PDA

View Full Version : You Know Something's Wrong When....



The Left Sock
11-13-2014, 10:23 AM
A goofy comedian can gut the jugular of American conservatism from the edge of his bed, while wearing a toque!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbDhDitAkZ4

Something's very, very wrong in this world today. Can you see it for yourself?

Aristotle
11-13-2014, 10:24 AM
Uh oh, someone's still steaming from the TKO he suffered yesterday in Soapbox!! :) :) :)

The Left Sock
11-13-2014, 10:27 AM
You can't watch an 8 minute video in 2 minutes.

So, you're just talking out your butt.

I would like to feign surprise, but I'm too honest for that.

Aristotle
11-13-2014, 10:40 AM
but I'm too honest....

I think we put that little fairy tale to rest yesterday!! :) :) :)

The Left Sock
11-13-2014, 10:46 AM
You can talk about fairies and 'tales' all you want, it's a free country.

But, since this is a forum thread, and since it has a topic associated with it, you just might want to consider where you keep sticking your little 'tale'.

Someone might mistake your fairy 'tale' for one of the troll variety. It's an honest mistake, can happen to anyone.

The Left Sock
11-13-2014, 11:02 AM
Personally, I find it shocking and offensive that the city of Fort Lauderdale would pass an ordnance outlawing the sharing of food with the homeless. What kind of a world is being built there?

But even worse, it is absolutely outrageous for police to publicly arrest a 90 year old church leader, while he was in the process of handing out a plate of food to a hungry person. They could have simply videotaped the evidence, and arrested him later with some dignity and discretion, if they were bent on enforcing this ridiculous law.

Can you imagine, if this kind of law was passed here in the Sault? Can you imagine Calna from the local soup kitchen, being arrested while serving lunch down on James Street? This is the kind of reality that exists in Fort Lauderdale, and according to Russell Brand, in 31 other American municipalities.

Shockingly sad, what some people in this world feel motivated to prosecute. Shameful.

Aristotle
11-13-2014, 11:51 AM
... and according to Russell Brand...

http://img.pandawhale.com/17758-tumblrm0uupiOuKD1qzmz70gif-nga3.gif

Aristotle
11-13-2014, 12:34 PM
I was going to say maybe the US should follow Canada's example on this issue, but further research shows that is not a path anyone should trod:

An estimated 235,000 Canadians a year experience homelessness at a cost to the economy of $7 billion. Despite $2 billion earmarked in federal funding, nationally the numbers still aren’t moving down, the report said.

http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/10/29/46_more_per_canadian_per_year_can_vastly_cut_homel essness_new_report_says.html

The Left Sock
11-13-2014, 12:36 PM
As soon as you point out the places in Canada that have made feeding the homeless illegal, you will be right back on track!

Aristotle
11-13-2014, 12:38 PM
As soon as you point out the places in Canada that have made feeding the homeless illegal, you will be right back on track!

That particular "law" is a city ordinance, which is not the same as a national law (much to your chagrin)

The Left Sock
11-13-2014, 12:43 PM
Feel free to point out the cities in Canada where similar ordinances have been passed, while you're busy waffling and buying time, then!

The Left Sock
11-13-2014, 12:45 PM
"Give me your hungry, your tired your poor I'll piss on 'em
That's what the Statue of Bigotry says
Your poor huddled masses, let's club 'em to death
And get it over with and just dump 'em on the boulevard"

- Lou Reed, Dirty Boulevad.

Aristotle
11-13-2014, 12:47 PM
Feel free to point out the cities in Canada where similar ordinances have been passed, while you're busy waffling and buying time, then!

Sorry. You tried to make an inference this was a law throughout all the US, which it is obviously not. And, people are not allowed to feed the homeless in certain places. That does not mean they cannot feed the homeless, period.

Sorry, in your anger over yesterday you tried to find an anti-US issue. You tried too hard, and now look, well, ...

Aristotle
11-13-2014, 12:47 PM
"Give me your hungry, your tired your poor I'll piss on 'em
That's what the Statue of Bigotry says
Your poor huddled masses, let's club 'em to death
And get it over with and just dump 'em on the boulevard"

- Lou Reed, Dirty Boulevad.

So far you've cited Lou Reed and Russell Brand to make your points ....keep going!!!!

Anapeg
11-13-2014, 02:23 PM
So far you've cited Lou Reed and Russell Brand to make your points ....keep going!!!!

Seven (7) posts with one and only one paying even the least amount of homage to the original post. The op was aimed at a law, a law which is in anyone's capable of thought, wrong headed. Your time away was obviously not spent in contemplating previous indiscretions but rather contemplating your navel as I see no change. The law, a local ordinance is asinine and designed to kowtow to the business rich which it would seem by your lack of meaningful input is fine with you. When you are at a lost you religiously attack the poster and not the post. As I have, two fold, should you care to acknowledge it.

Guess Who?
11-13-2014, 04:40 PM
We just addressed this issue in my sociology class yesterday. Aristotle's number of 235, 000 is high by about 85,000, but there is one issue that is disturbing. Toronto has a bylaw (the "Safe Streets Law"), that makes it illegal for the homeless to actually ask for a hand-out. Canada is not without shame.

Anapeg
11-13-2014, 05:16 PM
We just addressed this issue in my sociology class yesterday. Aristotle's number of 235, 000 is high by about 85,000, but there is one issue that is disturbing. Toronto has a bylaw (the "Safe Streets Law"), that makes it illegal for the homeless to actually ask for a hand-out. Canada is not without shame.

Actually that law is in quite a few cities I think, hence our beggars offering a service or just sitting quietly. Actively asking or panhandling will land one in hot water.

Aristotle
11-13-2014, 06:35 PM
We just addressed this issue in my sociology class yesterday. Aristotle's number of 235, 000 is high by about 85,000, but there is one issue that is disturbing. Toronto has a bylaw (the "Safe Streets Law"), that makes it illegal for the homeless to actually ask for a hand-out. Canada is not without shame.

You, sir, provided context on the issue. For that, you are shunned.

Aristotle
11-13-2014, 06:37 PM
Seven (7) posts with one and only one paying even the least amount of homage to the original post. The op was aimed at a law, a law which is in anyone's capable of thought, wrong headed. Your time away was obviously not spent in contemplating previous indiscretions but rather contemplating your navel as I see no change. The law, a local ordinance is asinine and designed to kowtow to the business rich which it would seem by your lack of meaningful input is fine with you. When you are at a lost you religiously attack the poster and not the post. As I have, two fold, should you care to acknowledge it.

Good lord, man, get over yourself. I can't speak for the others,but as for myself I've never even entertained the thought that you were someone to be listened to or emulated. Your shocking hypocrisy on another issue makes that so, unfortunately.

Aristotle
11-13-2014, 06:40 PM
I must admit to being a bit disappointed. After being away from this thread for a few hours (curse you, snow) I hoped to come back here to see the likes of John Denver, Lena Horne, or, hell, even Donny Osmond, being used to make Sock's point. :(

Anapeg
11-13-2014, 10:26 PM
Good lord, man, get over yourself. I can't speak for the others,but as for myself I've never even entertained the thought that you were someone to be listened to or emulated. Your shocking hypocrisy on another issue makes that so, unfortunately.

Duck, bob and weave, the tried and true. Unable to offer clear concise answers fall back on redirection. I will not upset your delicate sensibilities further. Rest now.

The Left Sock
11-13-2014, 11:15 PM
We just addressed this issue in my sociology class yesterday. Aristotle's number of 235, 000 is high by about 85,000, but there is one issue that is disturbing. Toronto has a bylaw (the "Safe Streets Law"), that makes it illegal for the homeless to actually ask for a hand-out. Canada is not without shame.

I think there is a fundamental difference between those who 'panhandle' - walk around actively soliciting for money, which can be exploited by those who aren't in dire need of help, and those who voluntarily seek to help those in need.

So, I can understand how society would want to deter people from being harassed on the street by panhandlers - if they set up camp in a particular area, people would realistically start avoiding it, and it would have a real negative impact on the businesses close-by.

But what we are talking about here is a law that prohibits those who wish to help the homeless from giving food. Not money, but actual food. This is something different, and it is sinister and designed for only one purpose - to starve the homeless completely out of an area. In this case, an entire city.

Once again, can you imagine a police raid down at the soup kitchen, and the staff being arrested for feeding people? This is exactly what is happening in Fort Lauderdale. It is shocking, and takes us to a new level of cold, when it comes to the human connection.

Anapeg
11-13-2014, 11:32 PM
It is quite alright to be poor, just not in the business section?

The Left Sock
11-13-2014, 11:41 PM
I can see the point in business owners being upset that panhandlers camp outside the entrance to their store, and accost the customers coming and going from that business. It's a legitimate concern for them.

I cannot see, however, why a business community would press for laws to prohibit a 90 year old man from cooking some food for some homeless people, and serving it up to them. You would think this would help alleviate their problem of panhandlers, but I guess the idea wasn't geared toward whether or not people were getting something to eat; it's about getting rid of them altogether.

Anapeg
11-13-2014, 11:48 PM
If they can't be fed they perhaps will move on?

The Left Sock
11-14-2014, 12:06 AM
I think that's the idea - starve them out. They will migrate, and become some other town's problem.

Kind of like the Wild West, in reverse.

Aristotle
11-14-2014, 01:35 PM
This is exactly what is happening in Fort Lauderdale. It is shocking, and takes us to a new level of cold, when it comes to the human connection.

I would say something like the Holocaust was a level of cold that would be hard to beat.

The Left Sock
11-14-2014, 01:51 PM
When you have to compare the policy in Fort Lauderdale to the Holocaust in order to make it look 'not so bad', surely even someone like you must realize you have lost the battle.

Conservatism is fun to experiment with, until you start reaching the point where the true ideals inherent in that kind of thinking are able to manifest into the real world, and then you realize that conservatism and Hitler actually share a lot in common.

Aristotle
11-14-2014, 01:56 PM
When you have to compare the policy in Fort Lauderdale to the Holocaust in order to make it look 'not so bad', surely even someone like you must realize you have lost the battle.

.

That's not what I'm doing at all. I am simply pointing out you've failed,yet again, to try and turn a particular issue into something it is not. In this case a city policy is supposed to be a damning indictment of America. It's nothing of the sort.

You failed. again.

The Left Sock
11-14-2014, 02:00 PM
If this practice catches on, and more and more cities adopt this kind of policy, then it will indeed turn into a damning indictment of America. However, if people are outraged now, at the position taken in For Lauderdale, and the policy is reversed, then we have a much different story.

Those who care about America, will be bold enough to criticize, and provoke change. Those who only want to think they care about America will bury their heads in the sand, and blindly defend everything that goes on, until it jumps up and bites them on the arse.

Which kind of American are you?

Aristotle
11-14-2014, 02:02 PM
If this practice catches on ....

Thank you for admitting this was based on nothing but conjecture and false hope for a negative outcome.

Now, any update on the pregnant fetus story from a while back?

The Left Sock
11-14-2014, 02:04 PM
It is already a law in Fort Lauderdale, with apparently 31 other municipalities having a similar ordnance.

How do you define 'catching on'?

The Left Sock
11-14-2014, 02:07 PM
Correction, make that at least 50 cities in the US, passing similar laws:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/22/feeding-homeless-ban/

There it is, right from a news source you can trust. So, I ask you again, what kind of American are you?

Aristotle
11-14-2014, 02:10 PM
One that can see through a Canadian whose envy of the US has him on the verge of cracking.

The city policy says it is unlawful to feed the homeless in certain areas of the city, it does not say it is illegal to feed them in approved places. Thus, your entire premise fails.

The Left Sock
11-14-2014, 02:24 PM
That's right, keep your head in the sand. Don't stand up for your fellow Americans who have fallen on hard times. Just round em up, push em out! Make like nothing is happening!

You're a good little Conservative, ain't ya?

Aristotle
11-14-2014, 02:26 PM
That's right, keep your head in the sand. Don't stand up for your fellow Americans who have fallen on hard times. Just round em up, push em out! Make like nothing is happening!

You're a good little Conservative, ain't ya?

Sure am. I have volunteered at our local Salvation Army to feed the homeless and destitute. I have served food, cooked food, prepared tables,etc. You see, in America we have places for the homeless to go to get shelter and food. As such, there is no need to feed them in places city ordinances do not allow.

Speaking of head-in-sand...how 'bout those Alberta Oil Sands?!?! :) :) :)

The Left Sock
11-14-2014, 02:28 PM
So, you agree that this 90 year old church leader should have been arrested for serving food?

Come on, have some guts. Go on the record, with what you really believe.

Aristotle
11-14-2014, 02:33 PM
If he violated a city ordinance then there is obviously some sort of penalty imposed. If we decide, willy-nilly, which ordinances we will follow and which we won't then society would devolve into chaos quite fast, would it not?

Maybe his arrest will spark change. Civil disobedience is ...(ooops, forgot, here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil%20disobedience) sometimes used as an agent of change. Dr. King used it multiple times, and Thoreau was a champion of it as a weapon of change. Sometimes that's how questionable laws are removed, or at least re-fashioned.

So, if the elderly gentleman broke a law then he must pay the price. But, he may well have provided the impetus to start a movement.

Isn't watching democracy in action just grand?? Especially when the stage it is on is in the greatest democracy the world has ever known!

The Left Sock
11-14-2014, 02:49 PM
When I see a little old man being led away by police for serving food, it breaks my heart. It aches, deep down inside, to realize just what kind of thoughts have manifested into reality, in order for something like that to actually take place, in public, on camera. It haunts me. I don't care how those statements make me look. I'm happy to look weak, in order to express my grief over this incident.

But some people think this is okay. Some people think this is 'law and order' at work. The law is there, it was broken, therefore, it must be enforced. No thinking, no feeling, no internal barometer between right and right come into play - it's simply the way it is.

Well, I'm happy to proclaim that it is wrong. The government is wrong. The police who let it happen are wrong. The police who arrested this man are wrong. Those who stood by and did nothing while this man was arrested are wrong. It's all wrong.

I'm sure there were plenty of heart-breaking scenes back in Germany, where 90 year old men were led away in trucks by the authorities as well. I'm sure the same type of reasoning was used; well, there is a law, and this man is in contravention of this law, so therefore, he is being taken away.

Do we learn anything from history? Apparently not.

Anapeg
11-14-2014, 02:59 PM
How do the homes get from one area to another. The term "homeless" would, I would thing, include bereft of transportation as well.

The Left Sock
11-14-2014, 03:11 PM
Lots of social service agencies are happy to buy a bus ticket for someone in need of assistance, so they can migrate out of town to look for work. This practice is also employed in Canada. Thankfully, the part about making it illegal to feed people hasn't caught on here. At least, not yet.

But I will go on the record, right here, right now, to state emphatically that if our government ever tries to outlaw the feeding of people here in the Sault, I will be happy to get myself arrested, resisting any authority who tries to enforce such a Draconian measure.

If the police ever try to block public access to the Soup Kitchen, I will be making Sootoday headlines. Hopefully, it will never come to that. But if it does, I will know the difference between right and wrong, and I will act on it.

Aristotle
11-14-2014, 03:14 PM
I'm sure there were plenty of heart-breaking scenes back in Germany, where 90 year old men were led away in trucks by the authorities as well.

And there you go: in a last-gasp effort to try and turn this into an issue it is not, sock makes a connection between a city ordinance in Florida and Nazi Germany.

The wheels have officially come off this thread, as his attempt is crushed by its own ridiculousness.

And that, as they say is that!

Thanks for watching everybody, we'll see you real soon!!

http://www.theproducersperspective.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/e4d46db6_standing-ovation-auditorium-pop_8703.jpeg

Aristotle
11-14-2014, 03:16 PM
Lots of social service agencies are happy to buy a bus ticket for someone in need of assistance, so they can migrate out of town to look for work. This practice is also employed in Canada. Thankfully, the part about making it illegal to feed people hasn't caught on here. At least, not yet.

But I will go on the record, right here, right now, to state emphatically that if our government ever tries to outlaw the feeding of people here in the Sault, I will be happy to get myself arrested, resisting any authority who tries to enforce such a Draconian measure.

If the police ever try to block public access to the Soup Kitchen, I will be making Sootoday headlines. Hopefully, it will never come to that. But if it does, I will know the difference between right and wrong, and I will act on it.



psssst...Sock.....pssssst....no use playing the martyr card to try and save face...they are already gone

http://www.phideltatheta.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/auditorium.jpg

The Left Sock
11-14-2014, 03:19 PM
And there you go: in a last-gasp effort to try and turn this into an issue it is not, sock makes a connection between a city ordinance in Florida and Nazi Germany.

The wheels have officially come off this thread, as his attempt is crushed by its own ridiculousness.

And that, as they say is that!

Thanks for watching everybody, we'll see you real soon!!

http://www.theproducersperspective.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/e4d46db6_standing-ovation-auditorium-pop_8703.jpeg

You're the genius who introduced Nazi Germany into the discussion, back in post #27. So, you live with the consequences of making such a blunder, and stop squealing like you won something. You look ridiculous.

Aristotle
11-14-2014, 03:47 PM
I used the reference to show it is ridiculous to try and make some sort of historical or emotional equivalence of the two issues. You used the reference to try and make some sort of connection between the two.

As such,your argument caved in quickly.

The Left Sock
11-14-2014, 04:18 PM
You look just as silly peddling backwards, as you do stumbling forward.

Aristotle
11-14-2014, 04:21 PM
your anger at this thread imploding is warranted.

The Left Sock
11-14-2014, 04:23 PM
Silliness amuses, it does not anger.

Barry Morris
11-14-2014, 04:42 PM
When you have to compare the policy in Fort Lauderdale to the Holocaust in order to make it look 'not so bad', surely even someone like you must realize you have lost the battle.
.

Obviously. The implosion is on Ari.

Anapeg
11-14-2014, 04:51 PM
Obviously. The implosion is on Ari.

Mores the pity for Ari's not realizing. He honestly sees himself as right.

Barry Morris
11-14-2014, 04:59 PM
Mores the pity for Ari's not realizing. He honestly sees himself as right.

No, I don't think so. He doesn't care about being right as much as "winning" an argument. He's the little kid who shoots his arrow, THEN paints the target!!

Aristotle
11-14-2014, 07:49 PM
Obviously. The implosion is on Ari.

So you agree there is a moral equivalence between the Holocaust and this particular city ordinance?

Aristotle
11-14-2014, 07:50 PM
No, I don't think so. He doesn't care about being right as much as "winning" an argument. He's the little kid who shoots his arrow, THEN paints the target!!

Is this on topic?

The Voice
11-14-2014, 10:44 PM
obviously we are hunting wabbits

The Left Sock
11-14-2014, 10:56 PM
So you agree there is a moral equivalence between the Holocaust and this particular city ordinance?

A mindless law that causes a 90 year old man to be led away by police for a victim-less crime. A population that is so frightened by a militant authority structure that it does nothing to stop it. People defending a callous police state, and justifying their atrocious behavior.

It happened in Europe during World War II, and it happened in Fort Lauderdale. And it's happening right here.

Moral equivalence? Absolutely!

Aristotle
11-15-2014, 11:10 AM
Wow...just...WOW!!

THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! :) :) :)

Aristotle
11-15-2014, 11:12 AM
So you agree there is a moral equivalence between the Holocaust and this particular city ordinance?



Moral equivalence? Absolutely!


THIS is a keeper!

Barry Morris
11-15-2014, 01:00 PM
THIS is a keeper!

And you know why, deep down, don't you??

It's true.

Aristotle
11-15-2014, 02:13 PM
It's true.

and THIS is a keeper!!

BFLPE
11-15-2014, 02:48 PM
This is something different, and it is sinister and designed for only one purpose - to starve the homeless completely out of an area. In this case, an entire city.An entire city, really?

I didn't watch the video, Russell Brand is far from an objective source. I did do some reading about the situation though. The city tried to work with Mr. Arnold who will only accept a beach front location as an option for doing his 'feedings' as he calls them.

This silliness about them having the audacity to arrest him for all to see is exactly what Arnold wanted. He wanted the publicity.

The city has been trying for a long time to deal with this issue and is still trying to strike a reasonable balance.

To say they are trying to starve them out of the city is a display, at best, of ignorance of the situation.

Aristotle
11-15-2014, 02:56 PM
An entire city, really?

I didn't watch the video, Russell Brand is far from an objective source. I did do some reading about the situation though. The city tried to work with Mr. Arnold who will only accept a beach front location as an option for doing his 'feedings' as he calls them.

This silliness about them having the audacity to arrest him for all to see is exactly what Arnold wanted. He wanted the publicity.

The city has been trying for a long time to deal with this issue and is still trying to strike a reasonable balance.

To say they are trying to starve them out of the city is a display, at best, of ignorance of the situation.

you mean...there's no slippery slope to Nazism?? :(

Anapeg
11-15-2014, 03:11 PM
An entire city, really?

I didn't watch the video, Russell Brand is far from an objective source. I did do some reading about the situation though. The city tried to work with Mr. Arnold who will only accept a beach front location as an option for doing his 'feedings' as he calls them.

This silliness about them having the audacity to arrest him for all to see is exactly what Arnold wanted. He wanted the publicity.

The city has been trying for a long time to deal with this issue and is still trying to strike a reasonable balance.

To say they are trying to starve them out of the city is a display, at best, of ignorance of the situation.

You, having done due diligence and did some reading has proven myself to be all to willing to accept "news" at face value. I stand before you embarrassed for my previous stance. The old fellow was calculating and manipulative or so it would seem.

BFLPE
11-15-2014, 03:14 PM
you mean...there's no slippery slope to Nazism?? :(No more than the Soo is sliding toward Sharia Law due to having female only swims at the Y.

Aristotle
11-15-2014, 03:29 PM
Context, it's not just for breakfast anymore.

BFLPE
11-15-2014, 04:09 PM
Conservatism is fun to experiment with, until you start reaching the point where the true ideals inherent in that kind of thinking are able to manifest into the real world, and then you realize that conservatism and Hitler actually share a lot in common.

What the heck does conservatism have to do with this?

Anapeg
11-15-2014, 04:49 PM
What the heck does conservatism have to do with this?

Both Ari and I avoided asking being sure our eyes would bleed.

The Left Sock
11-15-2014, 06:12 PM
Florida is Jeb Bush country!

Anapeg
11-15-2014, 06:18 PM
Context, it's not just for breakfast anymore.

Embarrassing when you are caught making sweeping statements while going on little more proof than the headline. I ought know better.

BFLPE
11-15-2014, 06:47 PM
Florida is Jeb Bush country!Another sock leap of logic. Jeb Bush has nothing to do with city ordinances in Ft. Lauderdale.

The Mayor of Fort Lauderdale, who is openly defending the policy that lead to Mr Arnold's arrest is a former Democratic member of the Florida House of Representatives and has been mentioned as a potential future statewide candidate for the Democrats.

It's not a red/blue issue though I'm sure you'd like to make it one.

Barry Morris
11-16-2014, 12:03 AM
Another sock leap of logic. Jeb Bush has nothing to do with city ordinances in Ft. Lauderdale.

The Mayor of Fort Lauderdale, who is openly defending the policy that lead to Mr Arnold's arrest is a former Democratic member of the Florida House of Representatives and has been mentioned as a potential future statewide candidate for the Democrats.

It's not a red/blue issue though I'm sure you'd like to make it one.

That's interesting. Let's check the other cities in the USA.

BFLPE
11-16-2014, 12:42 AM
That's interesting. Let's check the other cities in the USA.I checked. Jeb makes policy in none of them.

Barry Morris
11-16-2014, 12:51 AM
I checked. Jeb makes policy in none of them.

Ignore your name, and we'll check the politics of the other cities leaders. I'm curious.

BFLPE
11-16-2014, 01:34 AM
Let us know what you find..

Aristotle
11-16-2014, 11:36 AM
Damn, his descent is sad now :(

Barry Morris
11-17-2014, 09:31 AM
Damn, his descent is sad now :(

But, fortunately, there are some depths he will never reach.

Aristotle
11-17-2014, 09:46 AM
But, fortunately, there are some depths he will never reach.

Don't beat yourself up over it, pal!! :) :) :)

Barry Morris
11-17-2014, 09:50 AM
Never happen.

Aristotle
11-17-2014, 11:16 AM
Good!! :) :) :)

The Left Sock
11-17-2014, 07:32 PM
Anyone who thinks the city of Fort Lauderdale is 'trying to work with' these programs feeding the homeless, are hopelessly out of touch with reality:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fort-lauderdale-charges-90-year-old-two-pastors-feeding-homeless-n241971

"Two church pastors and a 90-year-old man were charged for feeding homeless people in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, under a strict new city ordinance that virtually bans private groups from handing out food."

So, this isn't just about the 90 year old 'grandstanding' in order to get arrested. Fort Lauderdale has imposed not one, but 4 city ordinances, in an effort to thwart efforts by charity groups to feed the homeless.

People Google what they want to see, and are satisfied when they get the results they are looking for. Reality is somewhere underneath all the white noise. If you care about the truth, it is there, waiting to be discovered.

The Left Sock
11-17-2014, 07:45 PM
And for proof that this movement is linked to conservatism, just look at the political bent of those on here who are trying to convince everyone that this is no big deal.

It should be obvious.

The Voice
11-17-2014, 08:50 PM
I think it's less a political Issue and more a NIMBY Issue.

Try opening a non-licensed soup-kitchen on Birk shire and see how quick you get SHUT DOWN.

And our City Leadership has a very Liberal Lean.

Aristotle
11-18-2014, 01:55 PM
People Google what they want to see, and are satisfied when they get the results they are looking for.


Your MO here has never been better stated!!! :) :) :)

Aristotle
11-18-2014, 02:00 PM
Once again, it looks like Canada doesn't have the answer :(

This report sets out to document the criminalization of homelessness in Canada by exploring the relationship between homeless persons – in particular, street youth - and law enforcement officials (both the police and private security). Drawing from over 240 interviews with street youth in Toronto in 2009, as well as a review of official statistics on Ontario Safe Streets Act tickets in Toronto over the past 11 years, we explore the ways in which homelessness has been criminalized through a law and order agenda. Effective policy should be informed by research, not developed as a response to moral panics. Our research raises serious questions about the use of law enforcement as a strategy to address the visibility of homelessness in Canada. - See more at: http://homelesshub.ca/caniseeyourID#sthash.7HPk9Hf6.dpuf

The "criminalization of homelessness" ...can Nazi-like tactics be far away??

Aristotle
11-18-2014, 02:01 PM
Report finds Toronto police aggressively ticket the homeless Toronto police are ticketing the city’s homeless more aggressively than ever, despite a decline in offences, according to a new report by researchers at York University and the University of Guelph. - See more at: http://homelesshub.ca/resource/report-finds-toronto-police-aggressively-ticket-homeless#sthash.F2iNla5Q.dpuf

The Left Sock
11-18-2014, 03:44 PM
No need to Google yourself to death, trying to distract from the issue.

The issue is, a 90 year-old man being arrested for feeding the homeless, and a law that prohibits same.

So, unless you have examples of that elsewhere, you're wasting everyone's time.

Anapeg
11-18-2014, 03:47 PM
Passing out tickets to homeless for being homeless is a typical draconian Canadian response to a problem. The problem will still exist just not where people, especially the wealthy won't see. Exact same BS as not feeding them. It does nothing to solve the problem but hopefully they will move to another jurisdiction.

The Left Sock
11-18-2014, 04:06 PM
If you don't see the difference between someone panhandling, and someone trying to feed someone else, then I don't know what to tell you.

They are not the same thing, at all.

Aristotle
11-18-2014, 04:15 PM
No need to Google yourself to death, trying to distract from the issue.

The issue is, a 90 year-old man being arrested for feeding the homeless, and a law that prohibits same.

So, unless you have examples of that elsewhere, you're wasting everyone's time.

A 90-year-old man was arrested after knowingly breaking the law.

It's always a plus when law and order prevail.

Aristotle
11-18-2014, 04:16 PM
If you don't see the difference between someone panhandling, and someone trying to feed someone else, then I don't know what to tell you.

They are not the same thing, at all.

So we should have more sympathy for the person trying to feed someone else? The person trying to feed himself is not as important?

how does that work, exactly?

The Left Sock
11-18-2014, 04:18 PM
Yeah, that's exactly how it works. Better Google a solution!

The Left Sock
11-18-2014, 04:19 PM
A 90-year-old man was arrested after knowingly breaking the law.

It's always a plus when law and order prevail.

You are a good little conservative, aren't you?

The Left Sock
11-18-2014, 04:23 PM
So we should have more sympathy for the person trying to feed someone else? The person trying to feed himself is not as important?

how does that work, exactly?

Okay, spoiler alert - Don't read on, unless you really want the answer.


The person panhandling exacerbates the homeless situation. The person feeding others alleviates the homeless situation.

One good, one bad. Can you figure out which is which?

Aristotle
11-18-2014, 04:27 PM
Okay, spoiler alert - Don't read on, unless you really want the answer.


The person panhandling exacerbates the homeless situation. The person feeding others alleviates the homeless situation.

One good, one bad. Can you figure out which is which?

A person trying to feed himself is bad. A person taking food from someone else in a place it is illegal to do so is good.

Wow, to be a lefty...the world is just so...so...weird. :) :) :)

The Left Sock
11-18-2014, 04:30 PM
A guy bumming money on the street corner makes homeless people look bad.

A guy setting up a hot chow line in a park to feed them, make the homeless look human again.

Certain people don't want the homeless sympathized with, or assisted. They want them gone.

Which kind of camper are you? I waited with baited-breath, while you work that out!

Aristotle
11-18-2014, 04:32 PM
A guy bumming money on the street corner makes homeless people look bad.

Let's forget the fact he may be starving...it's the looks that matter!

A guy setting up a hot chow line in a park to feed them, make the homeless look human again.

He could have set that up in many different places. He didn't. He broke the law. He paid the price.

Certain people don't want the homeless sympathized with, or assisted. They want them gone.

I'm beginning to see what camp you fall in ...

Anapeg
11-18-2014, 05:00 PM
Lefty, just a heads up. With all the poking fun over this you may as well be headed in the proper direction.

Etymology[edit]
From the verb bate, alteration by aphesis of the verb abate, meaning 'to reduce' or 'lessen'.

Pronunciation[edit]
(Received Pronunciation, US) IPA(key): /wɪ ˈbeɪtɪd ˈbrɛθ/
Audio (US)
MENU0:00
Adverb[edit]
with bated breath (not comparable)

Used other than as an idiom: holding one's breath.  [quotations ▼]
(idiomatic) Eagerly; with great anticipation.
We are waiting with bated breath for the release of the new version.

The Left Sock
11-18-2014, 05:03 PM
Bait - definition:

- the little dead things you hang on a hook, to catch bigger things you will make dead in the bottom of your boat.

Aristotle
11-18-2014, 05:03 PM
Now you're just splitting hares!

Aristotle
11-18-2014, 05:04 PM
Bait - definition:

- the little dead things you hang on a hook, to catch bigger things you will make dead in the bottom of your boat.

So, seeing you said you wait with baited breath, can we assume I've had you on line for some time now?? :) :) :)

Anapeg
11-18-2014, 05:17 PM
Businesses do not want shoppers reminded of those in need just prior to going into their store. Be it panhandling directly in front or feeding then down the street. They want your money and should you decide to help a needy person that is money they will never see. By God it is hard explaining something so damn simple to someone so determined to be right come Hell or high water.

The Left Sock
11-18-2014, 05:20 PM
Yeah, seeing someone feeding people always turns me off, makes me not want to shop or do any form of commerce. I find it offensive and uncomfortable, and I instinctively want to clutch at my wallet.

Come on, get real, would ya?

Aristotle
11-18-2014, 05:22 PM
You are the one delineating between hungry homeless people, simply based on how they look as they are starving.

Hey ,whatever helps you sleep at night.

The Left Sock
11-18-2014, 05:31 PM
Let me try to simplify things just a snootch clearer for you:

There are two guys on the street. Still with me?

One guy tries to bum some spare change from you.

One guy tries to offer you a sandwich.

Now, for the really tricky part - which guy do you find offensive?

Aristotle
11-18-2014, 05:58 PM
Let me try to simplify things just a snootch clearer for you:

There are two guys on the street. Still with me?

One guy tries to bum some spare change from you.

One guy tries to offer you a sandwich.

Now, for the really tricky part - which guy do you find offensive?

I don't find hungry homeless people offensive, sorry. Guess we conservatives have yet to reach that level of 'compassion'.

The Left Sock
11-18-2014, 06:00 PM
That wasn't one of the options. You failed to respond correctly to the question posed.

You lose.

Aristotle
11-18-2014, 06:12 PM
White flag accepted :) :) :)

Anapeg
11-18-2014, 06:14 PM
Yeah, seeing someone feeding people always turns me off, makes me not want to shop or do any form of commerce. I find it offensive and uncomfortable, and I instinctively want to clutch at my wallet.

Come on, get real, would ya?

I lose patience with your deliberate obscurations.

The Left Sock
11-18-2014, 06:15 PM
"White flag accepted"

Sorry, we don't have those in Canada. The only white flags we have here, have a big-ass maple leaf in the middle!

Aristotle
11-18-2014, 06:16 PM
Sorry, we don't have those in Canada. The only white flags we have here, have a big-ass maple leaf in the middle!

you don't have deliberate obscurations in Canada?

The Left Sock
11-18-2014, 06:18 PM
Well, other than Anapeg, none that I know of.

Aristotle
11-18-2014, 06:19 PM
I lose patience with your deliberate obscurations.

It's best to keep your distance from here on out. When he makes multiple threads in short order, and ends every sentence with exclamation marks, he is about ready to blow.

Think Mt. St. Helens, only more violent.

The Left Sock
11-18-2014, 06:20 PM
You know nothing of my designs! Nothing!

Aristotle
11-18-2014, 06:22 PM
You know nothing of my designs! Nothing!

au contraire, I read "The Real Deal" thread years ago. It explained everything.

EVERYTHING

The Left Sock
11-18-2014, 06:23 PM
You're living proof that evolution is a faulty theory.

You do know that, don't you?

Aristotle
11-18-2014, 06:25 PM
You're living proof that evolution is a faulty theory.

You do know that, don't you?

...looking at page three, paragraph four, of The Real Deal thread ...evolution...evolution...faulty...Arist...








...say, wait a minute!!!

The Left Sock
11-18-2014, 06:28 PM
You just don't seem to grow much, or adapt. That's all I'm saying....

Anapeg
11-18-2014, 06:28 PM
It's best to keep your distance from here on out. When he makes multiple threads in short order, and ends every sentence with exclamation marks, he is about ready to blow.

Think Mt. St. Helens, only more violent.

Ah! As in "Saving Private Ryan" without all the humour. Gotcha!

Aristotle
11-18-2014, 06:31 PM
You just don't seem to grow much, or adapt. That's all I'm saying....

...page six, paragraph two ...no growth...lack of growth...lacking adaptation skills...Ari...



...what the...

...Now come on, cut that out!!

Anapeg
11-18-2014, 06:34 PM
...page six, paragraph two ...no growth...lack of growth...lacking adaptation skills...Ari...



...what the...



...Now come on, cut that out!!

Watching the two of you kibitzing is as if the fastest type-r on the planet were arguing with himself.

Aristotle
11-18-2014, 06:35 PM
Watching the two of you kibitzing is as if the fastest type-r on the planet were arguing with himself.

Admit it, we'd make a pretty good Internet Vaudeville team

Anapeg
11-18-2014, 06:38 PM
Admit it, we'd make a pretty good Internet Vaudeville team

Offal-kin-awful and Knip-Knip, here all week folks! Two shows a night!

The Left Sock
11-18-2014, 06:39 PM
Well, this daredevil's due for a nap. Somebody has to make the donuts around here.

Mmm, donuts!

Anapeg
11-18-2014, 06:44 PM
Well, this daredevil's due for a nap. Somebody has to make the donuts around here.

Mmm, donuts!

I am an apple cruller kinda guy but the nap sounds good too.

BFLPE
11-19-2014, 01:32 AM
And for proof that this movement is linked to conservatism, just look at the political bent of those on here who are trying to convince everyone that this is no big deal.

It should be obvious.rofl, there's proof! What a tool.


And where did anyone say it's 'no big deal'? Just pointed out that your spin on it is far from accurate.


I do applaud the dude for what he does. And I do applaud the Police for handling it the way they did, waiting until everyone had been fed.


As for it being a red or blue issue I haven't seen anything suggesting one or the other. Something to think about though, most of the organizations that help out the homeless are Christian based and unless I'm wrong they tend to lean to the right.

BFLPE
11-19-2014, 01:47 AM
Anyone who thinks the city of Fort Lauderdale is 'trying to work with' these programs feeding the homeless, are hopelessly out of touch with reality:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fort-lauderdale-charges-90-year-old-two-pastors-feeding-homeless-n241971


From your link



The ordinance the fourth one that Fort Lauderdale has passed this year (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fort-lauderdale-latest-city-restrict-feeding-homeless-n231381) concerning the homeless requires groups handing out food to homeless to be at least 500 feet away from residential properties. It limits feeding sites for homeless to one in any given city block, and prevent feeding sites from being within 500 feet of each other.That part of the rule seems reasonable anyway.

dancingqueen
11-19-2014, 07:14 AM
This is a big part of what is wrong with this world. False dichotomies perpetuate the idea of "it's the other guy's fault" Then we stop looking for solutions, and begin looking for blame. This thread is a prime example... 7 pages of bantering the subject, very little constructive conversation, and no solutions. It cannot be denied that religious organisations do tend to lean right, and that religious organisations do contribute to helping the homeless, therefore, this cannot be a right verses left debate... And if anyone thinks America is the only place the homeless are ostracized and their conditions perpetuated, you need a reality check.

The Left Sock
11-19-2014, 09:07 AM
The basis of my assertion that this police crackdown on people who serve food is a 'conservative' action, stems from several different points of origin, that when combined, make a compelling argument, at least good enough for me to express that opinion.

First, there is the whole dimension of police in America becoming more militant, which was the subject of other threads around here. The War on Drugs, the War on Terror, the ratcheting up of police budgets, the disintegration of personal rights and freedoms in the face of so-called 'security' have all contributed to police action that has slipped out of touch with reality. I see the arrest of a 90 year-old church leader for serving food as fitting perfectly in line with that whole paradigm. And all of this, stems from a conservative mentality.

Second, the people trying to make it difficult for organizations to feed the homeless are being driven by concerns from the business and tourism communities, that the homeless are having a negative impact on their commerce. It is traditionally well understood that small business owners lean toward the conservative end of the political spectrum, because their self-interests in keeping taxes low, and wages low, are obvious political motivators.

So, I am perfectly comfortable in stating the opinion that a police crackdown on those attempting to feed the homeless has conservative roots. I've never heard anyone from a liberal mindset or standpoint come out in support of these kinds of police actions, so this only solidifies my opinion.

And whether or not the homeless are 'ostracized' or whether or not they pose real problems that must be dealt with by society was never the point of contention here. The singular point being addressed by this thread is whether or not people should be prevented by law, and physically arrested, for voluntarily offering food to a homeless person. This whole idea takes addressing homeless issues to a totally new level of callousness and heartlessness, that I simply cannot support. If someone wants to hand out sandwiches on the street to other people, who in the hell is going to say they are breaking the law? It defies all common sense. Where is the victim? Where is the harm?

If you cannot find harm in a human action, then society has no right to infringe upon your right to commit those actions, according to the wisdom of John Stuart Mill, and I agree with his philosophy entirely.

The Left Sock
11-19-2014, 09:22 AM
To illustrate the point even further, with an example.

You pull in to your neighborhood convenience store, to grab some milk on the way home from work, in Fort Lauderdale.

A homeless man approaches you, and tells you he hasn't eaten in a couple of days, and would really appreciate a couple of bucks to get something to eat.

You suspect that he might want the money for booze or drugs, but you feel bad for the guy, so you tell him, 'Well, if you want, I can run back into the store and grab you a sandwich or something like that'. The homeless man thanks you, and tells you that would be kindly appreciated. So, that's what you do.

Now, before these ordinances in Fort Lauderdale were passed, this would all be perfectly legal. But as of now, if you ran back into the store, grabbed a homeless man a sandwich, and a cop saw you do it, you could face arrest for it.

Now, somebody please explain to me, in a civilized, free society, how anyone can justify a man being arrested for buying another man a sandwich. Explain that to me in a way that makes moral or social sense, and I will shut up, and never say another word about what they are up to in Fort Lauderdale, or any of the other municipalities in America adopting similar laws.

Anyone want to take a crack at justifying an arrest in this case?

Aristotle
11-19-2014, 10:29 AM
JS Mill was about as self-centered as they come.

The greatest good for the greatest number, doesn't matter how you get there or who you trample on to get it.

The Left Sock
11-19-2014, 10:46 AM
Au Contraire!

The Harm Principle negates everything you just said.

Aristotle
11-19-2014, 10:57 AM
Au Contraire!

The Harm Principle negates everything you just said.

no it does not, because it is a principal that turns in on itself

Anapeg
11-19-2014, 12:38 PM
Au Contraire!

The Harm Principle negates everything you just said.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmanufactureddissent.wordpress.com %2F2010%2F10%2F03%2Fa-criticism-of-the-limits-of-the-harm-principle%2F&ei=iMZsVJ-EPMuqyASl54GwBg&usg=AFQjCNGYjo9_ykHr1_TKxxaTRSQn2_kbmw&sig2=4Mq7SYvwKdvWvzI4uv35Pw

Arguably the principle does give a clear limitation on the use of coercive force by the state as it says that “any member” of a “civilized community” is protected by the principle. So for example person X decides to smoke outside of another’s vicinity, the state cannot stop him even if “it would be better for him to do so.”

Aristotle
11-19-2014, 03:30 PM
"The greatest good for the greatest number" and The Harm Principle cannot coincide together in reality. In some philosophers pie-in-the-sky musings, sure; but in reality, no.

The Left Sock
11-19-2014, 09:48 PM
I would highly recommend that you actually take a look at what the Harm Principle says, rather than clinging to a catch phrase.

Aristotle
11-20-2014, 09:48 AM
And we can close the books on this one...


















(this is getting too easy)

The Left Sock
11-20-2014, 10:01 AM
Why, because you refuse to become informed?

Would you like a cut and paste synopsis of the Harm Principle, so you can look silly in black and white?

Aristotle
11-20-2014, 10:03 AM
stalling tactics...a sure sign I have won



(sigh)

Barry Morris
11-20-2014, 10:04 AM
stalling tactics...a sure sign I have won



(sigh)

You wish.

The Left Sock
11-20-2014, 10:05 AM
The only one stalling is you, because it's painfully obvious you have no idea what the Harm Principle entails.

Aristotle
11-20-2014, 10:07 AM
You wish.

upon a star, they said it didn't make a difference who I are...err, were...ummm, am...

Aristotle
11-20-2014, 10:07 AM
The only one stalling is you, because it's painfully obvious you have no idea what the Harm Principle entails.

Again, if this works in your world, far be it for me to rattle any cages! :) :) :)

The Left Sock
11-20-2014, 10:09 AM
Stay oblivious. It doesn't change the color in my sky, not a single shade.

You're the only missing out.

Aristotle
11-20-2014, 10:10 AM
You're the only missing out.

Is that kinda' like the Missing Link??

The Left Sock
11-20-2014, 10:11 AM
No missing link for you, slick - you're a conservative creationist!

Aristotle
11-20-2014, 10:18 AM
That missing link sure throws a wrench in evolution. EH??

Anapeg
11-20-2014, 12:20 PM
That missing link sure throws a wrench in evolution. EH??

I know of a Pope who would disagree.

Aristotle
11-20-2014, 12:58 PM
I know of a Pope who would disagree.

No you don't. The Church's position is that evolution may well be true, not Darwinian Evolution. Also, the Church says if it is indeed the way it happened it is, of course, through God's will.

That is miles away from the evolution Sock was thinking of.

The Left Sock
11-20-2014, 01:02 PM
Wow, now you're psychic, on top of being a heathen!

Aristotle
11-20-2014, 01:08 PM
Oh, wait, maybe Sock's thinking is right in line with the Catholic Church when it comes to how we got here ...said no one ever

The Left Sock
11-20-2014, 01:13 PM
I've already disproved Natural Selection to my own satisfaction, but thanks for playing!

Aristotle
11-20-2014, 01:13 PM
I've already disproved Natural Selection to my own satisfaction

awwww...that's cute!! :) :) :)

The Left Sock
11-20-2014, 01:15 PM
There's a whole big thread about it. Can't remember the title. Read the whole Origin of Species - found major flaws.

Aristotle
11-20-2014, 01:21 PM
There's a whole big thread about it. Can't remember the title. Read the whole Origin of Species - found major flaws.

People have been made rich finding flaws in his work

The Left Sock
11-20-2014, 01:24 PM
I'm not in it for the money. The truth floats my boat.

As I remember, it had to do with cuttlefish. Maybe Barry will remember the thread.

The Voice
11-20-2014, 09:26 PM
Oh Yes, You are the Master Debater.:)

Isn't that right Don??

BFLPE
11-22-2014, 08:39 AM
Ignore your name, and we'll check the politics of the other cities leaders. I'm curious.Has your curiousity produced anything yet?

The Left Sock
11-22-2014, 01:04 PM
The situation in Houston is interesting to me. In 2012, the city passed a feeding ordinance, that met with fierce opposition, and ended up getting scaled down, before being passed.

What's interesting is that Texas is notoriously conservative, but it's also notoriously rebellious. It appears that fiscal conservatives wanted to clamp down on feeding the homeless, but then the libertarian wing of the Tea Party conservatives pushed back at them.

In effect, the ordinance requires anyone who wants to serve food to five or more people, to have written permission from the property owner. That seems reasonable, right? Well, right up until you realize that this includes city property as well, and a city official was given complete discretion to decide who would get approved or not, which is a clever and subtle way for them to control the situation, while looking co-operative.

The libertarian faction said that this is simply an example of government involving itself in people's lives, for no good reason other than control.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Drastically-scaled-back-homeless-feeding-3460086.php

I have a kinship with libertarian thought processes, except I part ways when they start demanding to own rocket launchers, because the government has them. They seem to have smelled out this situation in Houston pretty well, though.

So, there is definitely a movement out there in American politics, to have a discussion on feeding the homeless, and conservatism still plays a major role in the arguments. I have yet to see a single high-profile liberal activist have any association with wanting to pass law that prohibit or control the feeding of other people. So far, it seems to be driven almost entirely from a fiscally conservative mindset: You can't make a profit from someone giving away free food, and these types of activities have a detrimental impact on business and tourism.

Aristotle
11-22-2014, 01:12 PM
Simplified: conservatism is not conducive to charity.

And as would be expected from such a lazy mindset,it is easily refuted:

"The bottom line, according to the MIT study, was that "liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income.""

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-conservatives-or-liberals-20140331-story.html

and if we want to bring in even more specificity...

"Less well-off families from red states [states that vote Republican] donate a relatively higher – and growing – proportion of their money to charity, while those at the top have been giving a smaller share as their income has increased, a new extensive study has revealed."

http://rt.com/usa/193952-charity-conservatives-religion-utah/

The Left Sock
11-22-2014, 01:25 PM
Conservatism always touts the idea of 'smaller government'. That is one of their leading mantras. I don't know how anyone can argue against that point.

However, when it comes to security or policing issues, modern conservatism displays an obsessive need for more government involvement, and more aggressive government involvement.

If you look at 'stop and frisk', if you look at 'border/immigration issues', if you look at ordinances for feeding the homeless, the same pattern emerges, over and over again. Modern conservatives like to champion the idea of freedom, and smaller government, but in fact, they love to have lots and lots of authority on hand, doing more and more aggressive things.

The War on Terror, The War on Drugs... invisible, phantom-like problems that never seem to go away, no matter how many resources you throw at them. Then you have conservative leaders banging the fear-mongering gong all day long, and this is what you get, far enough down the road: 90 year-old church leaders being led away in handcuffs, because 'law and order' in the police state rules supreme.

A libertarian in Houston said it best, "It's like burning down the barn, to get rid of the rats'.

Conservatism in America today is burning down what made that country great, trouncing on civil liberties, in order to maintain some semblance of freedom, in a world fraught with worry.

It's really quite sad, that hyperbole and rhetoric have taken hold, where common sense and decency should be. I look forward to America getting back to common sense and decency, because I have a lot of plans to continue exploring the heartland, the essence of what makes America great, and I want to see it intact, the way it was always supposed to be, instead of some mutated version, based on fear and insecurity.

dancingqueen
11-22-2014, 07:09 PM
Would you guys rent a room already?

BFLPE
11-22-2014, 07:37 PM
Conservatism in America today is burning down what made that country great, trouncing on civil libertiesI would respond to that with something similar to...


It's really quite sad, that hyperbole and rhetoric have taken hold, where common sense and decency should be.

Anapeg
11-22-2014, 10:15 PM
Simplified: conservatism is not conducive to charity.

And as would be expected from such a lazy mindset,it is easily refuted:

"The bottom line, according to the MIT study, was that "liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income.""

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-conservatives-or-liberals-20140331-story.html

and if we want to bring in even more specificity...

"Less well-off families from red states [states that vote Republican] donate a relatively higher and growing proportion of their money to charity, while those at the top have been giving a smaller share as their income has increased, a new extensive study has revealed."

http://rt.com/usa/193952-charity-conservatives-religion-utah/

Why would any adjustments need be made?

The Left Sock
11-22-2014, 10:50 PM
It's not hyperbole or rhetoric, if you have the evidence to support a statement.

Then, it's just a fact.

BFLPE
11-22-2014, 10:58 PM
It's not hyperbole or rhetoric, if you have the evidence to support a statement.

Then, it's just a fact.But you don't so it's just silly stereotypical hyperbole.

BFLPE
11-22-2014, 11:00 PM
Why would any adjustments need be made?I guess you didn't click on the link.

Adjustments are required if one wants claim that even though Conservatives give more they aren't more generous.

Barry Morris
11-22-2014, 11:14 PM
I guess you didn't click on the link.

Adjustments are required if one wants claim that even though Conservatives give more they aren't more generous.

Makes me wonder, once again, about statistics.

Do conservatives give more. Well, if you include to their churches, probably.

And liberals are hardly going to give anything to churches, which would mostly be run by conservatives.

The Left Sock
11-22-2014, 11:15 PM
But you don't so it's just silly stereotypical hyperbole.

And still, people wonder why they get ignored.

BFLPE
11-22-2014, 11:21 PM
And still, people wonder why they get ignored.lol, that's the response I would expect from someone unable to provide evidence to back up their outrageous assertion.

Aristotle
11-22-2014, 11:25 PM
It's really quite sad, that hyperbole and rhetoric have taken hold

Couldn't agree more!!












...wait...we're talking about your posts lately, right?

Aristotle
11-22-2014, 11:27 PM
Conservatism always touts the idea of 'smaller government'. That is one of their leading mantras. I don't know how anyone can argue against that point.



Can anyone....anyone...show me where someone argued that conservatives don't favor smaller government?

Then, could someone explain to me how this supports his original assertion, and how it negates the proof I provided that his assertion is nothing more than rote, lazy thinking?


Thanks in advance.

Barry Morris
11-22-2014, 11:34 PM
Makes me wonder, once again, about statistics.

Do conservatives give more. Well, if you include to their churches, probably.

And liberals are hardly going to give anything to churches, which would mostly be run by conservatives.

In addition, are conservatives generous for the right reasons?? Maybe they feel compelled to give to their churches by the sermons on tithing, guilted into it??

Liberals actually might be MORE generous for the RIGHT reasons!!!

Aristotle
11-22-2014, 11:43 PM
I look forward to America getting back to common sense and decency, because I have a lot of plans to continue exploring the heartland, the essence of what makes America great.


Red State Religion:Faith and Politics in America's Heartland
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9547.html



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41LY0y3E-AL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


New Gallup polling shows the clearest picture yet of the great divide in the Republican Party that has been pushing former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum to the head of the class.

Behind Santorum's eight-point national lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is a yawning gap in ideological support for the two candidates.

Conservative support for Santorum stands at 42 percent, compared to 24 percent for Romney. Among those who attend church frequently, support for Santorum is at 44 percent and for Romney 22 percent.

In the nation's heartland in the Midwest and South, Santorum leads by 19 and 8 points, respectively. It is only on the more liberal East and West coasts where the two are running neck and neck.

http://urbancure.org/mbarticle.asp?id=148&t=Americas-heartland-supports-Santorum



A handful of key words stand out when chatting with Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, about the presidential bid he is considering: "commonsense conservative," "heartland values" and, of course, "Iowa."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/15/thune-talking-2012-emphasizes-heartland-values/


The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian[2] public policy think tank based in Chicago, which states that it advocates free market policies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute


Firing back in the debate over American values, Vice Presi dent **** Cheney used his first campaign bus tour Saturday to label Democrat John Kerry "on the left, out of the mainstream and out of touch with the conservative values of the heartland."

Kerry in recent days has been invoking values with increasing frequency, promising a crowd in Minnesota on Friday, for example, that he would "honor the values that built our country."

Cheney, serving notice that the Bush campaign won't cede what has traditionally been a favorite Republican issue, told a cheering crowd at Wheeling Park High School: "Sometimes I think John Kerry develops amnesia out on the campaign trail. His latest thing is to tell audiences that he holds conservative values.

"Did he forget his voting record, a voting record that makes him the most liberal member of the United States Senate?" Cheney asked. He cited Kerry's votes against a ban on flag-burning, tax relief and banning what opponents call partial birth abortion.

"On these and a whole host of values, John Kerry's votes and statements over the de cades that he's been in office put him on the left, out of the mainstream and out of touch with the conservative values of the heartland."

http://lubbockonline.com/stories/070404/ele_070404050.shtml



The “heartland” is a generic term that refers to the states that used to primarily constitute the Midwest but now all states south of the Mason Dixon Line are now considered the “Heartland.” For years the Midwest was a haven for principled, controlled, religiously ethical government.

http://watchdogwire.com/blog/2014/10/15/haupts-commentary-vanishing-heartland-american-dream/



Middle America 2
n.
1. That part of the U.S. middle class thought of as being average in income and education and moderately conservative in values and attitudes.
2. The American heartland thought of as being made up of small towns, small cities, and suburbs.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Middle+America

Sock didn't know "The Heartland" is overwhelmingly conservative, and always has been.

I don't care who you are, THAT is funny!! :) :) :)

Aristotle
11-22-2014, 11:44 PM
In addition, are conservatives generous for the right reasons?? Maybe they feel compelled to give to their churches by the sermons on tithing, guilted into it??

Liberals actually might be MORE generous for the RIGHT reasons!!!

okay,you have a theory...now prove it :) :) :)

And would one of these "right reasons" be funding infanticide? Because liberal Christians tend to support that.

Aristotle
11-22-2014, 11:52 PM
G'night, all!!! :) :) :)

Barry Morris
11-23-2014, 12:28 AM
okay,you have a theory...now prove it :) :) :)

And would one of these "right reasons" be funding infanticide? Because liberal Christians tend to support that.

It's just an idea, don't care that much.

I would also guess that conservative Christians must support infanticide, 'cause their favourite politicians sure don't do much about it.

Mind you, that topic has NOTHING to do with this topic, why you would bring it up, usually off topic, over and over, is beyond the understanding of anyone who can read,

Anapeg
11-23-2014, 12:41 AM
I guess you didn't click on the link.

Adjustments are required if one wants claim that even though Conservatives give more they aren't more generous.

It would be more fair to rate it as a percentage of their worth than amounts given. 10 percent of my worth hurts just as much as 10 percent of a multi millionaire's worth. That would be equal.

Anapeg
11-23-2014, 12:44 AM
G'night, all!!! :) :) :)

Ni-night, get tight and sleep, er, sleep tight, whatever works fer ya.

The Left Sock
11-23-2014, 01:55 AM
Wow, someone sure went on a tirade about the 'heartland'!

Places I have visited so far, in my quest to 'find America': Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, and most recently, Kentucky.

I can understand how someone from Northern Michigan, who doesn't even understand his own country, would get bent by a Canadian who is actively seeking to extract the essence of the American psyche through numerous expeditions into the real 'heartland', but the level of profusion in response, is still a little startling.

Maybe more Americans need a good kick in the pants from visitors who seek to find 'America'. Many seem to have lost the narrative, in the constant back and forth between 'left' and 'right'. People are too obsessed with which way they are leaning, and don't even bother to take in their surroundings anymore. It's all become distorted, because the filters are never removed. There is still lots of beauty left in America, maybe it takes the enthusiasm of outsiders, to remind them of what they should be holding onto, and what they should be letting go.

The Left Sock
11-23-2014, 02:02 AM
Can anyone....anyone...show me where someone argued that conservatives don't favor smaller government?

Then, could someone explain to me how this supports his original assertion, and how it negates the proof I provided that his assertion is nothing more than rote, lazy thinking?


Thanks in advance.

Well, in case you haven't noticed, I'm the one who is arguing that the idea that conservatism favors smaller government is an illusion. There is a constant push from the right to expand the military and the police. They are 'government', and the conservatives are always pushing to make those bigger. Therefore, conservatives actually favor 'bigger government.

Oh yeah... you're welcome!

Aristotle
11-23-2014, 09:57 AM
It's just an idea, don't care that much.

I would also guess that conservative Christians must support infanticide, 'cause their favourite politicians sure don't do much about it.

Mind you, that topic has NOTHING to do with this topic, why you would bring it up, usually off topic, over and over, is beyond the understanding of anyone who can read,

Thank you for admitting your theory had no legs! :) :) :)

Aristotle
11-23-2014, 09:58 AM
Well, in case you haven't noticed, I'm the one who is arguing that the idea that conservatism favors smaller government is an illusion. There is a constant push from the right to expand the military and the police.!

So now the military is the "government"???


(grab some popcorn, people,this is gonna' be good!)

Aristotle
11-23-2014, 09:59 AM
Wow, someone sure went on a tirade about the 'heartland'!

Places I have visited so far, in my quest to 'find America': Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, and most recently, Kentucky.

I can understand how someone from Northern Michigan, who doesn't even understand his own country, would get bent by a Canadian who is actively seeking to extract the essence of the American psyche through numerous expeditions into the real 'heartland', but the level of profusion in response, is still a little startling.

Maybe more Americans need a good kick in the pants from visitors who seek to find 'America'. Many seem to have lost the narrative, in the constant back and forth between 'left' and 'right'. People are too obsessed with which way they are leaning, and don't even bother to take in their surroundings anymore. It's all become distorted, because the filters are never removed. There is still lots of beauty left in America, maybe it takes the enthusiasm of outsiders, to remind them of what they should be holding onto, and what they should be letting go.

You had no idea the Heartland is one of the most conservative places in the country. You're embarrassed. Rightly so.

BFLPE
11-23-2014, 10:09 AM
It would be more fair to rate it as a percentage of their worth than amounts given. 10 percent of my worth hurts just as much as 10 percent of a multi millionaire's worth. That would be equal.
Not sure how you can determine equal. Percentage of net worth is useless IMO. Percentage of disposable income would be closer. Nonetheless...

"Less well-off families from red states [states that vote Republican] donate a relatively higher – and growing – proportion of their money to charity, while those at the top have been giving a smaller share as their income has increased, a new extensive study has revealed."

Anapeg
11-23-2014, 10:43 AM
Not sure how you can determine equal. Percentage of net worth is useless IMO. Percentage of disposable income would be closer. Nonetheless...

I could go with that as well. Same basic thought.

The Left Sock
11-23-2014, 11:48 AM
So now the military is the "government"???


(grab some popcorn, people,this is gonna' be good!)

Just find someone in the military (no doubt a Coastie, in your neck of the woods), and take a look at who signs their paycheck.

Oops, it's the government!

The Voice
11-23-2014, 02:49 PM
You just keep proving more and more that you don't even know what the Republicans mean by small Gov't??

Aristotle
11-23-2014, 04:21 PM
Just find someone in the military (no doubt a Coastie, in your neck of the woods), and take a look at who signs their paycheck.

Oops, it's the government!

That cannot be the defense of your premise?!?!

http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/yio/GkL/yioGkLyiE.gif

The Left Sock
11-23-2014, 05:59 PM
Everything that your country does, that is funded by taxpayer money, is called 'government'.

This has been your civics lesson for today.

The Left Sock
11-23-2014, 06:07 PM
Just to remind people of the hunger problem in the US, and why it is shameful to put severe restrictions on those trying to do something about it:

http://www.feedingamerica.org/

Aristotle
11-23-2014, 06:35 PM
Oh boy, how the (not so) mighty have fallen.

Seriously, you're just embarrassing yourself now.

The Left Sock
11-23-2014, 06:37 PM
"Everything that your country does, that is funded by taxpayer money, is called 'government'"

Disprove the point. Go ahead. I'd love to see it.

Aristotle
11-23-2014, 06:42 PM
"Everything that your country does, that is funded by taxpayer money, is called 'government'"

Disprove the point. Go ahead. I'd love to see it.

It's not only an issue of how something is funded. Wanting smaller government means wanting the federal government to take its paws off jurisdictions that are normally left to state and local government. It's a fear of too strong a central government.

Kind of shocked you didn't know such an elemental point.













Well, no I'm not.

The Left Sock
11-23-2014, 06:47 PM
You're full of crap. The airwaves are polluted with conservatives ranting and raving about 'big government' and many of their rants stem from government spending issues.

You really don't have a firm grasp on political reality, do you?

Aristotle
11-23-2014, 06:47 PM
Here's real basic Civics for you, Sock. I mean real basic.

A government in which the military is the government is called a junta




And, no, don't even offer to pay me for this; it was what we call "a teachable moment", and I was only too happy to oblige.

Aristotle
11-23-2014, 06:48 PM
You're full of crap. The airwaves are polluted with conservatives ranting and raving about 'big government' and many of their rants stem from government spending issues.

You really don't have a firm grasp on political reality, do you?


It's not only an issue of how something is funded.

again...free of charge :) :) :)

The Left Sock
11-23-2014, 06:49 PM
Yep, you're a straight-up fool!

Moving on.

The Voice
11-23-2014, 06:50 PM
Like I said, you don't really know what the republicans mean by small Gov't do you??

Aristotle
11-23-2014, 06:51 PM
LOL...look out, Mt. Sock Helens is about to erupt again!

The Voice
11-23-2014, 06:56 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_control_of_the_military

I could cut and paste the parts that you really need to read but:

#1 you won't read it anyways

#2 you won't understand the CONTEXT

#3 I will be accused of Plagiarism?? LOL ROFLMAO TFF!!

Aristotle
11-23-2014, 06:57 PM
Small government, on the other hand, is generally believed to lead to a more efficient and flexible system. “Getting government off our backs” or “getting government out of the way” are cries to return to the low-tax, no-regulation beliefs of the American Revolutionary period. The size of government envisioned by the country’s founders sought to cast off tyranny and empower small businessmen and entrepreneurs.

Small government was best summarized by the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and third President of the United States Thomas Jefferson when he claimed, “That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves.” Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay, current CEO of Hewlett-Packard, and one-time Republican candidate for Governor of California described it as “making a small number of rules and getting out of the way. Keeping taxes low. Creating an environment for small businesses to grow and thrive.”

http://www.moneycrashers.com/big-vs-small-government-ideal/

What I've learned today is to never simply assume what an adult knows about the basics of government.

The Left Sock
11-23-2014, 08:21 PM
'Ignore' sequence activated.

Aristotle
11-23-2014, 08:24 PM
'Ignore' sequence activated.

you've had me on "ignore" for months!

BFLPE
11-23-2014, 08:54 PM
'Ignore' sequence activated.Are there lots of steps in the sequence or just a countdown?

The Voice
11-29-2014, 06:13 AM
I think it usually involves a meltdown rather than a countdown.