• 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!

As San Fran Streets Fill with Human Waste, Grocery Store Aisle Turns Into Toilet

americanwoman said:
"once-pristine aisles of grocery stores." :lol:

Okay, that's pushing it but I get the point.

Yes, it's nasty but personally if I see someone ****ting on the floor, the last thing I'd do is stick around and take a picture. Imagine showing a picture to a someone and they swipe over to some random taking a ****.
Click to expand...

Clean up, aisle poo, I mean two!
 
Court Jester said:
Says the person with an avatar of Trump and Putin kissing. Talk about not funny!
Click to expand...
I wasn't trying to be funny. You are trying, but failing, besides, this is a debate forum....try debating sometime.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I wasn't trying to be funny. You are trying, but failing, besides, this is a debate forum....try debating sometime.
Click to expand...

Then what are you trying to be with an avatar of Putin and Trump kissing? Neither of these men are homosexual (gay), so why would you have something like that? It is disrespectful to them and to homosexual (gay) men who are that. Do you believe that straight men just suddenly start kissing other straight men and are sexually attracted to each other?

You claim you aren't trying to be funny, but I can think of nothing more sophomoric and lame than playing games with sexual orientation like you do. But I'm not surprised by this, you call your self a "liberal" an ideology deep into "do as I say, not as I do"---- a failed ability at critical thinking---- zero accountability.

Sophomoric, a good term for it.
 
Court Jester said:
Then what are you trying to be with an avatar of Putin and Trump kissing.
Click to expand...
Reminder, this is not a thread about my avatar, my username, my sigs, or your lousy attempts at "humor". It was about SF/Homelessness. So here is an idea, cut the crappy one-liners and debate the topic
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Reminder, this is not a thread about my avatar, my username, my sigs, or your lousy attempts at "humor". It was about SF/Homelessness. So here is an idea, cut the crappy one-liners and debate the topic
Click to expand...

These people in SF defecating on the streets are NOT "homeless" --- they are drug addicts and mentally ill people. Even if you gave them a home to live in, they wouldn't keep it very long, it would either be hawked for drugs, or become so uninhabitable that it would be condemned.

"Homeless" people are people who's homes burn down or are destroyed in a flood. Even people who's homes are foreclosed on then go on to find other shelter and don't end up on the streets shooting up drugs and defecating in the parks. You want to debate this issue then first there needs to be an understanding of the terms. This situation in SF, LA, Seattle and other places is created by liberal policies.
 
Court Jester said:
These people in SF defecating on the streets are NOT "homeless" --- they are drug addicts and mentally ill people. Even if you gave them a home to live in, they wouldn't keep it very long, it would either be hawked for drugs, or become so uninhabitable that it would be condemned.

"Homeless" people are people who's homes burn down or are destroyed in a flood. Even people who's homes are foreclosed on then go on to find other shelter and don't end up on the streets shooting up drugs and defecating in the parks. You want to debate this issue then first there needs to be an understanding of the terms. This situation in SF, LA, Seattle and other places is created by liberal policies.
Click to expand...

The vast majority are drunks, not heroin addicts.
 
I'm not seeing a problem. He's got the Charmin pack open. It will get cleaned up; Ft. Lauderdale, not so much. But, a supposedly homeless guy with a really nice pair of shoes might be trying to write his own meme.

Because Safeway doesn't have any public restrooms.
 
Michael Cole said:
The vast majority are drunks, not heroin addicts.
Click to expand...

Drunks and heroin addicts are BOTH addicts. But don't downplay the exponential growth of how cheap opiods have thrown fuel on the problem of street people and addiction.

There have always been skid row areas in big cities where transient workers and alcoholics have tended to congregate. But due to liberal policies, and liberal courts, cities and law enforcement are not longer able to prevent or deal with the exponential growth of these addicts. Used to be you would see people sleeping in doorways or on the ground in these skid row areas, but allowing them to erect tents and shelters only serves to legitimize their presence there and encourage MORE addict to congregate. LIBERAL POLICIES masked as concern for the poor "homeless" people who are victims of society.

The inability to say NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT HERE is the bottom line. After that, criminals need to be put in prisons, and crazy people need to be FORCED into hospitals. Nobody should have the right to squat on public owned land this way. Just on the basis of public health, these people should be incarcerated, hospitalized, or made to move along.
 
Glitch said:
Now you know why they are referred to Democrat-controlled sh*thole States, and California is by no means alone.
Click to expand...

Isn't it amazing how we have so many liberals who live in bubbles that they really have no understanding of what is going on in liberal states and cities around the country as they easily buy the rhetoric being fed them by radicals. California is the bluest state in the nation and a fiscal and moral disaster and yet they want Californians to elect the President because of their population and indoctrination. This country is headed for a fiscal disaster in that the more dependent people the left creates the more likely is they will run out of other people's money to spend on their social engineering. You don't "bite the hand that feeds you" is the liberal mantra today
 
Court Jester said:
Drunks and heroin addicts are BOTH addicts. But don't downplay the exponential growth of how cheap opiods have thrown fuel on the problem of street people and addiction.

There have always been skid row areas in big cities where transient workers and alcoholics have tended to congregate. But due to liberal policies, and liberal courts, cities and law enforcement are not longer able to prevent or deal with the exponential growth of these addicts. Used to be you would see people sleeping in doorways or on the ground in these skid row areas, but allowing them to erect tents and shelters only serves to legitimize their presence there and encourage MORE addict to congregate. LIBERAL POLICIES masked as concern for the poor "homeless" people who are victims of society.

The inability to say NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT HERE is the bottom line. After that, criminals need to be put in prisons, and crazy people need to be FORCED into hospitals. Nobody should have the right to squat on public owned land this way. Just on the basis of public health, these people should be incarcerated, hospitalized, or made to move along.
Click to expand...

I dunno. I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure incarceration/institutionalization is the answer. All that does is make everything look pretty. Doesn't address the problem.
 
Court Jester said:
These people in SF defecating on the streets are NOT "homeless" --- they are drug addicts and mentally ill people.
Click to expand...
and some are alcoholics, bankrupt, physically handicapped...... that is NOT A POINT, it is an attempt to change a definition, a semantic exercise. If they are "living on the street", they are homeless. What their physical or mental condition is does not change that description.

Even if you gave them a home to live in, they wouldn't keep it very long, it would either be hawked for drugs, or become so uninhabitable that it would be condemned.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but then I was not arguing "give them a home", not only is this a non-sequitur, it undercuts your argument about NOT calling them "homeless".


"Homeless" people are people who's homes burn down or are destroyed in a flood.
Click to expand...
No, this is a totally incorrect definition, I don't know where you learned it, but it is wrong. They could be referred to as "natural disaster victims" (in the context of CA fires and flooding).



Even people who's homes are foreclosed on then go on to find other shelter and don't end up on the streets shooting up drugs and defecating in the parks.
Click to expand...
Thats not totally true either, after the Great Recession many former homeowners ended up living on the street, in shanty camps, it was well documented.

You want to debate this issue then first there needs to be an understanding of the terms.
Click to expand...
Obviously you have no grasp of the terms, the situations, the causes or solutions.

This situation in SF, LA, Seattle and other places is created by liberal policies.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is what your side keeps repeating, but you just can't seem to create an argument proving it.
 
Michael Cole said:
I dunno. I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure incarceration/institutionalization is the answer. All that does is make everything look pretty. Doesn't address the problem.
Click to expand...

Not every problem can be cured. Meanwhile "pretty" is better than ugly is it not? Even a dog won't live in it's own feces. Why should the rest of us live in other people's feces?
 
Conservative said:
Isn't it amazing how we have so many liberals who live in bubbles that they really have no understanding of what is going on in liberal states and cities around the country as they easily buy the rhetoric being fed them by radicals. California is the bluest state in the nation and a fiscal and moral disaster and yet they want Californians to elect the President because of their population and indoctrination. This country is headed for a fiscal disaster in that the more dependent people the left creates the more likely is they will run out of other people's money to spend on their social engineering. You don't "bite the hand that feeds you" is the liberal mantra today
Click to expand...

You can't have it both ways. You can't praise Trump for low unemployment while criticizing Democrats for creating welfare dependency. Make up your mind. You contradict yourself.
 
Conservative said:
Isn't it amazing how we have so many liberals who live in bubbles that they really have no understanding of what is going on in liberal states and cities around the country as they easily buy the rhetoric being fed them by radicals. California is the bluest state in the nation and a fiscal and moral disaster and yet they want Californians to elect the President because of their population and indoctrination. This country is headed for a fiscal disaster in that the more dependent people the left creates the more likely is they will run out of other people's money to spend on their social engineering. You don't "bite the hand that feeds you" is the liberal mantra today
Click to expand...

Not amazing at all. It is all part of the plan. The Democratic Party was created in 1828 by Andrew Jackson for one specific purpose, to destroy the US. They even attempted to start a war in 1860 to accomplish that goal. They failed then, but continue to reek as much havoc as possible since. Creating the very first terrorist organizations in the US - the KKK. To this day Democrats continue to support terrorism, from ISIS to ANTIFA.

The US has been heading for fiscal disaster since the Democrats took over the Republican Party in 2000. The Republican Party today has become the Democrat Party of the 1960s, and the Democratic Party today are full-blown communists who will do anything and everything to harm the nation. Including illegal impeachments.

If you are looking for a small-government, fiscal and social conservative representative in the federal government today you will not find one. They are completely extinct.
 
Court Jester said:
Not every problem can be cured. Meanwhile "pretty" is better than ugly is it not? Even a dog won't live in it's own feces. Why should the rest of us live in other people's feces?
Click to expand...

Sure, but at what cost?

The feces thingy is an exaggeration. We all are aware of homelessness. No need to exaggerate.
 
Glitch said:
Not amazing at all. It is all part of the plan. The Democratic Party was created in 1828 by Andrew Jackson for one specific purpose, to destroy the US. They even attempted to start a war in 1860 to accomplish that goal. They failed then, but continue to reek as much havoc as possible since. Creating the very first terrorist organizations in the US - the KKK. To this day Democrats continue to support terrorism, from ISIS to ANTIFA.

The US has been heading for fiscal disaster since the Democrats took over the Republican Party in 2000. The Republican Party today has become the Democrat Party of the 1960s, and the Democratic Party today are full-blown communists who will do anything and everything to harm the nation. Including illegal impeachments.

If you are looking for a small-government, fiscal and social conservative representative in the federal government today you will not find one. They are completely extinct.
Click to expand...

Not a problem for me as I live in TX with its part time legislature and freedoms to be the best we can be without a state income tax and strong conservative values
 
Court Jester said:
Just on the basis of public health, these people should be incarcerated, hospitalized, or made to move along.
Click to expand...
Beyond not understanding that you cannot violate the rights of an individual by forced institutionalization, you apparently have no understanding that many states used to do this and it was a failure from multiple aspects.
 
Court Jester said:
Not every problem can be cured. Meanwhile "pretty" is better than ugly is it not? Even a dog won't live in it's own feces. Why should the rest of us live in other people's feces?
Click to expand...
You have already admitted you do not live in SF, and they are not "living in feces". I suggest cutting down on the ignorant rhetorical flourish and stick to what you know.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
and some are alcoholics, bankrupt, physically handicapped...... that is NOT A POINT, it is an attempt to change a definition, a semantic exercise. If they are "living on the street", they are homeless.
Click to expand...

No, they are "unsheltered", many by choice.. or as a result of choices.

A "home" is what someone makes for themselves or provides for their children and/or those in their care. But it requires an individual responibility and a process of accountability for there to be a "home" in the traditional sense. And that being said, if street vagrants choose to do drugs, choose to live by this lifestyle, then I suppose they choose to make the streets their "home"--- so then how are they "homeless" even as they are unsheltered on the streets?


Gimmesometruth said:
What their physical or mental condition is does not change that description.
Click to expand...

It changes their reason for being where they are. They didn't become unsheltered because of a tornado.

Gimmesometruth said:
Possibly, but then I was not arguing "give them a home", not only is this a non-sequitur, it undercuts your argument about NOT calling them "homeless".


No, this is a totally incorrect definition, I don't know where you learned it, but it is wrong. They could be referred to as "natural disaster victims" (in the context of CA fires and flooding).
Click to expand...

But they aren't natural disaster victims. They are victims of their own life choices (as in drug use)--or victims of mental illness. The latter group are the ones which need our help, drug addicts cannot be helped; they need to hit rock bottom and decide if they want to improve their lives. But allowing them to roam free and act as they do should not be our policy.

How is it that tens of thousands of illegal aliens arrive in this country and don't end up living on the streets other than the fact they choose to look for work and choose to try to improve their lives.


Gimmesometruth said:
Thats not totally true either, after the Great Recession many former homeowners ended up living on the street, in shanty camps, it was well documented.
Click to expand...

LOL not even close.

People who lost their homes were people who for the most part were put into homes based off of liberal policies assuring loans to people who should have never qualified for owning a home anyway--- they would have been better off renting.

SMART people did not lose homes during the real estate down turn who had made sound decisions before the recession; bought homes which would retain value during an economic slow down, homes they could afford in the first place.

When BOTH my wife and I lost our jobs in our mid '50s during the great recession; had no outside income, still had a mortgage, health insurance premiums, and kids in college---- we did not end up on the streets or lose our home. This was due to many sound decisions in life LONG before the recession hit. So don't tell me what it is like to face financial adversity--- you just have to drop back and punt sometimes, but the winners will always come out okay. We don't cheer for the losers in life. They stand as examples of what not to become. If falls under the heading of moral hazard.

Gimmesometruth said:
Obviously you have no grasp of the terms, the situations, the causes or solutions.
Click to expand...

I am not some spring chicken, I have been around the block a few times in my life and as such I keep my eyes wide open and am pretty aware of how things work. You just don't like my answers.

Gimmesometruth said:
Yeah, that is what your side keeps repeating, but you just can't seem to create an argument proving it.
Click to expand...

Oh sure. Please list all of the Republican run cities where there are hordes of drug addicts living in the parks and train stations. You see a lot of tents down in Newport Beach, Ca?
 
Court Jester said:
No, they are "unsheltered", many by choice.. or as a result of choices.
Click to expand...
Again, this is semantic BS, and you can't explain your obsession with the redefining.

A "home" is what someone makes for themselves or provides for their children and/or those in their care. But it requires an individual responibility and a process of accountability for there to be a "home" in the traditional sense. And that being said, if street vagrants choose to do drugs, choose to live by this lifestyle, then I suppose they choose to make the streets their "home"--- so then how are they "homeless" even as they are unsheltered on the streets?
Click to expand...
More semantic BS, noise, without a point.




It changes their reason for being where they are. They didn't become unsheltered because of a tornado.
Click to expand...
Labeling them as homeless does not define HOW they ended up that way. Again, you are NOT making a point, you are still creating a semantic argument full of BS.



But they aren't natural disaster victims.
Click to expand...
Yes, people caught up in CA fires and floods who lost their homes ARE natural disaster victims.....YOU DEFINED WHAT DISASTER CAUSED THE LOSS OF THEIR HOMES.

They are victims of their own life choices (as in drug use)--or victims of mental illness. The latter group are the ones which need our help, drug addicts cannot be helped; they need to hit rock bottom and decide if they want to improve their lives. But allowing them to roam free and act as they do should not be our policy.
Click to expand...
You have conflated the argument, you included my response to the fire and flood scenario you created, you cant keep your quotes in order.


How is it that tens of thousands of illegal aliens arrive in this country and don't end up living on the streets other than the fact they choose to look for work and choose to try to improve their lives.
Click to expand...
Um, SOME illegals DO end up living on the street, but the fact is, and you already stated it, many homeless DO HAVE mental issues that does not allow them to hold a job.




LOL not even close.
Click to expand...
Yes, again, many people who lost there homes in the Great Recession ended up truly homeless. If you need documentation, I can provide.

People who lost their homes were people who for the most part were put into homes based off of liberal policies....
Click to expand...
The point was not an argument about the cause of the GR, the point was is folks who lost their homes in the GR became homeless....again, many did....see above.


I am not some spring chicken, I have been around the block a few times in my life and as such I keep my eyes wide open and am pretty aware of how things work. You just don't like my answers.
Click to expand...
You are not answering anything , you primarily getting hung up on semantics and suggesting forced institutionalization as a "solution" to homelessness.



Oh sure. Please list all of the Republican run cities where there are hordes of drug addicts living in the parks and train stations. You see a lot of tents down in Newport Beach, Ca?
Click to expand...
Is that supposed to be an answer supporting the idea that homelessness since the GR is due to "liberal policies"? If so, I just don't see it. I'm not sure how that shows the City council of SF caused the problem of homelessness, or that any city government "causes" the problem, a problem you acknowledge has existed for a very long time.
 
I have read that about 1/3 of SF's homeless come from out-of-state.

This would indicate that homelessness is a NATIONAL problem.

It's also a phenomenon that goes back many decades. Think the Joad family and the Dust Bowl.
 
Conservative said:
As San Fran Streets Fill with Human Waste, Grocery Store Aisle Turns Into Toilet



Aw, yes, the bluest state of them all showing the country just how great liberalism is and how successful liberal policies are.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
Click to expand...

They have proven that the Bug out of China speads via poop:

The novel coronavirus is shed in the feces of infected people, which may help explain why it’s spread so fast, according to Chinese researchers.


The finding of live virus particles in stool specimens indicates a fecal-oral route for coronavirus, which may be why it’s caused outbreaks on cruise ships with an intensity often seen with gastro-causing norovirus, which also spreads along that pathway. More than 600 Covid-19 infections were confirmed among passengers and crew aboard the Diamond Princess, the ship quarantined for two weeks in Yokohama, Japan.

“This virus has many routes of transmission, which can partially explain” its rapid spread, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention said in a report Saturday
Click to expand...

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

The massive mismanagement of our cities actually is a life and death failure of the Elites, as they should have known, apparently did not know.





We are so screwed.
 
Conservative said:
Red States and Blue states have both republicans and democrats which seems to be something you ignore. Name for me an urban center in a red state that isn't run by a Democratic Mayor and Democratic politicians?

List of mayors of the 50 largest cities in the United States - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Not ignoring it at all; I thought my point was pretty clear. I'm waiting for you to tell me what red state is a Utopia where there's little to no poverty, crime, or some other societal malaise? Based on your premise, Oklahoma City should be a nice safe city, but it isn't. Why?

Rural areas in red states lean conservative, but suffer from crime and drug addiction. Why hasn't conservatism saved them?
 
Conservative said:
Isn't it amazing how we have so many liberals who live in bubbles that they really have no understanding of what is going on in liberal states and cities around the country as they easily buy the rhetoric being fed them by radicals. California is the bluest state in the nation and a fiscal and moral disaster and yet they want Californians to elect the President because of their population and indoctrination. This country is headed for a fiscal disaster in that the more dependent people the left creates the more likely is they will run out of other people's money to spend on their social engineering. You don't "bite the hand that feeds you" is the liberal mantra today
Click to expand...

I don't imagine you can prove ANY of that diatribe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom