• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama vows to end homelessness in 10 years

Obama vows to get the winos out of the gutter?

How the hell is he going to do that, fill in the gutters?

Once again, the Messiah is ignoring the real issues and making campaign speeches for issues only fringe groups care about.

The nation doesn't care about the homeless any more.

Actually,the nation as a whole never cared about them, so long as they were moved along out of the neighborhood. It's a free country, if people want to live in the streets, they can, so long as they live in someone else's street.

What the nation cares about today is:

Barry's incompetence in the Gulf Oil Disaster.
Barry's incompetence in the economy overall.
Barry's incompetence in reigning in government debt.
Barry's incompetence in ending the Invasion of the US by Mexico and Latin America.
Barry's incompetence in the War on Terror.
Barry's incompetence in everything else.
Barry's racism.
Barry's socialism.
 
Middleground said:
So what do you suggest we do as a society?
Click to expand...

Encourage the few who care to contribute (contribute: a voluntary act of giving, not a governmental taxation/redistribution scheme) their own private money to help the needy.

That's what we should do as a society.

Then we can, as a society, begin to elminate the oppressive taxation and regulation that so overburdens the economy that the growth of the private sector is stunted to almost zero. Amazing how it works.....people with money to invest have to hire others to do the work, and those others who are hired turn around and spend the money to help the economy grow. But only when their money isn't stolen by oppressive taxation.
 
Goshin said:
Sorry, but that is a poor example. The simplest and most direct interpretation of the verses relating to homosexuality is that it is a sin. To "interpret" otherwise requires intellectual contortions of a most extreme nature.

Point not proven. At any rate, the point under discussion was the willful or negligent misrepresentation of scripture for the purpose of advancing one's agenda, as demonstrated by the poster above.

The comment you made was so broad and generalized ("all denominations") that it is actually unproveable in the literal sense... had a comment that broad and general been made about some other class of people...say an ethnic group... it might have been construed as prejudice or outright racism. Practically any statement that broad ought to begin with the words "In my own unsupported and unproveable opinion..." :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

First off, upon reading my original post, I now realize that I probably did not choose the proper wording. Misquote should be replace with interpretation. When it comes to the Bible, different Christian faiths interpret certain verses differently. I disagree that my example of homosexuality is a poor example. While your faith makes it crystal clear that it's a sin, some others don't.

The same could be said for the Koran, or even anything that is posted here at DP. A sole article with the same information can induce many different interpretations. It happens all of the time.
 
11 trillion bucks and 30 years couldn't do anything. What the hell is Buckey going to do?
 
Middleground said:
First off, upon reading my original post, I now realize that I probably did not choose the proper wording. Misquote should be replace with interpretation. When it comes to the Bible, different Christian faiths interpret certain verses differently. I disagree that my example of homosexuality is a poor example. While your faith makes it crystal clear that it's a sin, some others don't.

The same could be said for the Koran, or even anything that is posted here at DP. A sole article with the same information can induce many different interpretations. It happens all of the time.
Click to expand...


Okay. Interpretation and misrepresentation are two very different things: one is an honest difference of opinion, the other is a form of willfull deceit.
 
Since when is it -my-- responsibility to provide a roof over the heads that do not have one?
 
Goobieman said:
Since when is it -my-- responsibility to provide a roof over the heads that do not have one?
Click to expand...

Since you like living in the U.S.A.? Well that comes with it-we try to help each other out here.
 
It is not his responsibility, even though he ends up paying for some of the services which are provided.
 
Fiddytree said:
It is not his responsibility, even though he ends up paying for some of the services which are provided.
Click to expand...

Where does the responsibility lie on this issue? And please do not say on the people that are homeless.
 
People can help, churches can help, nonprofits can help, government can even do a tiny portion, but how exactly can I say that the homeless should not take primary responsibility? These avenues can not help everyone, and perhaps not even enough for them to not need to make any effort. If there is one thing in life that is true: you have to help yourself. You cannot depend on people, because even if we ignore that it is degrading, eroding of personal worth and so on, the person can get burned by trying to depend on others.

Your ideals are dream-like, not reality-based.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Look, I am not a cold-hearted person, and I know that homelessness is a problem. But I have problems of my own. So, to the Obama administration, I say this - Not on MY dime.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

We can end homelessness right now, allow people to homestead land which is not and has never been used by the Federal and state governments, but of course they don't really want to end homelessness not if it would entail ending property taxes, ending building permit and licensing requirements, and giving up the land that they have absolutely no rightful claim over. So rather than increase liberty and actually solve a problem for once they will instead decrease liberty and increase their own authority to steal the capital created through the labour of the individual and never actually solve the problem.

Such is the way of the world.
 
Last edited:
Kali said:
Since you like living in the U.S.A.? Well that comes with it-we try to help each other out here.
Click to expand...

Because I like living in the United States, I took the time to read the Constitution.

Gee, that doesn't say a single damned thing about me being responsible to provide some bum with a roof.

If you care about them, use your own money.
 
Kali said:
Where does the responsibility lie on this issue? And please do not say on the people that are homeless.
Click to expand...

The responsibility for putting a roof over a bum's head, lies with the bum.

If someone else WANTS to help the bum, that's his choice in a free country. But don't try to impose your misconception that the housing of complete strangers is the responsibility of the US taxpayer, cuz it ain't.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Because I like living in the United States, I took the time to read the Constitution.

Gee, that doesn't say a single damned thing about me being responsible to provide some bum with a roof.

If you care about them, use your own money.
Click to expand...

Excatly. Let 'em starve to death if they cannot afford to feed themselves.

The United States will continue being the country that it is. OR will it?
 
Last edited:
Middleground said:
Excatly. Let 'em starve to death if they cannot afford to feed themselves.
Click to expand...

No let them grow food on land which is not and has never been used and is illegitimately claimed by the Federal and State governments. Original appropriation can only be obtained through the investment of labour.

The United States will continue being the country that it is. OR will it?
Click to expand...


“Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property." John Locke 2nd Treatise of Government
 
Last edited:
Agent Ferris said:
No let them grow food on land which is not and has never been used and is illegitimately claimed by the Federal and State governments. Original appropriation can only be obtained through the investment of labour.




“Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property." John Locke 2nd Treatise of Government
Click to expand...

So your answer is to let them grow gardens wherever they please. M'kay.
 
Middleground said:
So your answer is to let them grow gardens wherever they please. M'kay.
Click to expand...

No my answer is to allow them to acquire original appropriation of property through the investment of labour into land with no legitimate owner. I mean we wouldn't want to take a play from the book which inspired the Declaration of Independence, increase liberty, and actually solve the problem, rather we should increase state authority to engage in theft and redistribution of capital thereby decreasing liberty and not solve the problem anyways. In that way we can insure that "[t]he United States will continue being the country that it is," and not the country which it could be.

Of course this is unacceptable to statists as it would entail actually giving people a chance to become self reliant which could threaten to end their dependency on state masters for their daily subsistence.
 
Last edited:
BCR said:
Hang on, sorry but I have to point out some hypocrisy here. I'm not following the whole republican backlash. They don't support Gay marriage or abortion because it conflicts with what is taught in the Holy Bible but somebody proposes a plan on a problem Jesus spent much of his life teaching about. Helping the poor and homeless, so why do you guys throw the Bible out in this instance?

Sure it will cost money but Jesus said if you truly want to go to heaven give away all your belongings and live as a poor man.
Click to expand...

Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Matthew 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
Click to expand...

Confused yet?
 
Kali said:
Since you like living in the U.S.A.?
Click to expand...
Show how living in the USA makes it my responsibility to provide other people the means to exercise their rights.
 
Kali said:
Where does the responsibility lie on this issue?
Click to expand...
If you want to exercise a right, it is up to -you- to provide the means to do so.
 
Agent Ferris said:
No let them grow food on land which is not and has never been used and is illegitimately claimed by the Federal and State governments.
Click to expand...

I'm curious. What "lands" are you talking about, exactly?
 
Kali said:
Since you like living in the U.S.A.? Well that comes with it-we try to help each other out here.
Click to expand...

Yes we do, but not through government coersion.
 
Middleground said:
Excatly. Let 'em starve to death if they cannot afford to feed themselves.

The United States will continue being the country that it is. OR will it?
Click to expand...

What would have happened to "bums" in 1780? In 1880? The answer is it always WAS that way. The question isn't will the country continue to be what it is, the question is, what is this country turning into where we are taxed to be our brothers keeper. I see freedom cutting both ways - it allows you to be all you want to or aspire to be, and it will also allow you to be the lowest and least you want to be as well.
 
#1 Buy up all the wine and drugs in the world #2 Invent a time machine and change the way their patrents raised them. #3 Make them all A students #4 Make them give a ****. #5 Make them good concerned, loyal citizens #6 Give them all poison and force them to eat it. What's next Obammy, eliminate all worrying!!??
 
Glinda said:
I'm curious. What "lands" are you talking about, exactly?
Click to expand...

Any and all Federal and State lands which they have not used and are not using (I would add "all Federal and State lands period" but that's another discussion for another time), most if not all land currently "owned" by the Federal and State governments was acquired illegitimately, the only way for property to be originally appropriated is to mix ones labour with the land, first come first serve, but rather the Federal and State governments simply declared the land to be theirs. This is what we call the homestead principle.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom