T1B

Rack the sick bastard for giving people hot soup when it's 114 degrees out.


I think I'll go and bring them a big spicy pot of hot chili.

So the only people who get to eat are those who have enough money?

Uhm, not to put too fine a point on it, but yes! Just like the only people with Homes are those with money. The only people with Cars, aer those with money.

Where do they grow these tards?

JCT wrote:I think I'll go and bring them a big spicy pot of hot chili.

When the "übersoccermom" running my son's soccer camp asked my wife and I to volunteer to bring snack on one night, we offered to bring spicy chili. She took the hint and left us alone. I was all set to suggest other ideas, like: omelette bar, chowder, beef stew...all good snacks for kids who just spent 1.5 hours running around in 80° heat...

Seems a bit harsh, huh?

Not really. Public parks that become havens for the homeless cease to be useable by the general public. It happened in Santa Barbara ca, A city that also counts on tourists dollars for survival. The homeless people pissed, shit and dumped trash everywhere in this one park near the beach, 25% of the people camped out there were certifiably nuts, all of them were several weeks or months overdue for a bath, and thus the park became a no mans land for the average family who wanted to relax in the shade or whatever and enjoy what the taxpayer hath wrought.

The city took action and smartly made some no sleeping, no alcohol, no food distribution without a license ordinances on any city property, and that ended that.

Shelters and soup kitchens out front should have told them. From what I saw, most of the homeless in that group ( a bunch of them were interviewed when it happened) seemed perfectly capable of working to me. All four limbs intact, not too old, just lacking a set of clean, cheap goodwill clothes and some directions on standing a little closer to the shower head.

It's going to be about 110 tomorrow, cooling down a bit. I'll bring out some hot chocolate.

How many "residents" are in the parks in Vegas at noon in July?

Mister Bushice wrote:Not really. Public parks that become havens for the homeless cease to be useable by the general public. It happened in Santa Barbara ca, A city that also counts on tourists dollars for survival. The homeless people pissed, shit and dumped trash everywhere in this one park near the beach, 25% of the people camped out there were certifiably nuts, all of them were several weeks or months overdue for a bath, and thus the park became a no mans land for the average family who wanted to relax in the shade or whatever and enjoy what the taxpayer hath wrought.

Ding!

Huntridge park usually has about 30 people camped out and sleeping in it and everyday this dizzy broad is feeding everyone in it like they're pigeons.

Would you want any of those organs, serviceable or not?

Possibly, if you were to have some fava beans and a nice chianti to go with.

Headhunter wrote:

So the only people who get to eat are those who have enough money?

Uhm, not to put too fine a point on it, but yes! Just like the only people with Homes are those with money. The only people with Cars, aer those with money.

Where do they grow these tards?

Your point was too fine. The lawyer was challenging the ruling by the city that it is now illegal to have a picnic in a city park and give food away to people "whom a reasonable ordinary person would believe to be entitled to apply for or receive assistance". That was the very narrow context in which he was speaking.

That being said, I don't have a problem with what Vegas is doing. The only governmental effort should be identifying those homeless people with legitimate mental handicaps and getting them the appropriate care. The rest can go get a shower and a job. And stop harassing people to support their addictions.

BSmack wrote:The rest can go get a shower and a job. And stop harassing people to support their addictions.

Okay, who stole BSmack's password again...

BSmack wrote:addictions.

Glad you brought that up. Let me see if I've got this straight:

In Las Vegas, it is now illegal to give food to a person who reasonably appears to be "indigent." The only thing those people can do with that food, presumably, is to eat it.

OTOH, it remains perfectly legal to continue to provide them with cash, which, if enough is collected, most certainly could be used to continue to feed (pun not intended) the aforementioned addictions.

My wife's brother has a substance abuse problem. Sometimes I have him help me out with things around the house. I won't give him any money, but I'll let him take whatever food is in the house that he wants.

Seems that whoever came up with this idea didn't think it through as best he/she could.

We had a massive thunderstorm rip through on Monday. 60 mph winds, flooding etc. I think they should be chain ganged and out cleaning up the debris.

Everyone loves to rip Reagan for that because he was the one who flipped the switch, but it's been damn near 30 years since he did that and no Prez, Republican or Democrat, has even so much as lifted a pinky to reverse that policy.

In Las Vegas, it is now illegal to give food to a person who reasonably appears to be "indigent." The only thing those people can do with that food, presumably, is to eat it.

This came out of some woman who has been going to one park everyday and setting up a buffet for the bums and turned the city park into a squatter camp.

JCT wrote:

In Las Vegas, it is now illegal to give food to a person who reasonably appears to be "indigent." The only thing those people can do with that food, presumably, is to eat it.

This came out of some woman who has been going to one park everyday and setting up a buffet for the bums and turned the city park into a squatter camp.

I can understand the reasoning behind that. But consider this hypothetical:

I decide to take a break from work and I'm walking through the park for awhile. A homeless person approaches and asks me for money. Instead of giving him money, I decide to give him the sandwich that's in my lunchbox, and buy my own lunch.

As I understand it, by doing that I've technically violated the ordinance, although it was probably a better thing to give that person a sandwich than to give him a dollar. Maybe the ordinance could/should have been drafted a bit more narrowly.

OCmike wrote:

BSmack wrote:The rest can go get a shower and a job. And stop harassing people to support their addictions.

Okay, who stole BSmack's password again...

I've spent too much time on the streets of Rochester to buy into the argument that the homeless are just "down on their luck". There are certainly those who are not mentally competent. Those people should be helped. The rest are out there to live off the work of others and to feed their own habits.

They can take advantage of the ample services that already exist for welfare, housing, education and clothing. There is absolutely no need for impromptu "soup kitchens" in public parks.

mvscal wrote:

Any other potential uses for the homeless?

Should the homeless be fed?

Fed to what?

:twisted:

(Okay, honestly, I didn't set that up...)

Rich Fader wrote:Should the homeless be fed?

Fed to what?

:twisted:

Not the alligators.


Signed,

Florida

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,640195100,00.html

Replace illegal immigrants with our own homeless. Seems to me like that solves two problems. We get rid of the sponging immigrants and our homeless have jobs......

Neely8 wrote:Replace illegal immigrants with our own homeless. Seems to me like that solves two problems. We get rid of the sponging immigrants and our homeless have jobs......

I think you may be on to something here, but you've got it backwards.

Send the homeless to Mexico and keep the illegal immigrants. Make it a 1-for-1 trade. At least most of them are willing to work.

The homeless don't need handouts.

They need AK-47's. Then you'll see a class war. Martyred style.

Mikey wrote:

Neely8 wrote:Replace illegal immigrants with our own homeless. Seems to me like that solves two problems. We get rid of the sponging immigrants and our homeless have jobs......

I think you may be on to something here, but you've got it backwards.

Send the homeless to Mexico and keep the illegal immigrants. Make it a 1-for-1 trade. At least most of them are willing to work.

Perfect.

Martyred wrote:The homeless don't need handouts.

They need AK-47's. Then you'll see a class war. Martyred style.

So....they'll shoot themselves in the foot? Repeatedly?

I believe communities and/or states should be allowed to pass ordinances against such things as they see fit, assuming the policies are consistant with the US Constitution.

I'm kinda conservative like that.


But, I have a suggestion for Vegas in dealing with their homeless population --

Put them on a bus and send them to Portland. Here, rather than a menace or blight, we treat homeless people...novel concept here...

We treat them like human beings, and give them a bite to eat, and do our best to find them a place to sleep, give them medical treatment if neccessary, and do what we can to get them working and productive again and supporting themselves. That whole "teach a man to fish" thing.


Matter of fact, I know two different people(who don't know each other) who established charity organizations to do just that.

Because THAT is how human beings are supposed to treat other human beings.

And that is how we roll. And if you assholes can't get something that simple done, send them our way, and we'll try and succeed where you have failed. We welcome them as guests, not dread them as enemies. We value the company of people from ALL walks of life, not just those who avoided major catastrophy in their life.

Anyone who is capable of watching another human being starve to death is a certfiable piece of shit.


On the other side of the coin, feeding transients/homeless in the parks is very strongly discouraged. Ideally, we try to get them to the shelters and whatnot, where they can be helped better, and they don't mess with the yuppies and tourons.


If I've got food on the table, nobody around me is going hungry. Matter of fact, I'm sure I'll spend time this winter making sure nobody is starving or freezing to death on the streets of downtown. Which will cost me very little, and the reward will be priceless.


Call me crazy like that.


Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:Would you want any of those organs, serviceable or not?

Sure. Just wash em off. They'll be fine.

I'm just trying find ways society can make use of the homeless. Stop being part of the problem. Let's focus on solutions, OK?

I don't want no rummys internal organs in any of my family members.

put em to work cleaning graffiti, picking up trash along the road ways, etc. Make em earn the handouts they're getting, plus along the way they are developing valuable work habits.

The world will always need ditch diggers.

Martyred wrote:The homeless don't need handouts.

They need AK-47's. Then you'll see a class war. Martyred style.

Not a fucking chance. The American homeless are far too lazy in that regard. Let me know when they start voting and you might have a chance then.

Believe the Heupel wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Believe the Heupel wrote:but hey, you can never have too much armor on them.

Sure you can.

OK, fine. At what point does the marginal return of homeless person armoring get overcome by the marginal weight gain of an additional layer of homeless person?

(Christ, man, we're talking about armoring military vehicles with homeless people. I thought it could be safely assumed that we're being a little goofy. I'm aware that too much armor can destroy the functional ability of a vehicle.)

Forgive mv. The shrapnel fragment is digging into his temporal lobe agian, causing spasmodic internet outbursts.

Damn war wounds....

Believe the Heupel wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Believe the Heupel wrote:but hey, you can never have too much armor on them.

Sure you can.

OK, fine. At what point does the marginal return of homeless person armoring get overcome by the marginal weight gain of an additional layer of homeless person?

African, or European?

Give 'em jobs at Intel. They're seriously expanding here in the U&L.

Sin
Dins

BSmack wrote:The American homeless are far too lazy in that regard. Let me know when they start voting and you might have a chance then.

Damned straight. American homeless may have some true unfortunates who happened to hit a bad patch (and are thus deserving of locally-given help), but overall, American homeless folks are lazy, crazy, or drug-addled folk that would never have the mental aptitude or motivation to do anything as energy-using as class warfare.

The problem is that the phrase "working together" has those damned letters w-o-r-k in it...

JCT wrote:Huntridge park

We should get a crew out there to prune the trees.

Mikey wrote:They're seriously expanding here in the U&L.

Sin
Dins

Dude who played the "reading comprehension" card didn't notice where I said there was massive layoffs of management planned?

:shocker:


Then again...we could also feed them a lot, to fatten them up, and render their newfound fat into biodeisel.

Or, find them housing and a job...either/or.

Homeless people could get management jobs at Intel if they weren't currently laying people off.

Sin,
Dinsy

How 'bout some Soylent Green?


Mmmmm....mmmm!
GOOD CRACKA!

Dinsdale wrote:

Mikey wrote:They're seriously expanding here in the U&L.

Sin
Dins

Dude who played the "reading comprehension" card didn't notice where I said there was massive layoffs of management planned?

:shocker:


Then again...we could also feed them a lot, to fatten them up, and render their newfound fat into biodeisel.

Or, find them housing and a job...either/or.

I wasn't suggesting they be given management jobs.
Reading comprehension much?

Besides, I would think that most of them wouldn't start out at anything higher than Research Scientist, or something equivalent.


Damn you Jimmah. Beat me to it.

Dinsdale wrote:I believe communities and/or states should be allowed to pass ordinances against such things as they see fit, assuming the policies are consistant with the US Constitution.

I'm kinda conservative like that.


But, I have a suggestion for Vegas in dealing with their homeless population --

Put them on a bus and send them to Portland. Here, rather than a menace or blight, we treat homeless people...novel concept here...

We treat them like human beings, and give them a bite to eat, and do our best to find them a place to sleep, give them medical treatment if neccessary, and do what we can to get them working and productive again and supporting themselves. That whole "teach a man to fish" thing.


Matter of fact, I know two different people(who don't know each other) who established charity organizations to do just that.

Because THAT is how human beings are supposed to treat other human beings.

And that is how we roll. And if you assholes can't get something that simple done, send them our way, and we'll try and succeed where you have failed. We welcome them as guests, not dread them as enemies. We value the company of people from ALL walks of life, not just those who avoided major catastrophy in their life.

Anyone who is capable of watching another human being starve to death is a certfiable piece of shit.

On the other side of the coin, feeding transients/homeless in the parks is very strongly discouraged. Ideally, we try to get them to the shelters and whatnot, where they can be helped better, and they don't mess with the yuppies and tourons.

If I've got food on the table, nobody around me is going hungry. Matter of fact, I'm sure I'll spend time this winter making sure nobody is starving or freezing to death on the streets of downtown. Which will cost me very little, and the reward will be priceless.

Call me crazy like that.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

In your spare time do you walk on water?

BSmack wrote:
In your spare time do you walk on water?

The water in the U&L is so full of King...errr....chinook salmon you can literally walk on it, even if you're not Jesusdale.

How 'bout we superglue strings to their hands and feet, glue the other ends to sticks and force them to work as marionettes for disadvantaged kids or prison inmates?