Originally posted by: Boilerman
Here is the solution. Privaten businesses decide who is squatting and who is a paying customer. How radical.
Thats whats already in place. Private business, Starbucks, chose to let squatters in. Then they got upset about the unsafe environment it caused.
Regardless, that doesnt the solve the homeless problem, does it? Do you have a solution?
Originally posted by: PJ Stroh
I explained my solution in English...and you responded in English. I fail to understand the confusion.
I wont repeat what I already wrote.
And I posed the question - what is your solution? DO you have one, David? Please share or confess you dont have any constructive commentary on the subject you put fourth.
Oh - just as an alternate....the Phillipenes have put forward thier own solution to this probem too. They send out police death squads to exterminate homeless people and drug users in their cities. I dont support that solution. But thats also amongst world countries that have solved this problem.
Here is the solution. Private businesses get to decide who is a squater. They are allowed to kick non paying people out.
How difficult is that.
Originally posted by: PJ Stroh
I explained my solution in English...and you responded in English. I fail to understand the confusion.
I wont repeat what I already wrote.
And I posed the question - what is your solution? DO you have one, David? Please share or confess you dont have any constructive commentary on the subject you put fourth.
Oh - just as an alternate....the Phillipenes have put forward thier own solution to this probem too. They send out police death squads to exterminate homeless people and drug users in their cities. I dont support that solution. But thats also amongst world countries that have solved this problem.
Did I ask you to repeat what you wrote? I asked you some questions and you responded by saying I criticized you. When asked to show where I criticized you, you chose not to address my questions or show the criticism you said I made. Shifting the "solution" to me is typical of a liberal. You started the finger pointing criticizing how it was Starbucks fault for how they handled the situation. You have no problem bitching and moaning about a problem, but like all complaining liberals you never offer your solution. You don't have one because that is not what you are interested in - you only want to express outrage, stirring people up, without offering up your solution. You liberals do this all the time with every "issue", real or imagined, just to keep things stirred up. Until you can offer up a "solution" I suggest you refrain from pointing fingers and bemoaning efforts that others try. So, give us YOUR solution(s) - everyone is waiting....
Originally posted by: David Miller
Did I ask you to repeat what you wrote? I asked you some questions and you responded by saying I criticized you. When asked to show where I criticized you, you chose not to address my questions or show the criticism you said I made. Shifting the "solution" to me is typical of a liberal. You started the finger pointing criticizing how it was Starbucks fault for how they handled the situation. You have no problem bitching and moaning about a problem, but like all complaining liberals you never offer your solution. You don't have one because that is not what you are interested in - you only want to express outrage, stirring people up, without offering up your solution. You liberals do this all the time with every "issue", real or imagined, just to keep things stirred up. Until you can offer up a "solution" I suggest you refrain from pointing fingers and bemoaning efforts that others try. So, give us YOUR solution(s) - everyone is waiting....
OK..sorry..I renounce my earlier comment. I WILL REPOST because David MIller doesnt seem to understand anything. Actually, he does, I just busted him for not having his own solution which is why he's stomping his feet now.
Hereit is - my reposted solution that David MIller cant understand because I didnt type it slow enough: I highlighted the important part in RED for the reading impaired. Then David can respond with some upset commentary without giving his own solution because....well...its David. Watch.
.
.
"Yeah, there's answers but you probably wont like them. You can look to other industrialized nations.
If you've been to Europe (you know, those awful Socialist countries) they have taxpayer funding which provides homeless people with shelter, mental counselling, and drug rehab. That makes taxes higher. But it also makes the "tent cities" like you see in US cities disappear. Thats why you dont see them in London, Paris, Berlin, etc...
If you dont want your tax dollars to address this issue then you cant complain about the bum sleeping in your neighborhood park. Unfortunately, thats the standard here. In Indianapolis we have some funding to put homeless people in low income apartments. But its not funded well....they cant afford to get the garbage picked up. They just did a news story how the dumpsters at that complex are overrun with trash and rats.
So you get what you pay for. Thinking you can solve it by not investing in a solution doesnt seem to work very well. "
Originally posted by: PJ Stroh
OK..sorry..I renounce my earlier comment. I WILL REPOST because David MIller doesnt seem to understand anything. Actually, he does, I just busted him for not having his own solution which is why he's stomping his feet now.
Hereit is - my reposted solution that David MIller cant understand because I didnt type it slow enough: I highlighted the important part in RED for the reading impaired. Then David can respond with some upset commentary without giving his own solution because....well...its David. Watch.
.
.
"Yeah, there's answers but you probably wont like them. You can look to other industrialized nations.
If you've been to Europe (you know, those awful Socialist countries) they have taxpayer funding which provides homeless people with shelter, mental counselling, and drug rehab. That makes taxes higher. But it also makes the "tent cities" like you see in US cities disappear. Thats why you dont see them in London, Paris, Berlin, etc...
If you dont want your tax dollars to address this issue then you cant complain about the bum sleeping in your neighborhood park. Unfortunately, thats the standard here. In Indianapolis we have some funding to put homeless people in low income apartments. But its not funded well....they cant afford to get the garbage picked up. They just did a news story how the dumpsters at that complex are overrun with trash and rats.
So you get what you pay for. Thinking you can solve it by not investing in a solution doesnt seem to work very well. "
Same stupid shit- you offered NO solution , only posted what is done in Europe. In case you havn't noticed, America is not Europe. Secondly you think that it is up to tax payers to fund whatever solution(s) could be made. Typical liberal - spending other hard working, tax payers money- that is not a solution, it is just shifting the burden onto tax payers to rectify the mismanagement of DemocRatic rule. In case you havn't noticed --Here are the 2 states with the most homeless people: California (161,548) New York (91,271)
I said this: "Then David can respond with some upset commentary without giving his own solution because....well...its David. Watch."
And David Miller responded with his last post. Thanks for stopping by !
Originally posted by: PJ Stroh
I said this: "Then David can respond with some upset commentary without giving his own solution because....well...its David. Watch."
And David Miller responded with his last post. Thanks for stopping by !
That's right, shift, your horseshit to me because you refuse to offer any solutions to a problen you chose to bitch about. Typical liberal...
Here's another fun fact.....if you support the government forcing women to bring crack babies, and birth defct babies to fruition (the overwhelming majority of which will not grow up to be functioning members of society) then you advocate adding people to the homeless population.
Food for thought for constipated David.
Originally posted by: PJ Stroh
Here's another fun fact.....if you support the government forcing women to bring crack babies, and birth defct babies to fruition (the overwhelming majority of which will not grow up to be functioning members of society) then you advocate adding people to the homeless population.
Food for thought for constipated David.
What does this have to do with your handling of the homeless? Diverting the subject does not change the subject.
Originally posted by: PJ Stroh
Here's another fun fact.....if you support the government forcing women to bring crack babies, and birth defct babies to fruition (the overwhelming majority of which will not grow up to be functioning members of society) then you advocate adding people to the homeless population.
Food for thought for constipated David.
I suggest that we stop subsidizing crack whores to have babies.
