Illegal to Feed Homeless in Parks

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Any comments on, uh, anything else in my entire post?

Good luck, but that doesn't appear to be how it works in here. You fool!

[Spexxvet]

I think I graciously conceded the point, Maggie. Are you really gonna gloat and rub it in?

Oh, I forgot, magnanimous is not in the conservative dictionary.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

An original term is not a relabeling. Like "liberal"...which is now "progressive".
...

and "clear skies initiative" which allows increased polution in the air we breath, and "anti-abortion" which is really "anti-choice", and "right to life" which means "we conservatives will tell you when you can allow your brain dead wife to die". Yeah, spin. Go figure.

[Ibby]

Both of you, grow up and stop arguing conservative vs. liberal. Argue conservative points versus liberal points, not conservative nature versus liberal nature.

Pretty please?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Ibram

stop arguing conservative vs. liberal

That was my point, actually.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

and "clear skies initiative" which allows increased polution in the air we breath, and "anti-abortion" which is really "anti-choice", and "right to life" which means "we conservatives will tell you when you can allow your brain dead wife to die". Yeah, spin. Go figure.

The position re-labelling on abortion rights happened on both sides almost immediately..."pro-choice" was invented to counter "pro-abortion" as an obvious antonym to "anti-abortion". "Pro-abortion" is a misnomer, because abortion rights advocates aren't simply in favor of abortions; they're opoosed to restrictions on them. Hence "pro-choice". "Pro-life" begs the question of whether a fetus is in fact human life.

Happens I'm pro-choice, and I also think the Chiavo case was well-decided; they were both examples of unwarrented government intrussion.

"Clear Skies Initiative" I'd not heard of but it obviously can't be a relabelling if it's a new program. Which it is...and being a program of pollution limits it seems fair to call it "Clear Skies' unless you'd prefer "Clear But-Not-As-Clear-As-The-Greens-Want Skies".

Anyway, now that the weekend's over, I have work to do...and quite enough time has been spent in this thread chasing collectivist ghosts. My position on the central proposition is that people have a right to set rules for their park...whether it's "curb your dog" or "no food kitchens--no matter how informally organized".

"What to do about homelessness" is another topic...but I'll remind you that that the cop waking up the bum sleeping under newspapers on the park bench with the words "move along" is an ancient icon of American Culture, and that Jesus (no, I'm not a Christian either) once said "The poor will be always with you".

Let us know how you make out convincing the CEOs of the world to pay for your "unofficial voluntary no-government-involved minimum wage program"...and how FNB reacts to your offer to pay for bussing their clients to someplace where they're (more) welcome.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

"Pro-life" begs the question of whether a fetus is in fact human life.

Aren't you the one who is always nagging about the misuse of the expression "begging the question?"

[KinkyVixen]

You can't feed the homeless but you can pay the prostitues for sex.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Aren't you the one who is always nagging about the misuse of the expression "begging the question?"

Yes, and I used it correctly. Perhaps you still don't get it.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by KinkyVixen

You can't feed the homeless but you can pay the prostitues for sex.

????

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

????

I think she means 'in the park'--as in you can't feed the homeless there, but you can meet and exchange business with the working guys and gals there.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Brianna

I think she means 'in the park'--as in you can't feed the homeless there, but you can meet and exchange business with the working guys and gals there.

Thanks. Wait a minute, I just had a thought.....ew, never mind.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Okay, maybe it didnt really happen, but the story gets my point across.

Oh...I see. It's one of those "higher truth" things like F-911 and the Rathergate memos.

Originally Posted by Ibram

Any comments on, uh, anything else in my entire post? Or just that one little redundant point?

No, not really...struck me mostly as aimless blather about how terrible homelessness is...other than to note that the Estate Tax is already a bigger percentage than you proposed, so how "it's not enough" arises I don't know.

Apparently there already were a bunch of collectivists who tapped that vein, so you'll have to find another one. I suppose you could always opt to simply confiscate all inheritances over a certain amount, but you'll just force people to deed stuff over before dying if they really want thier heirs to get it rather than the government, so then you'll be looking for another gift tax, I suppose.

There are indeed a very few extremely rich people. But there's so many more poor people, just playing Robin Hood is one of those "band-aid solutions" people were mocking here earlier...and you can only do it so often.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

You started off by representing that an adequate minimum wage would solve the homeless problem. --snip

Nope.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

It's the same old "they don't help themselves, they're lazy, unsightly, inconvenient, criminal" rationalizations. If minimum wage was enough to provide food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and maybe a few amenities, there would be fewer of these folks in the park.

emphasis mine.

Moving the parameters of the discussion by misrepresenting Spexxvet's remarks by only makes it easier for you to criticize. It does nothing to lend credibility to your claims.

I haven't read any of your comments that I agree with that were sufficiently non-trivial to warrant remembering, but I still (try) to listen to and understand what you're saying. Because it's voices like yours that need to be shown their wrongness, in my opinion. I see your "toughlove, anti-enabling" point. To some degree, I agree with it. But it is wrong to have "do not feed the hungry" as one's bottom line.

The what ifs and could haves and but but buts form a double line that extends beyond the horizon. I'll get to those, maybe, some other day. But when faced with one hungry man, I'll feed him if I can. The law is, and I'm being generous, mean spirited and ill crafted at best.

[KinkyVixen]

Originally Posted by Brianna

I think she means 'in the park'--as in you can't feed the homeless there, but you can meet and exchange business with the working guys and gals there.

That is what I meant basically. I just spent 10 days there (in Vegas) and I watched, countless times, as they (prostitutes, male and female) made their arrangements and cops near by just stood and watched. As if they were saying "we're here for their protection". WTF is all I had to say. I thought prositution was illegal. You can pay for STD's and sexual recreation, as the cops "lovingly" watch, but you can't feed the homeless as long as it's done in the park. Aren't their bigger things we should be worried about, instead of where people are getting their food?