View Full Version : The Liberal voter Base: ..."the Dollar Menu is a hoax, a fraud!"
darin
09-07-2010, 09:37 AM
Seems some homeless are upset; I get the idea they believe McDonald's OWES them food they can afford. (sigh).
They spend all that time there - why not apply for a f'ing job?
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps/news/homeless-upset-about-mcdonalds-dollar-menu-increase-dpgoh-20100907-fc_9517802
Seems some homeless are upset; I get the idea they believe McDonald's OWES them food they can afford. (sigh).
They spend all that time there - why not apply for a f'ing job?
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps/news/homeless-upset-about-mcdonalds-dollar-menu-increase-dpgoh-20100907-fc_9517802
Lawl, do the homeless think they should be immune from inflation?
As an aside, would you hire a homeless person?
darin
09-07-2010, 10:59 AM
I don't have a business.
If I worked, say, making widgets, and needed a guy to pack and ship the widgets? Sure - I'd hire ex-cons, homeless, etc.
I'm digging the beard, dude - looks good on you.
SassyLady
09-07-2010, 01:18 PM
Lawl, do the homeless think they should be immune from inflation?
As an aside, would you hire a homeless person?
When I'm interviewing I don't ask if they are homeless.
Noir .. have you ever been in a homeless shelter? Have you ever met and/or talked with a large group of homeless people? The armory in our town is used for sheltering the homeless during the winter and I've had lots of experience with the homeless.....or I should say, the chronic homeless, in our county. Over the years I've come to realize that the majority of them are not insane but just don't want to be part of the "system". They want to be off the "radar".....and they don't want to be "hired".
When I'm interviewing I don't ask if they are homeless.
Noir .. have you ever been in a homeless shelter? Have you ever met and/or talked with a large group of homeless people? The armory in our town is used for sheltering the homeless during the winter and I've had lots of experience with the homeless.....or I should say, the chronic homeless, in our county. Over the years I've come to realize that the majority of them are not insane but just don't want to be part of the "system". They want to be off the "radar".....and they don't want to be "hired".
Do they not have to provide ID to be registered for tax, which would require a permeant address? (I know we do here in the UK though the US may be different idk)
And nopes, have never been to a homeless shelter, though I must say the problem in Samfrancisco (to where this story refers) is crazy, you'd find more homeless people there on one street than you'd find in my entire home county =/
MtnBiker
09-07-2010, 02:52 PM
Seems some homeless are upset; I get the idea they believe McDonald's OWES them food they can afford. (sigh).
They spend all that time there - why not apply for a f'ing job?
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps/news/homeless-upset-about-mcdonalds-dollar-menu-increase-dpgoh-20100907-fc_9517802
What an outrage. Here we have unfortunate people that are homeless( through no fault of their own of course) and a greedy corporation imposes a 50% increase in cost to these unfortunate people just to pad their profits. Its obvious that they are just 10 dollars away from surviving another day or certain doom. Without a doubt there are plenty of people earning a million dollars or more that are only using their wealth to keep score and control people. The answer is simple, a tax should be imposed on these wealthly people and the government can set up a bureaucracy to redistribute, heck they could even make debit cards named "Good Life Cards" and hire Hugo Chavez to hand them out.
Palin Rider
09-07-2010, 04:27 PM
The armory in our town is used for sheltering the homeless during the winter and I've had lots of experience with the homeless.....or I should say, the chronic homeless, in our county. Over the years I've come to realize that the majority of them are not insane but just don't want to be part of the "system". They want to be off the "radar".....and they don't want to be "hired".
You're only partly correct. The mentally ill ones are a minority, but a fairly large one: conservatively at about 20% of the total homeless population.
About 70% more are drug addicts. Their drug of choice could be alcohol, or any number of other psychoactive chemicals. The reason that such people generally want to be "off the radar" is that they see it as preferable to going through the withdrawal/recovery process of cleaning up.
That leaves at most 10% of the homeless who pursue it as a lifestyle choice.
darin
09-07-2010, 04:57 PM
Mentally ill people and drug addicts who choose to be homeless deserve no more sympathy than anyone else who is ultimately responsible for their condition. There's no baseline for what 'mentally ill' means. Perhaps somebody is bi-polar? Are they not responsible for their condition? Where is the cut-off for when somebody is TRULY a victim of something OTHER than their free will?
I'm responsible - with a Nod to the man upstairs - for the condition of my family. Hard work, sacrifice, and luck worked in my favor. Had luck been absent, I'd have to up my levels of the first two.
Palin Rider
09-07-2010, 05:15 PM
Mentally ill people and drug addicts who choose to be homeless deserve no more sympathy than anyone else who is ultimately responsible for their condition.
What they deserve is treatment and rehab, IF they'll accept it. If not, I don't have sympathy for them either.
There's no baseline for what 'mentally ill' means.
So you're implying that it doesn't even exist. Sorry, this is no longer the Middle Ages, and you're not allowed to take your kids to watch bipolar people burned as witches.
darin
09-07-2010, 07:01 PM
What they deserve is treatment and rehab, IF they'll accept it. If not, I don't have sympathy for them either.
They dont deserve it if they don't want it.
So you're implying that it doesn't even exist. Sorry, this is no longer the Middle Ages, and you're not allowed to take your kids to watch bipolar people burned as witches.
Making that assumption of my statement might indicate you're a sufferer of some sort of 'condition'.
I'm saying, for your assumption of statistics does not identify what 'mental illness' means. Until one defines what mental illness IS, it's stupid to apply the label on any portion of the population - homeless or otherwise.
Your broad-brush "statistics" are goofy
Palin Rider
09-07-2010, 07:47 PM
They dont deserve it if they don't want it.
That's pretty much rephrasing what I said in the previous post.
I'm saying, for your assumption of statistics does not identify what 'mental illness' means.
Until one defines what mental illness IS, it's stupid to apply the label on any portion of the population - homeless or otherwise.
There are two fields of medical science that deal with this question, both of which you're apparently trying to deny.
I'm not going to defend those fields for the sake of some narcissist posting on a discussion board. Do your own homework about what is generally understood to define mental illness.
Your broad-brush "statistics" are goofy
In what respect?
darin
09-07-2010, 08:48 PM
That's pretty much rephrasing what I said in the previous post.
Except if you think what i wrote, and what you said previous are 'pretty much the same thing' you are beyond hope of rational thought. Honestly, are you READING this stuff, or just replying?
There are two fields of medical science that deal with this question, both of which you're apparently trying to deny.
I'm not going to defend those fields for the sake of some narcissist posting on a discussion board. Do your own homework about what is generally understood to define mental illness.
Some of your - most of your - comments in this thread might be some of the stupidest comments I've seen here recently. Honestly, it's like I'm discussing with a schizophrenic. You take what I write, then absolutely apply it where there's NO REASONABLE connection.
Palin Rider
09-07-2010, 09:13 PM
Except if you think what i wrote, and what you said previous are 'pretty much the same thing' you are beyond hope of rational thought. Honestly, are you READING this stuff, or just replying?
Honestly, I was agreeing with you. You should be thanking me, not berating me.
Some of your - most of your - comments in this thread might be some of the stupidest comments I've seen here recently. Honestly, it's like I'm discussing with a schizophrenic. You take what I write, then absolutely apply it where there's NO REASONABLE connection.
Well, when you start applying logic to get from Premise A to Conclusion B, I'll be more than happy to discuss what you say in a reasonable manner. :cool:
SassyLady
09-08-2010, 12:15 AM
Do they not have to provide ID to be registered for tax, which would require a permeant address? (I know we do here in the UK though the US may be different idk)
My sister is homeless....she has a P.O. Box ..... so, to answer your question, no one has to prove they have a street address to get a job. And, I've had whole crews using the same address ..... and yet they don't live there ... just using a friends address as a mailing address.
And nopes, have never been to a homeless shelter, though I must say the problem in Samfrancisco (to where this story refers) is crazy, you'd find more homeless people there on one street than you'd find in my entire home county =/
Well, I live about an hour north of SF and we have quite a few homeless. As I said, people want to get off the radar ... avoiding taxes, warrants, not wanting to pay "the man" for anything ... including utilities, etc. They would rather stand on the street corner panhandling and camp in the various campgrounds in their car and then show up in the shelters when the weather gets bad.
SassyLady
09-08-2010, 12:19 AM
You're only partly correct. The mentally ill ones are a minority, but a fairly large one: conservatively at about 20% of the total homeless population.
About 70% more are drug addicts. Their drug of choice could be alcohol, or any number of other psychoactive chemicals. The reason that such people generally want to be "off the radar" is that they see it as preferable to going through the withdrawal/recovery process of cleaning up.
That leaves at most 10% of the homeless who pursue it as a lifestyle choice.
Where are you getting your stats?
BTW, to me, choosing drugs or alcohol is a "lifestyle" choice....so in your example it would be 80% are homeless due to choice....therefore, a majority.
darin
09-08-2010, 05:40 AM
^^^ He makes stuff up, then gets passive-aggressive when called on it.
1969
My sister is homeless....she has a P.O. Box ..... so, to answer your question, no one has to prove they have a street address to get a job. And, I've had whole crews using the same address ..... and yet they don't live there ... just using a friends address as a mailing address.
Fairplay, over here as soon as multiple people are found using the same addresses alarm bells start going off lol.
Well, I live about an hour north of SF and we have quite a few homeless. As I said, people want to get off the radar ... avoiding taxes, warrants, not wanting to pay "the man" for anything ... including utilities, etc. They would rather stand on the street corner panhandling and camp in the various campgrounds in their car and then show up in the shelters when the weather gets bad.
If you say so, personally I'd think the majority who are on the streets are not there to get away from the man, but that's purly speculative on my part.
Palin Rider
09-08-2010, 02:00 PM
Where are you getting your stats?
A number of sources, including the Census Bureau, have compiled homeless demographics that approximate this breakdown. If you want to Google and check up on your own, the site that shows up at the top of the list is the National Coalition for the Homeless (nch.org).
BTW, to me, choosing drugs or alcohol is a "lifestyle" choice....so in your example it would be 80% are homeless due to choice....therefore, a majority.Of course there are casual alcohol users and casual users of other drugs, and these are definitely lifestyle choices (which generally don't lead to homelessness).
That said, do you honestly believe that anyone "chooses" to become addicted to a drug? I've never heard of anyone who claimed to want to be addicted to something.
darin
09-08-2010, 02:15 PM
That said, do you honestly believe that anyone "chooses" to become addicted to a drug? I've never heard of anyone who claimed to want to be addicted to something.
Besides the point. People choose, by their actions, a drug-addicted lifestyle. If they refuse help or refuse to seek help, that's THEIR choice. No pity.
Palin Rider
09-08-2010, 02:34 PM
Besides the point. People choose, by their actions, a drug-addicted lifestyle. If they refuse help or refuse to seek help, that's THEIR choice. No pity.
You're half right.
Addiction is physical. That's not a choice.
As for those who refuse help or refuse to seek help, you're absolutely correct: THAT's their choice. I don't pity them, either.
darin
09-08-2010, 03:42 PM
You're half right.
Addiction is physical. That's not a choice.
As for those who refuse help or refuse to seek help, you're absolutely correct: THAT's their choice. I don't pity them, either.
..thus...those who are homeless and addicted, by their INaction are choosing homelessness.
Palin Rider
09-08-2010, 04:22 PM
..thus...those who are homeless and addicted, by their INaction are choosing homelessness.
Only if they consciously decide not to seek help. If their inaction is a result of ignorance, or if they're on a waiting list for a rehab program, your "choice theory" doesn't apply.
Most of these people don't have a family member who's able and willing to pay the small fortune to send them to a private "sober camp" (as a friend of mine likes to call them).
SassyLady
09-08-2010, 04:27 PM
A number of sources, including the Census Bureau, have compiled homeless demographics that approximate this breakdown. If you want to Google and check up on your own, the site that shows up at the top of the list is the National Coalition for the Homeless (nch.org).
Of course there are casual alcohol users and casual users of other drugs, and these are definitely lifestyle choices (which generally don't lead to homelessness).
That said, do you honestly believe that anyone "chooses" to become addicted to a drug? I've never heard of anyone who claimed to want to be addicted to something.
With all the literature and media available today that SCREAMS tobacco, alcohol and drugs are addictive....can you honestly say people are not making a choice to become addicted?
You are talking to the oldest of seven children....six of whom (and their children after them) are addicted ....... to smoking, alcohol and drugs. They had the same opportunities I had and they each "chose" their lifestyle. Do they think it sucks now?!! YOU BET they do and each of them have said they wish they had made different "choices" in their life.
So, yes, I honestly do believe the majority of people who are addicted to something made a choice to go down that path knowing the risks they were taking....and went for the short term high instead.
SassyLady
09-08-2010, 04:30 PM
Only if they consciously decide not to seek help. If their inaction is a result of ignorance, or if they're on a waiting list for a rehab program, your "choice theory" doesn't apply.
Most of these people don't have a family member who's able and willing to pay the small fortune to send them to a private "sober camp" (as a friend of mine likes to call them).
Why should a family member ante up to take care of someone else who chose to lead a lifestyle that led to addictions. The person who is able and willing is that way because they chose a different lifestyle .... and because they didn't want to end up spending all their resources in rehab....and yet you feel they should step in and send the addicted family member to rehab?
My family members go through rehab when they get arrested...and then get out on the street and make a choice to resume their addictive lifestyles. I'd rather not waste my money.
Palin Rider
09-08-2010, 04:39 PM
Why should a family member ante up to take care of someone else who chose to lead a lifestyle that led to addictions. The person who is able and willing is that way because they chose a different lifestyle .... and because they didn't want to end up spending all their resources in rehab....and yet you feel they should step in and send the addicted family member to rehab?
Not at all, necessarily. If family members have the resources, it's their choice, not mine. All I said was that private rehab isn't an option for most people.
Palin Rider
09-08-2010, 04:42 PM
With all the literature and media available today that SCREAMS tobacco, alcohol and drugs are addictive....can you honestly say people are not making a choice to become addicted?
Yes I can. I firmly believe that most people are 100% sure that they can be "casual users" when they first start using. And in fact, some of them can. Then there are those whose brain chemistry turns them into addicts.
darin
09-08-2010, 04:50 PM
PR - have you known a mentally ill and/or homeless person?
Whether thru ignorance or indifference, druggies and crazy and lazy folk end up homeless quite often. I have NO sympathy for them, nor would i support anyone encouraging/enabling their behaviour.
Palin Rider
09-08-2010, 05:02 PM
PR - have you known a mentally ill and/or homeless person?
Whether thru ignorance or indifference, druggies and crazy and lazy folk end up homeless quite often. I have NO sympathy for them, nor would i support anyone encouraging/enabling their behaviour.
Funny you should ask. (Have you?)
I have met and spoken with literally hundreds of homeless people, some of whom became my friends (and a few, who are no longer homeless today, still are).
There was a point in my life when I was checking behind the washers and dryers at public laundromats so that I could gather enough coins to buy something from that Dollar Menu. (Today I'm depositing six-figure checks for my business. How much do you make, mister no-sympathy bigshot?)
And yes, I've seen many druggies who really don't want anyone's help. I have no more sympathy for them than you do. From personal experience, I can definitely tell you they're a minority, and a much smaller minority than you obviously think.
SassyLady
09-08-2010, 05:28 PM
Yes I can. I firmly believe that most people are 100% sure that they can be "casual users" when they first start using. And in fact, some of them can. Then there are those whose brain chemistry turns them into addicts.
Once again, people are choosing to follow the path of "I'll just be one of them casual users" knowing the risks they are taking.
darin
09-08-2010, 05:42 PM
Once again, people are choosing to follow the path of "I'll just be one of them casual users" knowing the risks they are taking.
He doesn't understand nor care to hold people RESPONSIBLE for their choices - if the choices end up bad. It's silly...it's naive.
Funny you should ask. (Have you?)
I have met and spoken with literally hundreds of homeless people, some of whom became my friends (and a few, who are no longer homeless today, still are).
My brother is paranoid-schizophrenic and has chosen to be homeless COUNTLESS times...just as he chooses to not treat his illness.
There was a point in my life when I was checking behind the washers and dryers at public laundromats so that I could gather enough coins to buy something from that Dollar Menu. (Today I'm depositing six-figure checks for my business. How much do you make, mister no-sympathy bigshot?)
Well...you wouldn't be able to at the McDonalds in the OP! But you really wanna penis-measure? You're an enabler-type. By your mis-guided charity you prolong their condition.
And yes, I've seen many druggies who really don't want anyone's help. I have no more sympathy for them than you do. From personal experience, I can definitely tell you they're a minority, and a much smaller minority than you obviously think.
I speak from practical AND personal experience AND....realistic perspective. I don't fear the truth - the truth that most homeless, and I'd bet 90% - are homeless due to their choice or choices. A persistent state of homelessness is 100% THEIR choice. I'm a 'teach a man to fish' kinda guy. You are a 'give a man a fish' kinda guy...you and your 6-figure checks....lol
Palin Rider
09-08-2010, 06:51 PM
Once again, people are choosing to follow the path of "I'll just be one of them casual users" knowing the risks they are taking.
Once again, that's still not the same thing as "choosing" addiction.
You take risks when you invest: that doesn't mean you choose to lose money.
SassyLady
09-08-2010, 06:53 PM
Once again, that's still not the same thing as "choosing" addiction.
You take risks when you invest: that doesn't mean you choose to lose money.
Actually, when you invest you are choosing to lose money....you want to make money, but there is a risk that you will lose money. If you didn't want to choose to lose money, then you wouldn't invest...you would save.
Anyone who choses to participate in risky endeavors cannot possibly think they will never pay the consequences at some time or another.
darin
09-08-2010, 07:14 PM
MSKP you are doing an admirable job of keeping your cool in the face of an obtuse 'discussion' partner.
Palin Rider
09-08-2010, 07:14 PM
Actually, when you invest you are choosing to lose money....you want to make money, but there is a risk that you will lose money. If you didn't want to choose to lose money, then you wouldn't invest...you would save.
Now who's grasping at straws? :rolleyes:
When you choose something, it's your goal. The fact that there's another possible outcome doesn't make EVERY outcome a goal.
MSKP you are doing an admirable job of keeping your cool in the face of an obtuse 'discussion' partner.
So trolling is all you have left, eh? I can't say I'm surprised.
darin
09-08-2010, 07:15 PM
Now who's grasping at straws? :rolleyes:
When you choose something, it's your goal.
....when somebody CHOOSES drugs, becoming a Druggie is their goal???
;)
Palin Rider
09-08-2010, 07:34 PM
....when somebody CHOOSES drugs, becoming a Druggie is their goal???
;)
See post 26. :slap:
SassyLady
09-08-2010, 07:43 PM
Now who's grasping at straws? :rolleyes:
When you choose something, it's your goal. The fact that there's another possible outcome doesn't make EVERY outcome a goal.
Not necessarily....people make choices all the time that leads to an end result that had nothing to do with their intended goal. When a drunk chooses to get in a car and drive themselves home and ends up getting into an accident and killing someone ...... I don't think that was their "goal" when they made the choice to participate in a risky behavior of having a few drinks. Which is why making choices needs to be more than living in the moment....they need to take into consideration all the probabilities of that choice.
Investing .... the goal is to make a profit....however, unless one is willing to live with the other possibilities of investing, they should not just go ahead and make the choice because their end goal is to make money.
Palin Rider
09-08-2010, 09:06 PM
Not necessarily....people make choices all the time that leads to an end result that had nothing to do with their intended goal. When a drunk chooses to get in a car and drive themselves home and ends up getting into an accident and killing someone ...... I don't think that was their "goal" when they made the choice to participate in a risky behavior of having a few drinks. Which is why making choices needs to be more than living in the moment....they need to take into consideration all the probabilities of that choice.
Investing .... the goal is to make a profit....however, unless one is willing to live with the other possibilities of investing, they should not just go ahead and make the choice because their end goal is to make money.
That's accurate, but it's certainly not the same as saying that when one invests, one "chooses to lose money!"
SassyLady
09-08-2010, 09:12 PM
That's accurate, but it's certainly not the same as saying that when one invests, one "chooses to lose money!"
Choosing to participate in risky endeavors (investing) may lead to losing money....one of the possibilities in making the original choice to invest. No one who invests thinks they are choosing to lose money .... however, it is often a result of the choice to invest.
PR .... everything we do is a choice, whether it is conscious or unconscious and will always have a end result. Perhaps not the one we thought would happen, but most people look at all the possible results of choices they make. Those who don't think about all the possibilities of their choices and create plans for alternate events could end up homeless.
Palin Rider
09-08-2010, 09:15 PM
Choosing to participate in risky endeavors (investing) may lead to losing money....one of the possibilities in making the original choice to invest. No one who invests thinks they are choosing to lose money .... however, it is often a result of the choice to invest.
The point here is that you don't literally choose every possible outcome. Naturally, if you're wise and well-informed, you'll be aware of all the possible outcomes and prepared to respond to any one of them.
PR .... everything we do is a choice, whether it is conscious or unconscious and will always have a end result. Perhaps not the one we thought would happen, but most people look at all the possible results of choices they make. Those who don't think about all the possibilities of their choices and create plans for alternate events could end up homeless.
Of course, among many other bad things. No argument there.
DragonStryk72
09-08-2010, 11:53 PM
I'll answer this as someone who has actually had to face homelessness himself. I was homeless for about a day. I actually posted about it here, but you know why I didn't stay homeless? Because I kept scrambling. I called, texted, and messaged as many people as humanly possible to see who could help. I found a place to crash for a week, not much, just a couch, and some friends of mine from Vermont were willing to move me up there with them temporarily while I got myself a place of my own. I now have one, a job that pays for it, and a full run of furniture. I took a shitty job at Ponderosa Steakhouse, not because I wanted to, but because it was hiring immediately, and so had a job within 2 days of reaching VT.
I also grew up with an alcoholic, my father. He's been in recovery for almost 3 decades now, and it wasn't easy for him, but he got over it.
I completely understand someone who it hits the fan for, and they have no place to stay for a time, but I have no sympathy at all the for the chronically homeless. Those who are too mentally ill to work should be moved somewhere where they can get what treatment they need, and not be left on the streets. As for the addicts, that's their choice.
I love this quote in the article:
"I eat less. I have to get more money," said 29-year-old Nicholas Newhart to The San Francisco Chronicle . He was not happy with the price increase and said, "If I don't have a dollar and I want food, I just end up going to a trash can."
This guy is clearly able to talk, and thus able to work, but is more willing to root through the trashcans than he is to go over to Labor Ready and do some day labor, thus giving him 40-50 bucks to play with, In just two days, that's groceries for a month for one person.
SassyLady
09-09-2010, 12:17 AM
I'll answer this as someone who has actually had to face homelessness himself. I was homeless for about a day. I actually posted about it here, but you know why I didn't stay homeless? Because I kept scrambling. I called, texted, and messaged as many people as humanly possible to see who could help. I found a place to crash for a week, not much, just a couch, and some friends of mine from Vermont were willing to move me up there with them temporarily while I got myself a place of my own. I now have one, a job that pays for it, and a full run of furniture. I took a shitty job at Ponderosa Steakhouse, not because I wanted to, but because it was hiring immediately, and so had a job within 2 days of reaching VT.
I also grew up with an alcoholic, my father. He's been in recovery for almost 3 decades now, and it wasn't easy for him, but he got over it.
I completely understand someone who it hits the fan for, and they have no place to stay for a time, but I have no sympathy at all the for the chronically homeless. Those who are too mentally ill to work should be moved somewhere where they can get what treatment they need, and not be left on the streets. As for the addicts, that's their choice.
I love this quote in the article:
This guy is clearly able to talk, and thus able to work, but is more willing to root through the trashcans than he is to go over to Labor Ready and do some day labor, thus giving him 40-50 bucks to play with, In just two days, that's groceries for a month for one person.
Congrats Dragon ... I knew you would land on your feet! And, with a can do attitude like this I predict you'll be climbing the ladder as far as you want. :2up:
darin
09-09-2010, 05:35 AM
The point here is that you don't literally choose every possible outcome. Naturally, if you're wise and well-informed, you'll be aware of all the possible outcomes and prepared to respond to any one of them.
Of course, among many other bad things. No argument there.
Dude...your pride prevents you from honest debate. You change the meaning of words to save yourself for having to admit you've lost a logical debate; id est, your ideas can be illogical.
Palin Rider
09-09-2010, 03:13 PM
Dude...your pride prevents you from honest debate. You change the meaning of words to save yourself for having to admit you've lost a logical debate; id est, your ideas can be illogical.
Dude, all you keep doing is declaring victory. Nobody cares, least of all me; take it elsewhere.
darin
09-09-2010, 05:58 PM
Dude, all you keep doing is declaring victory. Nobody cares, least of all me; take it elsewhere.
No - me, and others, keep debunking your horrible ideas and arguments based on logical fallacy. If you were mature and open-minded you'd LEARN something. But you're being obtuse for the sake of your ego. It's transparent.
My sister is homeless....she has a P.O. Box ..... so, to answer your question, no one has to prove they have a street address to get a job. And, I've had whole crews using the same address ..... and yet they don't live there ... just using a friends address as a mailing address.
Well, I live about an hour north of SF and we have quite a few homeless. As I said, people want to get off the radar ... avoiding taxes, warrants, not wanting to pay "the man" for anything ... including utilities, etc. They would rather stand on the street corner panhandling and camp in the various campgrounds in their car and then show up in the shelters when the weather gets bad.
Is San Franfreakshow still handing out money to the homeless, it would stand to reason why they have an abundance of homeless.I read another article about how the city council, in their infinite wisdom, were providing alcohol to the drunks, and providing them a place to drink it. It's one of the few cities where a politician like Pelosi, with a 11% congressional approval rating isn't in jeopardy of ever losing her job.
Is San Franfreakshow still handing out money to the homeless, it would stand to reason why they have an abundance of homeless.I read another article about how the city council, in their infinite wisdom, were providing alcohol to the drunks, and providing them a place to drink it. It's one of the few cities where a politician like Pelosi, with a 11% congressional approval rating isn't in jeopardy of ever losing her job.
One thing I saw happen *allot* was homeless people looking through bins for empty cans of coke ect, crushing them and putting them into bags, some had several bags full of cans, I'm assuming they take the cans that would of been in the trash to recycling depos, and get money for that?
DragonStryk72
09-09-2010, 11:32 PM
Congrats Dragon ... I knew you would land on your feet! And, with a can do attitude like this I predict you'll be climbing the ladder as far as you want. :2up:
Well, it was more like skidding on my shoulder and knee, then forcing myself to push myself up with the other two, but thanks. I'm actually up for a job with a couple of the banks in the area, which pays 13 an hour, and goes 50 hours a week, so it's definitely looking up at this point. Now I can just slip into a short coma.
As a point of irony, I actually a good portion of my day in a McDonald's while homeless. The reasons were simple and pragmatic, free drink refills, free wifi, and a couple of open plugs to keep my laptop and phone charged while I worked. It became my command center.
Yes I can. I firmly believe that most people are 100% sure that they can be "casual users" when they first start using. And in fact, some of them can. Then there are those whose brain chemistry turns them into addicts.
It depends on the drug. For pot, sure, but then it's not physically-addicting. For the harder drugs, there is no "casual user", they will build up tolerance, and they will become physically addicted to the drug.
There are addicts in every stage of our society, and as it is taught in AA, they chose their way into addiction, just as they chose to fave sobriety, and chose to keep themselves that way.
SassyLady
09-10-2010, 12:03 AM
Well, it was more like skidding on my shoulder and knee, then forcing myself to push myself up with the other two, but thanks. I'm actually up for a job with a couple of the banks in the area, which pays 13 an hour, and goes 50 hours a week, so it's definitely looking up at this point. Now I can just slip into a short coma.
As a point of irony, I actually a good portion of my day in a McDonald's while homeless. The reasons were simple and pragmatic, free drink refills, free wifi, and a couple of open plugs to keep my laptop and phone charged while I worked. It became my command center.
Wow ... I have used Starbucks....but they don't have the free refills!! I'll have to find a Mac's next time.
DragonStryk72
09-10-2010, 12:39 AM
Wow ... I have used Starbucks....but they don't have the free refills!! I'll have to find a Mac's next time.
Yeah, it helped a lot. Especially since DE was in a heatwave at the time, so waiting outside was gonna be a problem.
Palin Rider
09-10-2010, 12:41 PM
It depends on the drug. For pot, sure, but then it's not physically-addicting. For the harder drugs, there is no "casual user", they will build up tolerance, and they will become physically addicted to the drug.
It happens often, but it's absolutely not inevitable. Many people who start building a tolerance to a drug (any drug) can live with the existing dose, or taper off and stop without much difficulty.
Believe me, casual users of harder drugs exist. One of my friends loves to get coked up at parties where this behavior is allowed. He has a wild time one night, and doesn't touch the stuff again for months at a time. He's been in this pattern for 10 years, never increasing the amount he uses and always holding a well-paying job.
There are addicts in every stage of our society, and as it is taught in AA, they chose their way into addiction, just as they chose to fave sobriety, and chose to keep themselves that way.
So AA is blaming them for being there? No wonder it's had problems.
SassyLady
09-11-2010, 02:50 AM
So AA is blaming them for being there? No wonder it's had problems.
PR - who do you think should be blamed for an alcoholic being an alcoholic? Or a druggie for being a druggie?
If it isn't the individual themself ... who/what is?
Palin Rider
09-11-2010, 01:46 PM
PR - who do you think should be blamed for an alcoholic being an alcoholic? Or a druggie for being a druggie?
If it isn't the individual themself ... who/what is?
It's the individual only when (s)he doesn't want to get help cleaning up. (Or gets repeatedly hooked.) Getting there in the first place is just a function of their brain chemistry - in which case blaming the individual is somewhat like blaming a person for getting Alzheimer's.
red states rule
09-11-2010, 01:47 PM
PR - who do you think should be blamed for an alcoholic being an alcoholic? Or a druggie for being a druggie?
If it isn't the individual themself ... who/what is?
Knowing PR, it would be Bush's fault
DragonStryk72
09-11-2010, 03:38 PM
It's the individual only when (s)he doesn't want to get help cleaning up. (Or gets repeatedly hooked.) Getting there in the first place is just a function of their brain chemistry - in which case blaming the individual is somewhat like blaming a person for getting Alzheimer's.
no it isn't. It's like someone going in every day and getting pills that they know will cause alzheimer's, then bitching when it does.
there are many stages where alcoholics and addicts realize they have a problem, and they choose to ignore those warnings, sinking deeper as they go. They don't get off the hook for being dense.
Abbey Marie
09-11-2010, 03:47 PM
A number of sources, including the Census Bureau, have compiled homeless demographics that approximate this breakdown. If you want to Google and check up on your own, the site that shows up at the top of the list is the National Coalition for the Homeless (nch.org).
Of course there are casual alcohol users and casual users of other drugs, and these are definitely lifestyle choices (which generally don't lead to homelessness).
That said, do you honestly believe that anyone "chooses" to become addicted to a drug? I've never heard of anyone who claimed to want to be addicted to something.
No one would "choose" to contract AIDS either; yet so many still pursue risky AIDS-inducing sex practices. Shrug. Don't put the cart before the horse.
red states rule
09-11-2010, 03:52 PM
http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/110053.jpg
Palin Rider
09-11-2010, 05:22 PM
there are many stages where alcoholics and addicts realize they have a problem, and they choose to ignore those warnings, sinking deeper as they go. They don't get off the hook for being dense.
I stand corrected. If someone is aware of warning signs and knowingly ignores them, that's their fault as well. (Ignorance doesn't count, however.)
red states rule
09-11-2010, 05:25 PM
(Ignorance doesn't count, however.)
What's your excuse?
red states rule
09-11-2010, 05:44 PM
Yes I can. I firmly believe that most people are 100% sure that they can be "casual users" when they first start using. And in fact, some of them can. Then there are those whose brain chemistry turns them into addicts.
http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/110088.gif
DragonStryk72
09-11-2010, 07:27 PM
I stand corrected. If someone is aware of warning signs and knowingly ignores them, that's their fault as well. (Ignorance doesn't count, however.)
You think there's a person left in this country who isn't aware of the dangers drug and alcohol abuse?
SassyLady
09-11-2010, 10:19 PM
It's the individual only when (s)he doesn't want to get help cleaning up. (Or gets repeatedly hooked.) Getting there in the first place is just a function of their brain chemistry - in which case blaming the individual is somewhat like blaming a person for getting Alzheimer's.
PR - if you don't make the decision to put the crap in your body in the first place the "brain chemistry" screwup will never happen....therefore, the individual CHOOSES to take that first step and "experiment" ..... it was their choice to experiment knowing the risks!
Alheimer's is not from something an individual put in their body which caused them to become addicted. It is a progressive degeneration of the brain.
red states rule
09-12-2010, 06:25 AM
PR - if you don't make the decision to put the crap in your body in the first place the "brain chemistry" screwup will never happen....therefore, the individual CHOOSES to take that first step and "experiment" ..... it was their choice to experiment knowing the risks!
Alheimer's is not from something an individual put in their body which caused them to become addicted. It is a progressive degeneration of the brain.
Here in PA, we the taxpayers pay for taxis to take these idiots to the treatment center of their choice - not the closest one avaiable
The drugs must have destroyed their brain because they openly say they are entitled to this perk
The KDKA Investigators have uncovered what is being described as a shocking waste of tax dollars.
Millions of dollars are being spent on taxi fares for recovering addicts to travel to far away clinics. The costs are so high one state senator is pushing for drastic changes in the program.
Under this program, more than 10,000 addicts on methadone therapy in Pennsylvania get free transportation to the methadone clinic of their choice. Rather than go to the closest one, the KDKA Investigators have discovered that some addicts are taking advantage and it's costing taxpayers big time.
At 6:30 a.m. on Highland Avenue in Greensburg, Bradley Rhodes' morning ritual begins. He hops in a cab and hits the highway headed for Uniontown.
Rhodes is a heroin addict staying off the drug by using methadone. Even though there are methadone clinics closer, he chooses to go to one 25 miles away and under state law, taxpayers foot the bill.
Marty Griffin: "You've been taking this cab for several years?"
Rhodes: "You're right."
Griffin: "We've been paying as taxpayers for this cab for you for several years. Is that fair?"
Rhodes: "Why wouldn't it be fair?"
Maybe for him, but what about taxpayers?
It's 50 miles round trip. At $3 per mile in the cab, that's $150 a day for six days a week which costs $900 a week. That's $3,600 per month and more than $43,000 per year.
Sources indicate Rhodes has been making this trip for more than seven years. The total cost to taxpayers for his transportation is at least $300,000.
http://kdka.com/kdkainvestigators/methadone.clinic.travel.2.1712889.html
SassyLady
09-12-2010, 09:59 PM
Here in PA, we the taxpayers pay for taxis to take these idiots to the treatment center of their choice - not the closest one avaiable
The drugs must have destroyed their brain because they openly say they are entitled to this perk
Now...this really PISSES me off!!! No wonder they have to keep raising our taxes....it's stupid CRAP like this....but I guess his brain chemistry got screwed up when he thought he could be a casual user!
:bang3:
Palin Rider
09-13-2010, 04:24 PM
PR - if you don't make the decision to put the crap in your body in the first place the "brain chemistry" screwup will never happen....therefore, the individual CHOOSES to take that first step and "experiment" ..... it was their choice to experiment knowing the risks!
It follows from your statement that nobody should ever choose to experiment with alcohol, lest they suffer from a brain chemistry screwup. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that you don't favor reinstating prohibition.
SassyLady
09-14-2010, 02:07 AM
It follows from your statement that nobody should ever choose to experiment with alcohol, lest they suffer from a brain chemistry screwup. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that you don't favor reinstating prohibition.
Prohibition won't stop people from experimenting.....only a strong will of character will do that.
I think people should have the choice to screw themselves up....I just don't want them depending on me to take care of them after they've screwed themselves.
You seem to want to make excuses for the irresponsible ones and place the burden of taking care of them upon those who are responsible.
Would you be in favor of more governmental regulation be put in place to "protect" those that might have the wrong brain chemistry to experiment with alcohol and drugs?
red states rule
09-14-2010, 03:11 AM
Now...this really PISSES me off!!! No wonder they have to keep raising our taxes....it's stupid CRAP like this....but I guess his brain chemistry got screwed up when he thought he could be a casual user!
:bang3:
The voters here feel the same way. looks like a new conservative Gov and US Senator will be elected in November
The liberal base feel for the most part they are entitled to other peoples money and elected libs are happy to hand it over to them
Like the corner drug dealer, elected Dems get their base hooked on that government handout and in turn have them in the palm of their hand
Palin Rider
09-14-2010, 02:59 PM
Prohibition won't stop people from experimenting.....only a strong will of character will do that.
I think people should have the choice to screw themselves up....I just don't want them depending on me to take care of them after they've screwed themselves.
I think everyone is allowed to screw up once, and only once. We can't expect all people to be perfect throughout their lives, especially not when they're teenagers and young adults. Having to help them back on their feet (once) is a price we pay for living in a society.
You seem to want to make excuses for the irresponsible ones and place the burden of taking care of them upon those who are responsible.
Not as a long-term solution, no.
Would you be in favor of more governmental regulation be put in place to "protect" those that might have the wrong brain chemistry to experiment with alcohol and drugs?
Truth to tell, I wouldn't mind seeing the government legalize (and set purity standards for) pot, coke, heroin, meth, LSD, ecstasy, and everything else - and of course tax the bejesus out of all of them.
:420:
SassyLady
09-15-2010, 01:07 AM
I think everyone is allowed to screw up once, and only once. We can't expect all people to be perfect throughout their lives, especially not when they're teenagers and young adults. Having to help them back on their feet (once) is a price we pay for living in a society.
We can't? Why not? And why not let them learn from, and pay for, their own mistakes instead of expecting society to be their nanny?
Truth to tell, I wouldn't mind seeing the government legalize (and set purity standards for) pot, coke, heroin, meth, LSD, ecstasy, and everything else - and of course tax the bejesus out of all of them.
:420:
Ok ... instead of expecting people to be responsible, you want to make risky behaviors even more accessible and then expect those that are hooked on the drugs to be functional enough to hold down a legitimate job so they can pay the higher prices? Won't happen.....the drug dealers will still provide under the counter drugs at cheaper prices to those willing to trade services.
I am offically done with this thread. :uhoh:
DragonStryk72
09-16-2010, 12:37 AM
It follows from your statement that nobody should ever choose to experiment with alcohol, lest they suffer from a brain chemistry screwup. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that you don't favor reinstating prohibition.
No, we're saying they're still making a choice, and are responsible for what comes out of that choice.
Palin Rider
09-19-2010, 08:13 PM
No, we're saying they're still making a choice, and are responsible for what comes out of that choice.
Whether they're responsible has nothing to do with whether it makes sense for someone else to offer a hand up to help them recover.
DragonStryk72
09-20-2010, 08:28 PM
Whether they're responsible has nothing to do with whether it makes sense for someone else to offer a hand up to help them recover.
Yes it does actually. A person who admits responsibility for their predicament is more able to be helped, is more ready to make the changes needed to fix what's broken in their lives. A person blaming it on the drugs, or other outside sources is not. It's simple common sense, because the person taking responsibility at least knows that they fucked up. A person who does not take responsibility is just going to be right back, and so help is useless.
Palin Rider
09-20-2010, 10:14 PM
Yes it does actually. A person who admits responsibility for their predicament is more able to be helped, is more ready to make the changes needed to fix what's broken in their lives. A person blaming it on the drugs, or other outside sources is not. It's simple common sense, because the person taking responsibility at least knows that they fucked up. A person who does not take responsibility is just going to be right back, and so help is useless.
You're dancing around the point. I was referring to people who admit that they fucked up by getting addicted to drugs. I already said, several posts ago, that those who repeatedly make the same mistake or who refuse help should not be.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.