Democrat homeless disaster killing San Francisco, Los Angeles, & Seattle

a reply to: underwerks

Why are you convinced that San Francisco, Los Angelse, and Seattle are bad places?

I never said thought or wrote that as per your quote above. Look at my responses to several other OPS on this as I have been to Los Angeles, Portland and Seattle and Vancouver. Beautiful cities. Right Wing Blog. So what if it is or isn't as whats fact is fact. Even left wing CNN does push out factual stories now and then. Plain and simple. So just because its Right Biased you don't believe it. Its all newsworthy credible sources about the destruction caused by the homeless situation.

a reply to: Lazarus Short

It's not real. Stop browsing pol.

a reply to: underwerks

So your example of democrat success is republican-run cities.

a reply to: seattlerat

The needle exchange program is a great idea, but there doesn't seem to be much of an exchange going on- they just hand the rigs out without requiring any to be turned in.

That isn't true in my experience. At the needle exchange in the tenderloin I volunteered at the only way you got new needles was if you brought some in to be disposed of. Early every morning you'd see addicts scouring the streets picking up whatever needles they could find, because after the needle exchange closed they could sell the new needles for $5 a piece.

What should be done? It has reached the point where compassion for the victims should outweigh the compassion for the perpetrators (shouldn't this already be the case?). Law enforcement and mental health officials need to be given the resources and go-ahead to do their jobs- period. If an unfortunate individual is breaking the law by (repeatedly) camping on the street (as they do a block away from where I live), they should be arrested. The same goes for those caught illegally dumping trash and hazardous materials, or shooting up in public places.

I think that any laws that only serve to drive drug use underground only multiply the problem. You can arrest people for camping on the street and shooting up, but then what? Your tax dollars go to funding their stay in jail and after they are through the courts (again, on your dime) they are right back in the same situation. Maybe not in front of your house, but in front of someone else's. Moving the problem doesn't solve it. It only moves it.

The laws we have don't address the actual problem. Only the perception of the problem.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: underwerks

So your example of democrat success is republican-run cities.

My example is the amount of funding that Democrat cities bring to the country as a whole. I figured someone who votes with their wallet would appreciate that.

a reply to: Waterglass

we are not on a level playing field and never will be in my lifetime

Agreed.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: underwerks

So your example of democrat success is republican-run cities.

My example is the amount of funding that Democrat cities bring to the country as a whole. I figured someone who votes with their wallet would appreciate that.

So democrat policies and programs do not benefit democrat-run cities/states?

a reply to: underwerks

Hay I can only play the "game" so far.

a reply to: underwerks

What are you more concerned with? Punishing people you see as making bad lifestyle decisions or helping them?

This is the core of the problem here. You're not actually reading what I am saying, to wit:

Now if you want to discuss treatment programs and mental health funding to help people get and stay off drugs, then we might be able to hash out an agreement. But handing out needles for little girls to step on is NOT a sound policy.

Where in that paragraph is there advocacy for punishing drug addicts? not enabling them isn't the same as punishing them. Making it easy to be a junky shouldn't be our standing policy.

People are going to do drugs regardless. The best thing we can do at the moment is to try to minimize the harm caused by the regressive idea of prohibition. You can't punish your way out of this problem. By all accounts it only makes it worse.

I do not advocate a law enforcement approach to drug addiction. This is the purview of physical and mental health professionals who should be backed up by law enforcement, not lead by it. Policy throughout the country is either to ignore the problems and use the wrong approach or punish people, ignore the problems still, and use the wrong approach anyway.

I will always agree that the failure of drug policy in this country can be blamed on either side. Liberal permissiveness is NOT working. That is abundantly clear. Conservative law enforcement approach to drug addiction is clearly not working. That is also abundantly clear.

So then, instead of NOT addressing the problem altogether, how about we address the policies in place, because they are clearly not working. Drugs are an escape from reality and responsibility. So too, it seems, are our politics.

As far as homelessness is concerned? California is a national tragedy. The vast majority of the nation's homeless population is in California. These aren't just beach bums. These are whole families, some of which are generational. That's the beginnings of a dystopian underclass. It's scary as hell and there is a huge policy difference there when compared to conservative Utah, for instance.

Clearly, the liberal approach in these localities isn't working.

They weigh down economic activity, over-regulate everything, remove access to many in doing so, and then they blame non-existing republican for the consequences of their policies.

Any time someone in California says "but there's more work to be done" with respect to "addressing" any problem, you can bet the problem will get worse and the money spent will be enormous. Clearly, something has to change. Liberalism on the west coast seems to be a crazy-train with no brakes on its way off a cliff.

This is what happens when the diversity of ideas is replaced with monolithic thinking and ideological exclusion. We're seeing what California is being played out on the internet right now.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: underwerks

So your example of democrat success is republican-run cities.

My example is the amount of funding that Democrat cities bring to the country as a whole. I figured someone who votes with their wallet would appreciate that.

So democrat policies and programs do not benefit democrat-run cities/states?

They benefit everyone. It's just that most Democrat cities are more heavily populated than their Republican counterparts, which naturally brings it's own set of problems.

Those problems aren't a result of Democrat policies, they're a result of population. Get a big enough group of people together regardless of their political leanings and you're going to have similar problems.

a reply to: projectvxn

Making it easy to be a junky shouldn't be our standing policy.

Who are you to make that decision for someone else? That's the crux of the issue for me. Permissiveness isn't a liberal or conservative thing, it's a freedom thing. You or no one else should have the right to choose for others what they decide to do with their own body.

And yes, by having this attitude you are promoting punishment over rehabilitation. Because all your approach does is politicize every aspect of it, to the point that there is no way forward. So we're stuck in more of the same. It isn't a political question of what to do.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: underwerks

So your example of democrat success is republican-run cities.

My example is the amount of funding that Democrat cities bring to the country as a whole. I figured someone who votes with their wallet would appreciate that.

So democrat policies and programs do not benefit democrat-run cities/states?

They benefit everyone. It's just that most Democrat cities are more heavily populated than their Republican counterparts, which naturally brings it's own set of problems.

Those problems aren't a result of Democrat policies, they're a result of population. Get a big enough group of people together regardless of their political leanings and you're going to have similar problems.

pensivepost.com...

The Unfortunate Truth of Democratic Urban Governance
Search domain pensivepost.com/the-unfortunate-truth-of-democratic-urban-governance-bce7c8abc2a3pensivepost.com... ernance-bce7c8abc2a3
Combining the past ten mayors of the three poorest cities — Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Detroit — there are twenty-three Democrats, three Socialists, two Independents, and two Republicans. In essence, the three most impoverished cities in America have seen more governance in the past 50 years by Socialists than by Republicans, and the ratio of Democratic governance to Republican governance is about 12:1.

www.investors.com...

Best-Run States Are Heavily Republican, Study Finds ...
Search domain www.investors.com/politics/commentary/best-run-states-are-heavily-republican-study-finds/www.investors.com... -are-heavily-republican-study-finds/
The ten most financially sound states in the country are all heavily Republican, while all but one of the ten worst states are heavily Democratic. ... Best-Run States Are Heavily Republican, Study ...

a reply to: underwerks

Who are you to make that decision for someone else? That's the crux of the issue for me.

Who are junkies to shove their degeneracy in the faces of everyone who isn't a druggie?

I'm all for treatment, but I'm not for being a junky's doormat.

And yes, by having this attitude you are promoting punishment over rehabilitation. Because all your approach does is politicize every aspect of it, to the point that there is no way forward. So we're stuck in more of the same. It isn't a political question of what to do.

You either have reading comprehension problems, or you're just too lazy to read more than a couple of sentences.

I've been to San Fran, Portland, Seattle, and LA numerous times. Beautiful and great cities in their own right. However, I could not get over how bad it was in San Fran, Portland, and Seattle. Junkies and bums EVERYWHERE. I am a urban guy, so a little grit and grime doesn't really get to me. But those three cities are in a league of their own when it comes to homeless. Third world levels. NYC looks like Celebration, FL compared to those sh*tholes.

First off, you cannot stop homelessness. These people have mental and drug issues. Unless you forcibly remove them from the streets by law, there will always be some drunk or junkie laying out in a alley.

However, what has happened in these cities is that they encourage and subsidize homelessness through lack of enforcement and by providing easy access to the drugs. As a result, all the junkies congregate where they know they will be accepted.

I live in a very liberal town in Chicago metro area. Despite the high incomes of the residents, we are starting to see a lot more homeless. These people manage it the same way as the Mayors of much larger liberal cities and the results are the same. They are actively encouraging these cockroaches to come to the city. You literally cannot go an intersection now without seeing some heroin junkie begging. They are hanging out in the parks. We had one of these losers OD in restroom in public library (in the kid's section on less). The park bathrooms are filthy. We have a Starbucks that for all intents and purposes might as well call itself a homeless shelter at this point.

I know it sounds heartless, but you have to treat the homeless like Pigeons. You cannot feed them or else they will overwhelm the area. These people are not stupid. They don't go where they know they will not be accepted. They prey on ignorant liberals...

a reply to: projectvxn

Who are junkies to shove their degeneracy in the faces of everyone who isn't a druggie?

I'm all for treatment, but I'm not for being a junky's doormat.

I think we'll always be at an impasse. Without you realizing that your way of thinking is fundamentally flawed, and with me refusing to accept anything other than total legalization and normalization of what you label "degeneracy".

Your ideas are still rooted in the prohibitionist mindset. You can't legislate subjective morality and expect it to work.

a reply to: underwerks

We won't be able to come to any understanding if you refuse to read my posts.

But hey, take your ball and go home. I have less important things to do anyway.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: underwerks

So your example of democrat success is republican-run cities.

My example is the amount of funding that Democrat cities bring to the country as a whole. I figured someone who votes with their wallet would appreciate that.

So democrat policies and programs do not benefit democrat-run cities/states?

They benefit everyone. It's just that most Democrat cities are more heavily populated than their Republican counterparts, which naturally brings it's own set of problems.

Those problems aren't a result of Democrat policies, they're a result of population. Get a big enough group of people together regardless of their political leanings and you're going to have similar problems.

So all high population areas in the country are just as bad as the ones in the OP?

a reply to: underwerks

and with me refusing to accept anything other than total legalization and normalization of what you label "degeneracy".

^^^ That's scary.

I understand to some extent people wanting to decriminalize marijuana.

But, drugs processed to hook people into addiction like H or meth or fentanyl and other opiods? Why would you want to legalize such things and normalize their use?

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: underwerks

and with me refusing to accept anything other than total legalization and normalization of what you label "degeneracy".

^^^ That's scary.

I understand to some extent people wanting to decriminalize marijuana.

But, drugs processed to hook people into addiction like H or meth or fentanyl and other opiods? Why would you want to legalize such things and normalize their use?

It's not about legalizing drugs as powerful as fentanyl, it's about offering safer alternatives to drugs like fentanyl that are only used because of the state of the black market. If people had access to a standardized safer alternative such as heroin, fentanyl wouldn't be a thing.

I know people think heroin is some crazy thing, but read the medical literature on it. In a standardized form it's less toxic than alcohol. That is a fact. As I stated earlier, the negative consequences of drugs like heroin are a result of the culture of prohibition. People overdose because they are injecting an unknown dose every time they use. With a standardized dose you would eliminate that. Not to mention getting rid of the violence surrounding the drug trade and how much money the illegal drug trade brings to gangs and criminals.

I realize this all sounds counterintuitive to someone steeped in the drug war propaganda of the past century, but this is the only way to actually solve this problem.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: underwerks

But even in my small town certain parts make changes that I'm unaware of due to me not being in the area enough to recognize the change. You're telling me you can keep up with change of all areas in 3 major cities?

No, he can't. He just feels a compulsion to defend the Democrat agenda out of habit.

Don't confuse me opposing right wing lies and propaganda for supporting anything else. It's not my fault the right wing "media" sphere traffics in ignorance.

What a well programmed CNN response. Good job.