• 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!

Poop. Needles. Rats. Homeless camp pushes SF neighborhood to the edge

Maybe “the worse” are because liberal strongholds don’t tend to demonize poverty, mental illness, drug addiction, victims of spousal abuse, etc., but deal with them in a humane way. But that’s the tragedy of liberalism. And foolish things like Christianity, Judaism and Islam with their silly notions about compassion, which when practiced, even unknowingly by secular cities, tend to attract the less fortunate. Not to put down individual responsibility, but to acknowledge that runaway capitalism has its victims, which reality I presume conservative strongholds can’t accept.

Your post is total garbage and unsubstantiated.
 
My reason for asking the question was that you have districts and towns in California that will take water from other districts, in order to supply their own needs. Whether those districts are experiencing a drought, or not.

I was looking for a few articles about such districts taking much needed water from those other towns, just to supply their golf courses with water that wasn't even meant for drinking.

I need to keep looking. Because it's been like eight months.

Go buy this book.

The Dreamt Land.

It will tell you all you need to know about water in California.
 
I wouldn't mind the higher taxes if they were going to where I intended them to go to (i.e. what I voted on), not just shove it away in a "general funds" and later spend it on whatever the hell the state govt wants. Ideally, I would want all taxes to be lowered in this state.

I think we should be able to allocate where some of out tax dollars go. Maybe at 60%. Let the government decide what to to with the remaining 40%. Liberals can allocate for social services and other subsidies, conservatives can allocate for the military, the wall, etc.

Lets see how the budgets get formed then!
 
Let's solve simple poverty so more people can circulate capital and pay more in general taxes.

But there will always be poverty though, no matter the state. We can make it better though.
 
Your post is total garbage and unsubstantiated.

Sooo... a- how do you explain the Sermon on the Mount and similar passages in the Torah and Koran? And b- What is the motive of liberals from before FDR to the present day to care about the poor, the disabled, the homeless, etc.?
 
Maybe “the worse” are because liberal strongholds don’t tend to demonize poverty, mental illness, drug addiction, victims of spousal abuse, etc., but deal with them in a humane way. But that’s the tragedy of liberalism. And foolish things like Christianity, Judaism and Islam with their silly notions about compassion, which when practiced, even unknowingly by secular cities, tend to attract the less fortunate. Not to put down individual responsibility, but to acknowledge that runaway capitalism has its victims, which reality I presume conservative strongholds can’t accept.

Nah. The most effective urban measure in my lifetime to assist those in need was Uni-Gov in Indianapolis, merging the city government with surrounding Marion County. The Mayor? Republican Richard Lugar, who went on to serve six terms as a Senator.
 
Nah. The most effective urban measure in my lifetime to assist those in need was Uni-Gov in Indianapolis, merging the city government with surrounding Marion County. The Mayor? Republican Richard Lugar, who went on to serve six terms as a Senator.

Probably a good idea.
 
Back
Top Bottom