[COLOR=B6C9D0]Vancouver, San Francisco, same, same, for the same reason. Kamala Harris and her ilk, Canadian Liberal-Marxist imbeciles unable to solve simple problems, like Nancy, who never could, and why there are turds in the streets. ' Mommy, why is there people living on the streets ? ' ' Because Liberal-Marxist politicians are corrupt, they steal the money from the suckers with promises of a better future, always, perpetually, in about five years. '
This is a legitimate question... what do left-leaning cities gain by allowing this to happen? There are homeless shelters, why don't they force them to use them, or ask them to move out of the city? There are cities where the mayors HAVE taken a stance, and legitimately enforced a ban on homelessness and vagrancy in their city.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
Not that you'd entertain an idea that isn't an element of your political ideology, but the climate plays a huge role why transients end up on the west coast... whether that be in the US or in Canada. It's relatively mild year round.
That doesn't answer why the cities allow them to remain on the streets, crap in the streets, and set up tent cities. We didn't have it to this extent just a decade ago... but now it's common-place in cities organized by left-leaning politicians. Florida is mild year round, and I'd even say, it's significantly better than the West Coast during the winter time. But we don't have any vagrants or homeless people sleeping in the streets. We have strict laws against it in almost all of the cities and throughout the state. There are still a couple of cities that allow it, like Jacksonville (though they've been pressured by the state to clean up). The city of Tampa also used to have a lot of homeless encampments, and when the city commission turned majority Republican, they implemented laws (against the direction of the mayor), and had all of the encampments removed. These people had two options... leave the city, or use the homeless shelters and get clean (note: you cannot use drugs or alcohol in a homeless shelter). This is a pretty good article that covers nearly everything:
The article is somewhat left-leaning, really tries to trash Miami and Ron DeSantis at every point, but fairly addresses some of the key issues. One thing I really want to point out is that besides everything else this author put, they try to paint the picture that most people who are homeless are families that have been displaced because housing is unaffordable. This is not correct. The overwhelming vast majority of those who are homeless are there because of primarily drug addiction first, alcoholism second, mental illness third (which often has to do with 1 and 2), and then a small minority of those who are homeless because of rental expenses. The availability of cheap narcotics into the country through the southern border is the primary reason (mostly pentenyl and meth) as to why we have so many homeless. People get hooked (quickly) on these drugs, and then their world falls apart, and they end up on the street... also permanently damaging their brains so they actually suffer from mental incognition as a result.
When I supported US SOUTHCOM in Doral, even though Mexico is technically part of NORTHCOM, we were responsible for drug interdiction and narcotics mission. For some reason this doesn't get talked about a lot... but the drugs mostly all come from China. This is part of China's goal of destabilizing the United States so that China can become the leading world-power. You can read about that here from this BBC article: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68669244
"...the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese government provides subsidies to companies openly trafficking illicit synthetic drugs. The report found tens of thousands of posts online advertising illegal drugs and pre-cursors."
So again I ask...
1 - Why aren't we actually protecting the southern border? 2 - Why do we not do anything about homelessness in left-leaning cities?
... these are simple questions that I honestly want to know the answers to.
More than a half billion stolen, ten percent kick to Walz, no doubt. Call the FBI ! Call the IRS ! A crack team of auditors to track how much went directly to Walz's campaign accounts, the bribe accounts, that Kakala received to grease the way to the veep slot. Sure, this is the same old, same old bribery schemes of the dempartie corruption game, no different than LBJ's time in '48. A crack to drive the wedge into, to destroy the Kakalling Kamala campaign, the corruption blatantly obvious. ' Federal funds stolen by veep candidate ! Billions Embezzled ! ' ~ Headline news at cnn, msnbc
Sleepy Joe will pardon them. Move along, nothing to see here......
Typical leftwingnutjob thievery and deception.....
Originally posted by NewDustin: This is a fair point. Stormy Daniels herself is adamant she is not an escort or a prostitute. Granted, she also says she had sex with Trump because of promises of financial incentive, and he did pay her a large sum of money afterwards. So rather, "indictment for involvement with women he used money and influence to coerce into sex" would probably be more accurate for her situation. Doesn't really change the fact that dude is a dedicated lecher, John, and adulterer, and is way more likely to have the clap than Kamala.
Proof that Trump coerced Stormy Daniels into sex ? Money nor influence coerces anybody to do anything. If anything Stormy Daniels coerced Trump to pay her. Even though she agreed not to tell her story for the money she did anyway.
Proof that Trump coerced Stormy Daniels into sex ? Money nor influence coerces anybody to do anything. If anything Stormy Daniels coerced Trump to pay her. Even though she agreed not to tell her story for the money she did anyway.
She also said it never happened at all. She and that woman who writes a sex advice column both scammed Trump.
Originally posted by Patrick: Not that you'd entertain an idea that isn't an element of your political ideology, but the climate plays a huge role why transients end up on the west coast... whether that be in the US or in Canada. It's relatively mild year round.
Not that you'd entertain the idea that you are wrong, you are wrong. People go to California to "tune in, turn on, and drop out". Getting paid to boot.
Weather is nice in many parts of the US. Our Vice President "kamakazi Harris is the "root causes" guru of the US. Okay okay, I lied. Why do illegal aliens flock to the United States. Free stuff and a welcoming attitude is the number one reason.
News flash. People vote for those that give them free stuff. One merely needs to look at where the homeless choose to be homeless in.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 08-08-2024).]
I have affordable health care. My children are receiving a proper education. A woman's reproductive right's do affect me. I have never been affected by gun violence. The area I live in has not been environmentally damaged by pollution.
If you live on the Earth than you live in an area that is damaged by "pollution". Which candidate will try to help with that?
If you live on the Earth than you live in an area that is damaged by "pollution". Which candidate will try to help with that?
It wouldn't be a Democrat candidate, unfortunately. I used to vote Democrat, and this was an issue that was of concern to me. I realized that it's more about making deals and people getting paid, than actually solving environmental issues. I'll posit that if you look at many of the states... the states with the worst (or outright lack) of recycling programs are traditionally Democrat states. I make no aspersions as to why this is... I just know it to be. But in the states where some of the best recycling programs exist, including those who have Wheelabrator sites (for example), they're almost all Republican states.
It's been my perception, which is part of why I vote Republican now, is that I find the Democrat party to largely be full of talk, while the Republican states at least, are actually consistently enacting these policies without even talking about it.
If you didn't know any better, you'd assume the Democrat states have the best water, best recycling programs, and the most green power systems. The states with the most wind power is Texas.
And you say... ok, Texas... fine. But then the next four states are also Republican. Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, South Dakota. Those states produce anywhere from MORE than 50% of their power from wind, all the way down to 30% at the lowest... that is, total amount of power used within the state comes from wind. And then solar... California is number 1, but only fairly recently... all the next 5-6 states are Republican, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Arizona, Nevada (not in that order).
There's just a lot of hypocrisy, which I dislike.
I recognize you have a team, and you like that team, and you've been a member of that team for probably a very long time.
I switched to straight-ticket Republican back in 2010 for the first time (that mid-term election). I was originally a solid Democrat... voting down the line Democrat in 1996. But started to change my views (I thought Al Gore was kind of a kook) and voted for Bush, but everyone else was Democrat. And then I still hung on with Senator Bill Nelson for a while... but then I was done.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: the states with the worst (or outright lack) of recycling programs are traditionally Democrat states. I make no aspersions as to why this is... I just know it to be. But in the states where some of the best recycling programs exist, including those who have Wheelabrator sites (for example), they're almost all Republican states.
What is your source for this claim.
This site shows much different. Almost all of the top recycling states are on the coast. Mostly liberal states.
Perhaps you should ask the people in East Palestine, Ohio.....
Obama imposed stricter rules on trains carrying toxins. Trump killed them. PolitiFact looked into this rule change and found the claim to accurate.
After this rule was enacted, lobbyists for railway and oil companies pushed to repeal it, questioning the effectiveness of electronic brakes and arguing that the cost of installing them was too high.
Then in 2018, under the Trump administration, the Department of Transportation repealed the rule based on government reports that determined equipping high-hazard cargo trains with electronic brakes was not economically justified.
...the climate plays a huge role why transients end up on the west coast... whether that be in the US or in Canada. It's relatively mild year round.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
Not that you'd entertain the idea that you are wrong, you are wrong.
You're right, as always. Case closed.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
What do left-leaning cities gain by allowing this to happen? There are homeless shelters, why don't they force them to use them, or ask them to move out of the city?
Are you serious... "ask them to move out of the city"? Excuse me sir, we notice you've been sleeping in a tent in one of our beautiful Vancouver parks. Could you please relocate back to Winnipeg, where it's currently -20°C this fine December. Or... Excuse me ma'am, it's been observed that you've been squatting in this abandoned San Francisco warehouse. Could you please move back to your hometown of Phoenix, where it's currently 116°F this fine July.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Florida is mild year round, and I'd even say, it's significantly better than the West Coast during the winter time.
You must have your own interpretation of what "mild" means in regards to climate... especially in the summer!
Newsflash... Transient/homeless people don't usually have A/C equipped accommodations to help endure excessively high summer temperatures.
IMO, it was an unmitigated disaster closing mental institutions across North America. "Treating" these people in neighborhood clinics has been an absolute adjunct failure.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 08-08-2024).]
Are you serious... "ask them to move out of the city"? Excuse me sir, we notice you've been sleeping in a tent in one of our beautiful Vancouver parks. Could you please relocate back to Winnipeg, where it's currently -20°C this fine December. Or... Excuse me ma'am, it's been observed that you've been squatting in this abandoned San Francisco warehouse. Could you please move back to your hometown of Phoenix, where it's currently 116°F this fine July.
I feel like you intentionally ignored the first part of what I said. They get two options... live in a homeless shelter without drugs or alcohol, or move out of the city. It's a fair expectation. The rest of the city should not have to deal with someone living in the middle of a public place. If they want to get better, the state also provides dozens of rehab facilities paid for by the taxpayer.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick: You must have your own interpretation of what "mild" means in regards to climate... especially in the summer!
Newsflash... Transient/homeless people don't usually have A/C equipped accommodations to help endure excessively high summer temperatures. IMO, it was an unmitigated disaster closing mental institutions across North America. "Treating" these people in neighborhood clinics has been an absolute adjunct failure.
The entire state is not like Homestead, FL. It's actually moderate on the coasts, and in the panhandle where you have a breeze. It's kind of a misrepresentation of Florida's weather. Your argument seems to hinge on weather... but there's crazy homeless in all major left-leaning cities, which includes everything from NYC, to Chicago, to Austin, to San Diego (which are all over the state). California has the highest homeless population because they don't fight it, the highest levels of illegal immigration (as a destination), and there's no rules against fighting it, and you can steal as much as you want under $950 bucks and you won't get arrested or accosted. A meth head is not going to hop a Greyhound for greener pastures from North Carolina to California because the weather is a bit more temperate? My opinion, that's not a valid argument Patrick.
Getting rid of mental institutions definitely caused a problem, but at the same time... these homeless people have freedoms too. Incarcerating them against their will because someone deems them insane goes against our Constitutional rights. And to that point, the majority of these people do not start off mentally insane, they get there because of persistent drug use. Sometimes mental illness causes drug use, but heavy drug use will very often create (or expose) mental illness. More to the point though... the homeless problem has only recently become a problem within the last decade. San Francisco, New York, etc... wasn't like this 10 years ago. This is because of fentanyl being allowed to cross the southern border.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 08-08-2024).]
I feel like you intentionally ignored the first part of what I said. They get two options... live in a homeless shelter without drugs or alcohol, or move out of the city. It's a fair expectation. The rest of the city should not have to deal with someone living in the middle of a public place. If they want to get better, the state also provides dozens of rehab facilities paid for by the taxpayer.
I ignored it because it's totally naive. San Francisco is out of my jurisdiction... but in regards to Vancouver... no, we do not have enough accommodation here to provide shelter for the thousands of transients from across the entire country who end up here... and every day there are more! The situation is bloody awful, and I don't know what the answer is... but telling people to simply quit drugs and alcohol in order to gain access to (mostly non-existent) shelters, or to "move out of the city" is completely unrealistic. Sometimes I wonder what planet you're from!
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Your argument seems to hinge on weather...
It's a major contributing factor, whether you care to admit it or not. Nobody is going to sleep on the street in most parts of Canada in the dead of winter. However, they can do so in Vancouver (usually), and not freeze to death.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
...the majority of these people do not start off mentally insane, they get there because of persistent drug use.
Well, sure... and... and... and? I don't think it's much of a stretch to suspect that the mentally ill probably make rather poor decisions.
You again glossed over what I said, which I think was a really salient point. We didn't have homeless encampments 10 years ago like we do today. It's directly correlated with the propensity of fentanyl and meth coming across the southern border. Regardless of how you feel about immigration (that's a whole other subject to argue about), this has to do with the flow of drugs. It's intentionally pushed by China (as I showed in my links earlier). China is seeking to cause the destabilization of the United States in order to become the world's power. This is one of the many ways that they are doing this.
"... telling people to simply quit drugs and alcohol in order to gain access to (mostly non-existent) shelters, or to "move out of the city" is completely unrealistic. Sometimes I wonder what planet you're from!"
Everyone here has known someone addicted to drugs. I realize it's easy to say "stop using drugs." These people need to hit rock bottom before they make the decision to help themselves. They have to want to change their behavior... before it's too late. At least in the United States (I assume it's the same in Canada), we have free clinics and rehab facilities that help you get off drugs... you just have to check yourself into them. And in doing so, you get free room and board. Once you get out, they also have government-funded "half-way" houses in which you can live in a home with other people who are recovering, living under rules to help you get back to normal. But you said "non-existent," I assume you're talking about Canada? In the United States, we have tons of homeless shelters. Here's a video from Portland Oregon (which has decidedly more homeless people than most other cities... again, because of the reasons I mentioned). The homeless people don't want to use them... but they're there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5_dWTeyKKs
All of that aside... these homeless individuals do not have the right to use drugs and cause vagrancy in front of a gas station, an apartment building, or a restaurant, or anywhere else in public where it can affect the quality of life of everyone else, including property owners.
You talk about mental health... I realize the laws are different in Canada, but in the United States we simply cannot just incarcerate people for mental illness and put them away in a mental institution. This would be against their will. Some states have unique laws, like the Baker Act in Florida which allows a person to be detained for 3 days to detox and get a mental health evaluation to determine if they will be a harm to themselves or others. But not all states have that.
Well, sure... and... and... and? I don't think it's much of a stretch to suspect that the mentally ill probably make rather poor decisions.
A lack of self-respect, weakness, good parenting instilling and teaching good judgement by the parents and attempting to seek a altered state does not qualify as a mental health issue. Have known several individuals who took such a path, most of their problem was a desire to be one of the "Kool Kids". Mental illness is nowhere near the numbers being suggested (unless the drugs caused it). A lack of good parenting also caused a lot of this homeless issues. My opinion is based on personal experience after witnessing good longtime friends make bad decisions. The responsibility for bad behavior falls directly on the individual. That's not to suggest that there aren't a minority with mental issues that got them started on the path they took but.......................... Root causes? I'm sure there are many, but I've only named a few.
Originally posted by Yellow-88: Obama imposed stricter rules on trains carrying toxins. Trump killed them. PolitiFact looked into this rule change and found the claim to accurate.
After this rule was enacted ...
Then in 2018, under the Trump administration, the Department of Transportation repealed the rule based on government reports that determined equipping high-hazard cargo trains with electronic brakes was not economically justified.
The Department of Transportation repealed the rule ...[/quote]
Originally posted by NewDustin: The only place I've ever been with worse, hotter weather than Florida is Texas. I live in Vegas and your winters are damn near too much for me.
I have lived in Texas all my life, except times I lived in Florida. Except times I lived in Montana. England also (born there). My vocation was drilling for oil and gas. 12 hours a day. With shifts either seven or 14 days at a times a day, day shift rotating to night shift. Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall.
The word "acclimation" is what you should understand.
Originally posted by Patrick: ... in regards to in regards to Vancouver... no, we do not have enough accommodation here to provide shelter for the thousands of transients from across the entire country who end up here... and every day there are more! The situation is bloody awful, and I don't know what the answer is... but telling people to simply quit drugs and alcohol in order to gain access to (mostly non-existent) shelters, or to "move out of the city" is completely unrealistic. Sometimes I wonder what planet you're from!... no, we do not have enough accommodation here to provide shelter for the thousands of transients from across the entire country who end up here... and every day there are more! The situation is bloody awful, and I don't know what the answer is... but telling people to simply quit drugs and alcohol in order to gain access to (mostly non-existent) shelters, or to "move out of the city" is completely unrealistic. Sometimes I wonder what planet you're from!
Thousands ? We have 14 million illegal aliens we do not have accommodations for, yet we do. Even providing education, health care, ...
What answers has Vancouver tried to keep them from camping on your front yard ?
willful cheapness rump allows cut corners for profits never mind the pollution think ONLY ABOUT MONEY =THE RUMP
FOR 82 THAT VAGRANCY LAWS ARE PIG LAWS Constitutional Problems With Vagrancy Laws
All laws must be constitutional. This means that no law can violate any of the provisions in the U.S. Constitution. Many vagrancy laws have been struck down because they violated First and Eighth Amendment rights, due process rights, and other rights afforded by the Constitution.
Vagueness and Due Process
A law must also be written so that an ordinary person can determine exactly what acts are prohibited and what people must do (or refrain from doing) to avoid criminal prosecution. Without clear guidelines for conduct, the average person, police officers, and judges have no way of knowing what constitutes a crime.
This uncertainty violates a person's right to due process (fairness) and allows police to decide what behavior they like or don't like. Vagrancy laws, particularly laws prohibiting loitering, have been challenged successfully in court on the basis that they are too vague. (Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972); Chicago v. Morales, 52
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
Originally posted by Patrick: I ignored it because it's totally naive. San Francisco is out of my jurisdiction... but in regards to Vancouver... no, we do not have enough accommodation here to provide shelter for the thousands of transients from across the entire country who end up here... and every day there are more! The situation is bloody awful, and I don't know what the answer is... but telling people to simply quit drugs and alcohol in order to gain access to (mostly non-existent) shelters, or to "move out of the city" is completely unrealistic. Sometimes I wonder what planet you're from!
I've worked with both the Kiwanis Club and Father Joe's Village in San Diego, and am comfortable saying that anyone who suggests homeless folks should just quit drugs and use the shelters to get back on track has never worked with the homeless and does not understand what they face or what their issues are. It always reminds me of Lazyboy when people miss that point.
It's like suggesting we end wars by just not shooting each other.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 08-09-2024).]
I've worked with both the Kiwanis Club and Father Joe's Village in San Diego, and am comfortable saying that anyone who suggests homeless folks should just quit drugs and use the shelters to get back on track has never worked with the homeless and does not understand what they face or what their issues are. It always reminds me of Lazyboy when people miss that point.
It's like suggesting we end wars by just not shooting each other.
This is why I get pissed at conversations like this.
NO ONE suggested to the homeless that they just "quit drugs."
It's like one person makes up some crazy **** (Patrick) and then another person is like OMG... (New Dustin), and then it becomes fact that this is what was said. The two of you are basically having your own conversation, totally devoid of anything else that's being said in this thread.
I feel like, for the both of you... that either my responses are too poignant, or you're just glossing over things with pre-conceived notions in your head. At this point... why should I bother having a discussion? I have to keep reminding myself that this forum is more like a psyche-ward where everyone is yelling, and almost no one is paying attention.
Trump is very likely going to become president, and for the few in here who are angry and upset, you're just going to be angrier and more upset... and for that I'm sorry. I hope you guys find peace. I'll be front and center at helping to make this change, and it'll be under a different political banner than you like... but I'm sure you all will survive.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 08-09-2024).]
Arizona’s Family will be live fact-checking the Democratic candidates’ speeches Friday night as part of our commitment to fact check both major parties’ candidates leading into the election in November.
The rally at Desert Diamond Arena in Glendale is set to begin at 5:30 p.m.
Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, a former astronaut and gun control advocate, had been a top contender for running mate prior to Harris choosing Walz. Kelly has won two tough races in politically divided Arizona.
The responsibility for bad behavior falls directly on the individual.
And... and... and? Neither you nor I are medical experts. What's the point of arguing about which occurred first... mental illness or drug abuse? The end result is millions of deranged individuals living on the street in cities around the world.
This is the bill. Google it if you want to see the whole thing. It was overturned in 2018.
Billing Code: 4910-60-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 174, and 179 [Docket No. PHMSA-2012-0082 (HM-251)] RIN 2137-AE91 Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational Controls for High Hazard Flammable Trains
Actually they are illegal aliens. Also, I never mentioned anything about their drug / alcohol use. My point was to point out that there is always a place to put people needing housing.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: I've worked with both the Kiwanis Club and Father Joe's Village in San Diego, and am comfortable saying that anyone who suggests homeless folks should just quit drugs and use the shelters to get back on track has never worked with the homeless and does not understand what they face or what their issues are.
Father Joe's Village in San Diego. I looked them up and they are no different than many other cities offering homeless help assistance. I have also worked as a volunteer at such facilities. We also have a St Paul's facility such as Father Joe's. We Also have Victory Outreach, Haven For Hope, the Salvation Army, and others. All requiring sober living and which stronly push faith in Christ.
Thus a worker their would serve a majority of homeless who are not addicted and will have other issues.
It is fact that anyone can access those type services. Why do the encampments still exist ? Put on some grubby clothes and hang out with them. You will find that almost 100% do not want to give up their addiction or turn their life over to Christ.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: This is a legitimate question... what do left-leaning cities gain by allowing this to happen? There are homeless shelters, why don't they force them to use them, or ask them to move out of the city?
It's like one person makes up some crazy **** (Patrick) and then another person is like OMG... (New Dustin), and then it becomes fact that this is what was said. The two of you are basically having your own conversation, totally devoid of anything else that's being said in this thread.
You just can't handle any discussion which doesn't correlate to your heavily slanted view of the world and how you believe it should operate.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
NO ONE suggested to the homeless that they just "quit drugs."
Oh, of course not. It was a "fair" choice... basically quit drugs or leave town.
They get two options... live in a homeless shelter without drugs or alcohol, or move out of the city. It's a fair expectation.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
We didn't have homeless encampments 10 years ago like we do today.
Did you even bother to watch the video that Dustin linked to Here. That video is twenty years old, and the problem of large numbers of homeless people goes back much longer than that.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
This is why I get pissed at conversations like this.
....and for the few in here who are angry and upset, you're just going to be angrier and more upset...
By your own admission, you're the only one who appears to be "angry and upset". The rest of us understand that there can be dissenting opinions without getting all choked about it.
Originally posted by Yellow-88: This is the bill. Google it if you want to see the whole thing. It was overturned in 2018.
Fair enough.
In a post on Twitter by Clinton's Sec of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg claimed :
quote
Buttigieg claimed one rail safety regulation involving brakes was withdrawn by the Trump administration in 2018 because of a law passed by Congress in 2015.
The Biden administration has not reinstated the ECP brake rule. In Buttigieg's recent Twitter thread, he implied the DOT is constrained by law from reissuing the mandate.
Trump did swear to uphold laws passed by Congress.
Originally posted by cliffw: ... but in regards to Vancouver... no, we do not have enough accommodation here to provide shelter for the thousands of transients from across the entire country who end up here... and every day there are more! The situation is bloody awful, and I don't know what the answer is.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: What answers has Vancouver tried to keep them from camping in public ?
You just can't handle any discussion which doesn't correlate to your heavily slanted view of the world and how you believe it should operate.
Not at all... it's just that you basically inferred and made as fact, something I absolutely did not say or suggest. And I can't reasonably debate with someone on ideals when they are creating their own answers in lieu of the things I've actually said.
What answers has Vancouver tried to keep them from camping on your front yard ?
The homeless have been offered free bus tickets to Bandera, Texas... but for whatever strange reason, they refuse to go.
If you're really interested in what the city of Vancouver has done to combat homelessness here, there's this neat thing on the internet called Google. Knock yourself out.
...it's just that you basically inferred and made as fact, something I absolutely did not say or suggest.
I supplied not one, but two quotes of yours saying what you refuse to acknowledge. Maybe you shouldn't be making these comments in the first place if you can't admit to them afterwards.
I supplied not one, but two quotes of yours saying what you refuse to acknowledge. Maybe you shouldn't be making these comments in the first place if you can't admit to them afterwards.
No, you are misrepresenting them. Maybe it's the conversion from American English to British English. But you can go back and read my original post.
I did not (without empathy) say... too bad so sad, quit drugs or leave. I said... under the law of Florida... they can go into rehab (totally paid for by the taxpayer), or they can go into a homeless shelter and not use drugs while they're in there, because homeless shelters (all over the country) do not allow drug use and alcoholism inside.
Please stop whatever else this is that you're doing (and this will be the only thing you quote, as you get the last word in, and that's fine).
Excuse me sir, we notice you've been sleeping in a tent in one of our beautiful Vancouver parks. Could you please relocate back to Winnipeg, where it's currently -20°C this fine December. Or... Excuse me ma'am, it's been observed that you've been squatting in this abandoned San Francisco warehouse. Could you please move back to your hometown of Phoenix, where it's currently 116°F this fine July.
