigrants working in the US that conservatives tend to have an issue with ("they took our jobs!!!"), it would give homeless people an option to get healthy and make an honest living...

Obvious issues are big government... but a lot of people who have a conservative stance in this thread are asking for the government to remove them from the streets by force which is huge government. Also... it might be tough to convince homeless people of this option... however, haven spoken to a number of homeless people in Seattle... a lot of them just want an opportunity to do something or need help so they can.

Might be dumb... but it's better than just leaving them on streets to rot, do drugs, commit crimes and give major cities a black eye.

 

[KingTrump]

Your attempts at McCarthyism are sad. Pathetically sad. I genuinely feel sorry for people who lack cognitive reasoning skills such as yourself.

WSU 77 - UCLA 0

 

[KingTrump]

This might be a crazy thought... I don't know. A lot of posts addressing the homeless problem in this country. This is an idea I've always had.

I almost wish there was some sort of a social system in place where you could give homeless people the option to seek rehabilitation provided by the government while living in government funded housing and then be given options to work in industries that undocumented immigrants tend to occupy (janitorial work, farm jobs, construction) once they're healthy or ready to go. Almost like... we're going to give you the resources to get better/on your feet and you can pay the state back by working jobs where large sums of tax payer dollars go and tax exemptions are afforded.

It would solve a few issues: no more greedy business owners hiring undocumented workers to avoid having to pay people, it would address the issue of undocumented immigrants working in the US that conservatives tend to have an issue with ("they took our jobs!!!"), it would give homeless people an option to get healthy and make an honest living...

Obvious issues are big government... but a lot of people who have a conservative stance in this thread are asking for the government to remove them from the streets by force which is huge government. Also... it might be tough to convince homeless people of this option... however, haven spoken to a number of homeless people in Seattle... a lot of them just want an opportunity to do something or need help so they can.

Might be dumb... but it's better than just leaving them on streets to rot, do drugs, commit crimes and give major cities a black eye.

 

[cougarhawk1]

regarding your quote from jeff nusser, he preached a social justice warrior sermon last year that almost made me puke. I cant stand to read anything that guy writes. He needs to cover womens soccer.

 

[Observer11]

In the future, you should consider reading what I actually said, before replying to what you think I said.

I can read and obviously have a better grasp of the English language. It was very clear what was posted.

Elucidate what you believe you were "literally" attempting to communicate.

 

[FnuLnu]

In the future, you should probably refrain from the use of the word 'literally'.

Because what you meant was 'figuratively' or perhaps 'rhetorically'.

And as dgibbons pointed out anyone 'can' empty their bowels wherever they want - stairwells, hallways, sidewalks. Whether they should or whether that is a socially acceptable or legal act is an entirely different question. Next time I"m strolling downtown in a business suit, I'll just drop trou and lay a big log in front of your place of business...K?

It is also interesting to note that because others disagree with what you consider proper enforcement of the law as it is written or what level of socially acceptable behavior (or lack thereof) is tolerated, THEY are the ones who don't care about the homeless.

Those heartless bastards.

If Mark Fuhman is still in the area, this could his chance to get back into the DNA collection business.

 

[mikalalas]

As a liberal, I freely admit California is run by clueless kook politicians who, for the most part, live in "la la land." They want to empty prison, provide sanctuary for illegals and refuge for the homeless. They are your kid sister who brings home dogs with mange. It makes you want to bang your head. However, their heart is in the right place. I'd rather live in a place run by kind hearted naive dumb arses, than a place with a "looking out for No. 1" culture, that typifies red states. I don't believe in Jesus, but I appreciate the Jesus like efforts to help the less fortunate, poorly managed as it has been. Call me Un-American

As for taxes, they are very high in California, but that burden is willingly being carried by the rich. The bottom 80% pay only 11% of the taxes and the rich keep coming here, not Alabama, read below.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la...me-tax-california-wealthy-20190311-story.html

Wish that you werent in the minority, and that all liberals, were, are like you.

You may consider yourself a liberal, but your probably a blue dog, moderate, centrist, liberal, democrat, like a Zen Miller, Lieberman.

But if you were to be qualified, run for US Senate, House Rep, President, Governor, the $100 trillion dollar, free everything for everybody green new deal democrats, would probably reject you as a supposed liberal democrat, and probably would call you a independent, moderate, centrist, not a democrat.

And thats the problem with the democrats: they have become, been hi jacked, the party of Antifa, socialist, marxist, communist, and if had their way, would turn the USA into Venezuela.

I could vote for a democrat like Zen Miller, Lieberman, you. But the democrats always choose candidates I wont vote for, instead of democrats like Miller, Lieberman, you.

And thats why Trump will win, not because Trump is good(He is not good), but because he is better then the $100 Trillion Dollar New Green Deal idiots.

 

[mikalalas]

Red State "generosity" is a unique kind of thing. If a "neighbor" needs help or something terrible happens, folks in Kansas will often rise to the cause and help their neighbors or friends. The most common way is to donate through their local churches. Unfortunately, casual racism runs very, very deep here and I have a very religious co-worker that has no hesitation saying, "f#ck those people" when it comes to anything that provides support to hispanics or blacks.

When it comes to how a government should run, my red state brethren are all very outspoken that government should not expend resources helping the poor and the under-employed. Government shouldn't restrict firearms or impose regulations that might inhibit a business from operating at maximum profit. If someone needs help, they need to go to a church and pray for god's support and hope that the church can help.

Government should be involved in a woman's reproductive rights because every life is sacred but there was shockingly little outrage when an abortion doctor was murdered in broad daylight at his church around 10 years ago. The same doctor's office was hit by a bomb in the mid-90's and the state government basically shrugged and said, "What can we do?". It's important that babies don't get aborted but once they've exited the womb......hey, get to work, you little f#cker.

My brother-in-law is a farmer who bitches about government handouts in the form of welfare and food stamps.....but he has no problem accepting money from the government when it's offered.

My kind, generous red-state cohorts felt that it was extremely unfair for Trump to ban bump stocks because it infringed on their right to bear arms. I love the whole "freedom isn't free" argument. I love to remind them of the 17 month old girl who was shot in a recent shooting. "Sometimes a 17 month old kid needs to take a bullet to the face in the name of freedom?" I believe in responsible gun ownership. They believe that it's ok for people to be murdered in mass shootings as long as it doesn't impact their ability to buy guns and ammo. Again.....freedom isn't free apparently.

About 10 years ago, I was reminded of the generosity of my red-state brethren. I was driving down a major arterial on a 100° day and I saw a large black man laying on the ground next to his scooter on the sidewalk adjacent to the roadway. When I say large....I mean the dude weighed well over 300 lbs. I stopped to see what happened and it turns out that he was poor and couldn't afford new tires and a tire had blown out and dumped him on the ground. He was paralyzed from the waist down (prior condition to the scooter failure). One other guy stopped to help. Hundreds of other "kind, generous" Kansans drove by without stopping to help. We put his scooter in the back of my truck and wrangled the dude into the back seat of the other guys car while all the "friendly" red-state residents looked the other way.

So.....long story short.....people in red states are very kind and generous to people that look and act like them. If you don't toe the line and look and act just right.......f#ck you.

Thats your experience, and there are conservatives like that. BUT NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE LIKE THAT. In fact somewhere between some to almost most, are not like that(about 70%)(Contrast that to about 50% to 55% to 65% to 75% of YOUNG Liberals are like unto Antifa, etc.)

Also you do realize, that regardless of, even if ban every gun, etc, THAT CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS GET, HAVE GUNS THRU BLACK MARKET, AND WILL ALWAYS BE ABLE TO DO MASS SHOOTINGS, AND THAT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WOULD NOT HAVE GUNS, AND THAT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM THE CRIMINALS WITH GUNS.

Also altho I dont like seeing people get hurt with, by guns, there is the SECOND AMENDMENT. OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, THAT YOU SEEM TO NOT CARE ABOUT.

Also guns dont kill people. People with guns, can kill people. A gun cant kill by itself. It has to have somebody shoot it the gun, in order to kill.

Instead of restricting gun rights in order to try to fix problem, which wont fix problem, how about trying to fixing the things that cause people to kill with guns, instead. Thats more effective then restricting gun rights.

 

[mikalalas]

One thing that you are overlooking in the homeless discussion is that the vast majority of homeless people are suffering from mental illness of some kind. The states are shying away from them because they realize that trying to actual deal with the issue is far more expensive than taxpayers are willing to pony up.

Many years ago, I bought a couple cheeseburgers for a homeless dude. He followed me to my table, thanked me for my generosity and sat down and proceeded to tell me about himself. He was in his mid-30's, tall and thin...and black. He told me how he liked to walk around and pretend that he was white and say, "good morning" to all of the white folks he saw. He was under this delusion that we (white folk) had some secret code that we shared when greeting each other. He had been shipped to Kansas from Lincoln, Nebraska by the local authorities up there. He talked about how cold it was that winter and about the voices in his head. He finished up the conversation by offering me a blow job if I would buy him some boots. I declined his offer. I've never purchased cheeseburgers for a homeless person again.

Where my old office was, we'd have crazy homeless people yelling at the cars going by, I had one guy threaten me because I was walking on the same sidewalk as him during lunch time, meth heads passed out on the sidewalk at random and just crazy, random stuff. I can't speak to national percentages, but I'd guess that 90% of the homeless people that I've met are there because they are just straight up crazy and in need of being institutionalized. The cost to do that is so overwhelming that cities just run away instead. You can talk about throwing them in jail, but frankly, the jails don't want that kind of person in there. Too disruptive to their routines. Our homeless problem is not something that is easily fixed.

While I agree that there are homeless that are the result of bad mental health, not all, and only some are the result of bad mental health, drugs.

I know because:

1. I was homeless for 3 weeks, in Spokane.

2. I talked to homeless regularly.

3. I volunteered, served the homeless.

4. I helped some homeless to not be homeless.

Example:

There was a young homeless couple. They asked for money. I offered them a meal at a restaurant, and to help them tap into homeless resources to help them get off street, etc.

They accepted that(Some dont. Some just want money, probably for drugs).

1 year later, ran into them at a Taco Bell, and the boyfriend was dressed in white shirt, tie, suit, having a bite to eat before a job interview, and they then owned a car,.rented a apt, werent homeless anymore.

 

[mikalalas]

I literally said nothing of the sort. I just asked where they are supposed to go. The implication being that no one allows homeless people to use their facilities but they are still humans and humans have to poop from time to time. To that end, they have no where to do this, which is why it ends up on the street, because republican lead efforts have cut social services budgets to the absolute bone.

What you just said here, there is BS.

I was homeless for 3 weeks(Not anymore), and there are PLENTY of places to use the bathroom:

1. Shelter's with bathrooms.

2. Gas Stations, with bathrooms

3. Parks with bathrooms

4. Restaurants with bathrooms

5. Stores like Wal Mart, etc, with bathrooms.

6. STA Bus Plazaa, Bus Station, Airport, etc, with Bathrooms.

7. Churches with bathrooms.

8. Colleges with bathrooms.

9. Libraries with Bathrooms.

10. Malls with bathrooms.

11.Movie theaters with bathrooms.

12. Bars with bathrooms

And while there were rare times that some places either didnt have bathrooms, didnt let me use bathrooms, I ALMOST ALWAYS FOUND A BATHROOM SOMEWHERE, both when I was homeless, and when I had to use bathroom before I got home to my Apt.

And 1,2 times, I found a DESERTED, public, wilderness, forest, out in country, etc, behind trees, bushes, to take a piss, etc.

I didnt take a piss, etc, on private, public property without permission, and I didnt do that in public view, out in public, on private, public property, etc.

SO THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR ANY HOMELESS TO PEE OR POOP IN PUBLIC, ETC.

 

[mikalalas]

This might be a crazy thought... I don't know. A lot of posts addressing the homeless problem in this country. This is an idea I've always had.

I almost wish there was some sort of a social system in place where you could give homeless people the option to seek rehabilitation provided by the government while living in government funded housing and then be given options to work in industries that undocumented immigrants tend to occupy (janitorial work, farm jobs, construction) once they're healthy or ready to go. Almost like... we're going to give you the resources to get better/on your feet and you can pay the state back by working jobs where large sums of tax payer dollars go and tax exemptions are afforded.

It would solve a few issues: no more greedy business owners hiring undocumented workers to avoid having to pay people, it would address the issue of undocumented immigrants working in the US that conservatives tend to have an issue with ("they took our jobs!!!"), it would give homeless people an option to get healthy and make an honest living...

Obvious issues are big government... but a lot of people who have a conservative stance in this thread are asking for the government to remove them from the streets by force which is huge government. Also... it might be tough to convince homeless people of this option... however, haven spoken to a number of homeless people in Seattle... a lot of them just want an opportunity to do something or need help so they can.

Might be dumb... but it's better than just leaving them on streets to rot, do drugs, commit crimes and give major cities a black eye.

Thought that I wouldnt ever agree with or like a post of yours