It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Goodbye Los Angeles - Welcome Los Ratas

page: 4
54
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

We seem to be in a great deal of agreement on this issue. That gives me a little hope for the future.

Remember that I was once considered a liberal. Now I'm a conservative. My tenets upon which my opinions and values are based have not changed. That should tell you something.


Yes, that southern border. And yes there is evidence of ''progressive values, open borders,'' being at cause. But is it really?

I believe it is.

Meth is not the type of drug that is crossing the border. It is too easy to make at home. As I already said, each type of drug requires a tailored response. Marijuana: legalize it, as it is no worse (some will say better and I will not dispute them) than alcohol; meth: the only realistic solution is a zero-tolerance crackdown by law enforcement; opiates: public education to warn people of the addiction possibility even under medical care, and enforcement of any avenues used to import it.

The episode with the submarine you speak of was quite interesting. I don't think I have ever stated that the southern border was the only avenue that allows foreign drugs to enter the US. I state that it is one avenue. If I am planning on keeping predators away from my chickens, does it do any good to put up sections of fence only when I catch a predator crossing there? No. I put up a solid fence in every area I suspect a predator may get in, then watch and improve that fence if I missed any entry points. The southern border is one of those expected entry points.


Sure. It does. But it also has no mechanism within it's philosophy other than the ''hidden hand'' of competition to keep that aspect of competition active. Once it has been allowed to go beyond the competitive stage, to get so out of balance in favor of the big winners the competitiveness goes out the door. The bigger fish buys out the smaller fish and consumes it or just puts the innovative aspects of that competition on a shelf eliminating the competition.

I agree. Capitalism has two serious flaws: the very rich become immune to the free market since they effectively monopolize it (your point) and the very poor can become so destitute they lose their ability to compete. That's why I support a progressive income tax; it increases the burden of taxation on the very wealthy while assisting the poorer to compete. I simply think we need lower taxation across the board.

I also support programs designed to not just help the poor get by, but designed to actually encourage them to become useful members of the economy again. That's where our present programs fail: they exist as a safety hammock, not a safety net. Once in the system, one can have an extremely hard time getting out of the system. It's almost as though those in charge believe anyone who manages to stand back up was never down to start with and simply abused the system.

If you'll look at the homeless plan I linked, it is beyond socialism... it is pure communism, but limited in scope and with a very easy exit path. I designed it that way, because the people it is designed to help are those who need a family helping them back on their feet... and all families are based on communism: from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. It works well there; it simply doesn't work in large groups.


I agree also on the limits that taxation place on smaller businesses and the hidden cost to consumers. As well, regulations need enforcement to insure compliance. But here, that laziness you refer to is also in play in that when the lazy do manage to get ahead, that laziness can and does continue in how they act. Without regulations those lazy business leaders would take everything they can for as little effort as possible and that includes poisoning the environment, selling product that makes consumers fat and backing an industry that actively provides cigarettes knowing full well that that product kills people and leaves others handicapped for life.

Yes, this is a concern, as I mentioned above. That is why no one can ever be above the law.

I do not condone a removal of all regulations; some are indeed needed. I only want those making the regulations to look at the cost versus benefit ratio and the cost to both large and (mainly) small business.

TheRedneck




posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

That's a little harsh, burdman.

Remember, this is the first outbreak. Not the last one. We could see similar in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, New England. Baltimore. Philadelphia, Wilmington, etc. Miami may be spared since they have a lot of constrictors.

Not to mention, unless we could somehow quarantine an entire state (unlikely), people fleeing the desolation will spread their diseases to others.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

This will be like the levees in New Orleans. They'll be told over and over it could happen, and they may even get sent money to deal with the issue, but they'll tuck it away in hidden accounts or give it to cronies instead of making good use of it to really address the issue.

We had a friend from NOLA, and he said the levees had the money issued to upgrade them, but politically, being on a levee improvement committee was a plum assignment awarded to buddies where people walked away rich. In other words, the money wasn't used for its intended purpose because no one believed the disaster (Katrina) would happen on their watch. It would always be in the future and someone else's problem.

This is going to work out the same. They may create committees and commissions and they'll be get rich sinecures for political pals who need repaying.

Then the plague will hit and everyone will blame someone else ... whoever it's more expedient at the moment to blame.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I have been told that a great deal of money was allocated fro upgrading the levees before Katrina hit, but about the only thing that got accomplished was they buried fiberoptic cable in them to serve the French Quarter.

You're likely right; I don't see California doing much different.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Lumenari

So New York city, San Francisco and Los Angeles are suddenly the manufacturing hubs of the United States?


Quit acting stupid because you are not. You know what I was saying so why try to trivialize it huh?
These problems we face are not recent in inception,they go back before our grand parents were born, one problem compounding a previous problem.

i offered a perspective to the current situation that had not been mentioned and all you can do because it did chime in with the specifics you wish to strress is to critisize it with a stupid question like that. Then what did you do?
You turned to your old and hackneyed list of greivences you hold against your boogyman and repeat them like a good little soldier. Good job Lum...


Except your perspective is skewed. Detroit, prior to 1966. Wealthiest city in the nation, highest median household income in the nation. The Big Three, with all the supporting industries. What went wrong, was the Model Cities program. A war on poverty. Now, if the war on drugs is making things worse, than that logic would also apply to the war on poverty. And history supports this.

Detroit is the poster city for how unfettered Democrat policy ends. California hasn't been under Democrat control for nearly as long, and look at the topic we're discussing.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: burdman30ott6

That's a little harsh, burdman.

Remember, this is the first outbreak. Not the last one. We could see similar in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, New England. Baltimore. Philadelphia, Wilmington, etc. Miami may be spared since they have a lot of constrictors.

Not to mention, unless we could somehow quarantine an entire state (unlikely), people fleeing the desolation will spread their diseases to others.

TheRedneck


I don't see Anchorage on your list because rats don't do well in our frigid ass winters, thus... don't care.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

The problem with what you want is that it requires the use of force, government force. Right now, that's only cool if one political side or the other is using it in their own way. For the left, they use it to force all of us to live like you want to force the homeless addicts to live and they do it forever.

For the right ... there are those who see it as compassion to more or less do the same thing in different ways.

Neither side would allow it from the other against their various constituency groups. And advocacy groups long ago determined that the mentally ill have their rights too to live on the street if they want.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I am assuming you are talking about the proposal to house the homeless I linked?

If so, it does not use force; it is completely voluntary. Want a place to stay? Here it is, only question asked is your name. Need a lift to get here? Call in and let them know where you are. Want to go to an interview? Let the driver know where and when. Nothing is forced; everything is natural consequences: break the rules and you have to leave. Commit a crime and you're easier to find. Refuse to try to better yourself and you eventually have to leave. That's not force.

I suppose one could try and force the homeless into it, but that's true with about any program. It will simply make the thing less effective.

Now, if you're talking about the idea by the other poster, yeah, that uses force. I think it has potential, but there would have to be some concessions.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Thing is that most times the homeless are where they are because they don't want to follow the rules of the available shelters our there which are equally voluntary and many of them provide the same types of things you say you want to government to do.

The problem is the rules and structure which don't mesh with mental illness and addiction. So you either force many to break that cycle by keeping there and under treatment, or I don't see how you'd be much better off by providing a government option next to the many other aide agencies that already exist and do exactly what you describe.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I have no issue with forcing someone with mental illness into a sustainable environment. We're not talking about housing here; we're talking about mental health facilities. I am a little wishy-washy about the same with simple addiction; an addict cannot be helped until they want the help more than they want their next fix.

It's a multi-faceted problem, but as we can see from the OP, something needs to be done in the name of public safety. It's one thing to just want to wander the streets; it's quite another when that wandering begins to endanger others.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

On that we agree. I think though the problems in California are deeper than simply people on the streets and addiction and mental illness. They're structural throughout the entire system, top to bottom.

And a lot of progressive areas are following those marching orders, too.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I have fought for local and state government to put some of their funds into sheltering the homeless and treating mental illness.



And I am a very small voice in a crowded room filled with self-serving dicks.

It frustrates me to no end.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Austin following in LA's footsteps. They passed a permissive outdoor camping ordinance, and despite being blue to the gills, it seems a group of Austinites aren't happy about it.

I guess the mayor of Austin even traveled to LA to discover how to deal with homeless encampments.

EDIT

Oh yeah, you can also see from the Tweets in the article how quickly things start to spiral.
edit on 17-7-2019 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I figured out long ago that no one in government, local, state, or Federal, is going to do much to help people who don't have money to donate. The few people who might actually want to help people are quickly outvoted by those who just want to use their office to make a quick buck.

I have taken in a few homeless myself and tried to help them back into society. A few worked out well... they took a lot of work, but they eventually moved into their own place with a steady job. Unfortunately that is about a third in my experience; the rest I kicked out again for one thing or another that wasn't happening in my house. Still, I don't regret it... the ones who it worked for were so appreciative and happy just to have a chance and to know someone actually cared if they lived or died.

That's actually where I developed my plan, from my own experiences helping the homeless re-acclimate.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I've been all over Texas, and I just don't understand how they can let Austin get away with some of the stuff they do. The bulk of Texas is conservative, but that one shining drop of poison is still able to just sit there in the middle of it.

Houston and Fort Worth are the two next liberal outposts. Dallas comes in close behind them.

We do have a similar issue here, although not as bad. If there's a liberal outpost in Alabama, it's Montgomery. I find it curious that the state capitals seem to be the ones to go liberal first... almost like there's intelligent targeting happening.

What really worries me is that this will not be confined to the cities themselves. They'll be ground zero, but rats can spread out and move to adjacent states pretty easily. There's no desert between me and Austin, and if the damn armadillos can migrate this far, so can the rats.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Time to stop having your rattlesnake roundups. Oh, my bad. In your case, you'd be relying on moccasins and copperheads although copperheads are a bit small for a rat. Moccasins ought to be able to handle one though. Gators can much on them too. There are also some large colubrids that would think nothing of taking down a rat.
edit on 17-7-2019 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I wish tar and feathering was still in vogue.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Oh, we have rattlers here... plenty of 'em!

But that makes me even madder.... not only do I have to worry about some bubonic plague carrying idiot deciding to set up housekeeping around here, but now I have to give up eating rattlesnake to take care of their rat problems?

That's just too far. Wall these cities off and burn 'em to the ground if that's what it takes!

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

i grew up in a town named the cats in california ,we had 6 growing up so we almost never had mice or rats . i wonder if LA rounded up all the stray cats or something


Idiot progressives advocate for trap and kill ie. PeTA....This is what you get when you kill all the feral cats.
Lord I hate PeTA and progressives.



posted on Jul, 17 2019 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I had a beautiful vacation in l.a last year stayed on Hollywood Blvd, visited several beaches and Disneyland, it was awesome. I know it is a great place to visit but you wouldn't want to live there but there's not too many places left that I can think of that I would actually want to or afford to live. I just got back from a Key West vacation and although it was also awesome I can see the effects of over development and over crowding. We really aren't living in balance with nature and we are crapping up all the beautiful places on Earth
maybe Thanos was right we have to cut the Earth's population in half!




top topics



 
54
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join