Originally Posted By cape cod joe Pass--I think my word should have been MANY not MOST but surely any clear thinking person would have gotten the gist of my jumble of words. Now---how about Jim responding to his obfuscation of my post??
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA My reponse is the same, joe. It seems that people want to jump to conclusions about the homeless. One of my favorites is that 'they want to be there.' Just because I used an example of things that didn't match your post to the letter, doesn't necessarily mean it can't be used as a response, There's more to the homeless situation than just 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps and get a job,' It stuns me that people's solution to dealing with homeless is to just scoff at them. Something has to be done to help, doesn't it? I suppose we could be like Ebenezer Scrooge, who declared 'Are there no prisons, are there no workhouses?' when discussing the homeless in Merry Ol England. When told that those institutions were bursting at the seams, Scrooge says: 'Well let them die then, and decrease the surplus population.' Now, joe, I'm not suggesting that YOU feel this way, just that I've heard it a lot when discussing the homeless in America. And gosh help anyone who cares about homeless people, lest we be lumped into the 'bleeding heart' category.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Thank you Jim as I agree with you 100%. It just hurt me. I know you couldn't have known about ALL my past including my decades of working with the homeless issue on cape cod, but if you read my immigrant stuff this week Jim, you should know my life is about succoring others. I think you were emotional like me and didn't realized you implied I didn't care. And I admitted I embellished as usual and should have said a lot or some. I did imply that bootstrap thing which is not my thinking at all. I'm glad we two hotheads can work these things out As long as you don't call me names worse than what my wife calls me (which is impossible by the way) NO harm NO foul. Your post 37 is loving and kind and that is what this short life we have is all about! Great post Jim!!
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Do you really think most homeless arrive there by choice because of drug and alcohol problems?>> If not most, a lot.
Originally Posted By Bob Benchley "<<Do you really think most homeless arrive there by choice because of drug and alcohol problems?>> If not most, a lot." Beaumandy, this is a perfect example of what we talked about in the other thread. STPH has gotten your goat here and he wasn't even trying. He was asking Joe a question. You only respond in this fashion in the hopes of riling up STPH. It's obvious. Try NOT fighting once in a while.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Beau--Bob is right as now I think I get it about STPH. I should have understood when he said his wife and he had NEVER argued in 7 years. I still laugh to myself when I think of that. Mary Poppins aruges occasionally and STPH will argue with every post just to get everyone going. It seems as though he may even be a plant if you notice how he opens threads designed to instigate. As someone mentioned last week, let's not feed the troll. Bob-I'm beginning to take a liking to you. Where are you from? I give you credit for trying to help Beau even though you may disagree on things. I disagree with Beau and others on things too but as long as you're intellectually honest and respectful, that's fine as Beau reiterates all the time.
Originally Posted By barboy Ok, it's official......#41 has left me more confused than a demented 95 year old Chilean native wandering the streets of Shinjuku, Japan during Monday morning rush hour. ccjoe, do you really believe that STPH is trolling?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<And gosh help anyone who cares about homeless people, lest we be lumped into the 'bleeding heart' category.>> The fact that Capitalism appears to have no way of dealing with those at the "edges" of society is its greatest failure. The fault is equally shared between those who are homeless and the flaws in our economic system.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe barboy--NO he is not. I'm just trying to corroborate what he says that I am just a jumble of words The few people that do the MG mental gymnastics thing with me constantly say than my ideas and feelings are not intellectually or emotionally transferrable, hence 41 is the proof of the pudding So is there hope Trippy? I see NO viable solution?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<The fact that Capitalism appears to have no way of dealing with those at the "edges" of society is its greatest failure.>> What are you talking about? Capitalism has made us the most prosperous nation in history so we have the resources to take care of the people on the edges of society if need be. Do you have any idea how much we spend on social programs for these people compared to anything else.. like the war? There needs to be a net for people who can't take care of themselves in society. The problem is that to many homeless people have put themselves where they are THEMSELVES, and we are happy to keep them there by blaming society for their place in life. Who made the chocie to drink or do drugs or get pregnant? They did. If someone REALLY wants to get off the street, get a job, get help, there are plenty of places to get help. Churches are very active in this area by the way. A lot of the decisions that lead to homelessness come from not having a core set of values, the type of values you learn at church ironically enough. Want less homlessness??? Encourage strong work ethics and core values in your kids. Teach them that they are not a vicim and that they need to be self responsible in their life. Basically, teach them the stuff that you learn in Sunday school. Or you can support the ACLU, shut religious activity down that teaches people how to be responisible adults, and give your daughter birth control pills since she is "going to have sex anyway". To recap... have a safety net in society that helps the people who can't take care of themselves due to mental illness or some other condition. Push rehab, education and core family values early on. Reject the ACLU because they are agaisnt family values that help people be productive members of society later on.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Beaumandy, this is a perfect example of what we talked about in the other thread. STPH has gotten your goat here and he wasn't even trying. He was asking Joe a question. You only respond in this fashion in the hopes of riling up STPH. It's obvious. Try NOT fighting once in a while.>> Bob, are you ever going to come on here with an opinion or are you just going to critique other people's posts from the sideleines? Why not sack up and get in the game? You remind me of the libs who have no ideas of their own but have plenty of complaints against the people who actually take action and have a plan.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << Do you have any idea how much we spend on social programs for these people compared to anything else.. like the war? >> Yes. For the FY05 Budget, we spent 5 times more on national defense than on domestic social programs.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<What are you talking about? Capitalism has made us the most prosperous nation in history so we have the resources to take care of the people on the edges of society if need be.>> Yes, we do have the resources to take care of these people. But we don't. When a Human Poverty Index was calculated for the leading developed nations of the world, the United States was ion 17th place (1st place having the least poverty). The area where the United States does worst in this index is in people with less than 50% of the nation's median income. In the United States 17% of the population struggles along on less that HALF of the median income. The figures for a few other countries are: Sweden 6.6% Germany 7.5% Japan 11.8% Source: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H uman_Poverty_Index</a> The United States economic system has been VERY GOOD at creating wealth but VERY POOR when it comes to taking care of those in need. <<If someone REALLY wants to get off the street, get a job, get help, there are plenty of places to get help. Churches are very active in this area by the way.>> As I pointed out in a previous post, 41% of the homeless are physically or mentally disabled. They are more than likely not prime candidates for employment.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Basically, teach them the stuff that you learn in Sunday school. Or you can support the ACLU, shut religious activity down that teaches people how to be responisible adults, >>> How is the ACLU against Sunday School? The only situation where I could think of would be if someone wanted to conduct it on public property. But there's certainly no shortage of churches around where one can attend Sunday School. And if the gov't were to try to restrict Sunday School in private churches, the ACLU would be right there to put a stop to it based on their belief in the "free exercise thereof" provision for religious freedom in the 1st Amendment.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Bob, are you ever going to come on here with an opinion or are you just going to critique other people's posts from the sideleines? You remind me of the libs who have no ideas of their own but have plenty of complaints against the people who actually take action and have a plan. >>> You remind me of someone that cuts and pastes arguments from other websites and just types in what their radio told them to think. That would be someone that genuinely had no ideas of their own.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <As I pointed out in a previous post, 41% of the homeless are physically or mentally disabled.> But we're not allowed to put them in an institution, because of the ACLU.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<But we're not allowed to put them in an institution, because of the ACLU. >> Was it really because of ACLU action? I thought it was based on the desire of governments to cut the expense of keeping the disabled in institutions. At any rate, I think it is pretty clear to see that de-institutionalization has not worked in a large number of cases.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
