• 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

Yep, those traffic circles work great. I could tell you stories about my friend and her big horse trailer encountering one, or the Mennonite ladies in the broken down mini-van.

The solution isn't locking the drug users up. We tried that and found that the price of keeping them incarcerated was greater than prevention and treatment programs, and they outnumbered the violent criminals, who really needed to be locked up. The story of one state actually loading up people on buses and shipping them to another is true, it was Nevada sending people to Oregon. And outlawing vagrancy, merely moves people to other areas.

There isn't an easy solution to homelessness. Most homeless people don't live through their 50's. I think solutions for the problem need to be a combination of everything, with a dose of compassion. More shelters, more public restrooms, and lower cost housing. Salem, Oregon has a new program that is helping some people into lower cost apartments. I think it's been pretty successful in helping them stay clean too. IMO, cities can well afford to help folks. If they just don't want to, they shouldn't complain about the poop.
 
Rosie1 said:
Yep, those traffic circles work great. I could tell you stories about my friend and her big horse trailer encountering one, or the Mennonite ladies in the broken down mini-van.

The solution isn't locking the drug users up. We tried that and found that the price of keeping them incarcerated was greater than prevention and treatment programs, and they outnumbered the violent criminals, who really needed to be locked up. The story of one state actually loading up people on buses and shipping them to another is true, it was Nevada sending people to Oregon. And outlawing vagrancy, merely moves people to other areas.

There isn't an easy solution to homelessness. Most homeless people don't live through their 50's. I think solutions for the problem need to be a combination of everything, with a dose of compassion. More shelters, more public restrooms, and lower cost housing. Salem, Oregon has a new program that is helping some people into lower cost apartments. I think it's been pretty successful in helping them stay clean too. IMO, cities can well afford to help folks. If they just don't want to, they shouldn't complain about the poop.
Click to expand...

Paint them to match the buildings in front of which they are sleeping.;)
 
Jack Hays said:
There was no claim that New York population was dropping in absolute terms, only that emigration from the state increased because of taxes. Population growth and emigration growth are not mutually exclusive. It's quite clear that new York's growth rate relative to the US as a whole has slipped: just look at shrinking Congressional delegations and Electoral College votes.
Click to expand...

Many reasons why NY isn't growing as fast as other areas. Weather being a Huge reason. Fact is though they ain't losing population either. I wish the opposite was true, 20 mil is too many people anyway.

I'm tired of the weekly all Blue states suck and are shrinking because of the evil and stupid Dem threads. It's not true.
 
Threegoofs said:
I know. What a totally convincing argument that SF is a liberal hellhole.

No one wants to live there.

The homeless population surely needs help- but as we all know, the government shouldn’t do it- those bastards need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps!

I’m sure as property values continue to plummet ( they must be dropping- I keep hearing how horrible CA is and how everyone is fleeing because of taxes), they’ll get all the abandoned homes.
Click to expand...

We have 39 million people. Think about that. Only 5 million are leaving, and 6 million are coming in
 
enderpotato00 said:
We have 39 million people. Think about that. Only 5 million are leaving, and 6 million are coming in
Click to expand...

[h=3]California is a national leader in outbound moves: Where did they go ...[/h]https://www.ocregister.com/.../census-142932-more-people-left-california-than-move...



Nov 16, 2017 - This “domestic net outmigration” was the second-largest outflow in the ... California's population-growth challenge — and some folks think we're ...



[FONT=&quot]California continues to see more folks moving elsewhere in the nation rather than relocating here, a sign the state looks relatively unappealing to others.
[FONT=&quot]Last year, California had 142,932 more residents exit to live in other states than arrive, according to an analysis of a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau, released Wednesday, Nov. 15. This “domestic net outmigration” was the second-largest outflow in the nation behind New York and just ahead of Illinois and New Jersey. And it was up 11 percent (13,699 net departures) vs. 2015.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]California’s net outmigration has been ongoing for two-decades-plus. Yet the state’s population continues to grow: By this count, up 108,301 in 2016 — or 0.3 percent — to 38.8 million.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]How? Primarily through foreign immigration — 332,197 new residents from other lands in 2016 — and more births than deaths. California’s population-growth challenge — and some folks think we’re crowded enough — is that the state has become a hard sell to folks from elsewhere. . . . [/FONT]
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=3]800,000 people are about to flee New York, California because of taxes[/h]https://www.cnbc.com/.../800000-people-are-about-to-flee-new-york-california-becau...



Apr 26, 2018 - Conservative economists Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore are predicting a new massexodus of wealth from New York and California because ...
Click to expand...

The problem is that these lefties who flee high taxes, take the very mentality that elected the high tax politician with them and turn everywhere they go into progressive ****holes.
 
Oceanborn said:
For years, I had a liberal view on legalizing drugs. Recently, my perception has changed. While there is no sense in putting non violent drug users in prison, there needs to be consequences for their actions. Community service, for example, would also help to clean up the streets these degenerates have covered with filth.



Disgusting. Three minutes into the video, a woman squats in front of the reporter and urinates on the street. Even people in third world countries have the decency to not crap and pee in the middle of the street in front of strangers.
Click to expand...


Leftists kick God out of society and bring in uncivilized human savagery to fill the void.
 
itsforthekids said:
The problem is that these lefties who flee high taxes, take the very mentality that elected the high tax politician with them and turn everywhere they go into progressive ****holes.
Click to expand...

Like locusts.

"Okay! We've thoroughly ****ed up this state. Time to move on and do it somewhere else!"
 
itsforthekids said:
The problem is that these lefties who flee high taxes, take the very mentality that elected the high tax politician with them and turn everywhere they go into progressive ****holes.
Click to expand...

This is why people from Oregon, Idaho, Texas, and Nevada don't like Californians b/c they are afraid of what they'll to their states.
 
enderpotato00 said:
This is why people from Oregon, Idaho, Texas, and Nevada don't like Californians b/c they are afraid of what they'll to their states.
Click to expand...

They destroy everything they touch and call it “progressive”.
 
chuckiechan said:
What are the solutions? Turn blue states red.

There is something about democrat governance that turns things to ****. They don’t do it on purpose, they just make the wrong choices
Click to expand...

You only say that because you live in a blue state. You should come down to the deep south sometime, and see what Republicans can do when they're in power for decades.
 
th


If you're going to San Francisco
You're gonna get some feces in your hair
If you're going to San Francisco
You're gonna meet some homeless people there.
 
Threegoofs said:
I’m surprised you got the reference.

I’m not surprised you didn’t comprehend why it was wrong in the first place.
Click to expand...

It was entirely appropriate. Most people don't understand the significance of the quote.

The famous quote by Antoinette was in response to an adviser pleading with her that the people have no bread to eat (ie. dirt poor and starving) and Antoinette was so disconnected from the plight of her people that she thought that the solution was for her peasants to start eating cake instead... as if that was an option for them. She fundamentally misunderstood the problem.

In your case we were all talking about San Fran's tent cities and **** smeared streets littered with used needles by drug users and your response was utterly disconnected from the problem because you decided that there's no real problem because the land values are high.
 
jmotivator said:
It was entirely appropriate. Most people don't understand the significance of the quote.

The famous quote by Antoinette was in response to an adviser pleading with her that the people have no bread to eat (ie. dirt poor and starving) and Antoinette was so disconnected from the plight of her people that she thought that the solution was for her peasants to start eating cake instead... as if that was an option for them. She fundamentally misunderstood the problem.

In your case we were all talking about San Fran's tent cities and **** smeared streets littered with used needles by drug users and your response was utterly disconnected from the problem because you decided that there's no real problem because the land values are high.
Click to expand...

You understand the MA quote.

You don’t understand my comments.

Partisan blindness will do that.
 
Threegoofs said:
You understand the MA quote.

You don’t understand my comments.

Partisan blindness will do that.
Click to expand...

I understand both, I also understand that you can't admit when you make a stupid remark.
 
Hi, Tanngrisnir, I know it has been almost two weeks, but I thought you made some good points and I wanted to respond to them in kind:

Tanngrisnir said:
Oh, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear: I'm talking about the farce that is the WOD.
Click to expand...

Not a problem.

Tanngrisnir said:
It's not even remotely that simple, though. Prohibition makes a crime out of things that are not crimes.
Click to expand...

Naturally, making anything a crime, whether you consider it harmful or not harmful, shifts a great deal of law enforcement resources into preventing and prosecuting said offense. I certainly do not claim that any major legal undertaking meant to safeguard society against a severe and widespread social ill would be simple, easy or cheap.

Tanngrisnir said:
There was a time in this country when ALL such substances were legal, and NONE of the problems that we face to day existed despite that.
Click to expand...

Despite being a conservative, I do not have such a rosy view of all aspects of our country's history, including the history of drug use in our country. Perhaps you can link me some articles, but I think it helps that drug use for "hard" drugs such as cocaine and heroin was not as widespread as it is presently, or being pushed by drug dealers on a person-to-person level in most major cities throughout the country. But to say that there were no problems as a result of drug use is kind of like saying that there were hardly any problems as a result of domestic violence before acts of domestic violence were outlawed. I am sure you would not level the argument that wife-beating only became a problem when laws were passed against physically beating one's spouse.

Tanngrisnir said:
Addiction is a personal medical problem.
Click to expand...

I agree that it is a personal medical problem but it is one with severe social consequences (aside from the legal consequences) affecting both the drug-user and those close to the drug-user, such that I think voluntarily taking highly-addictive, mind-altering (and body-damaging) drugs should be prevented. Perhaps we disagree on this, but I think that the legal prohibition against suicide is a good thing, because society has an interest in preventing people from engaging in acts of violent self-harm. And I would argue that people taking hard drugs like methamphetamine, crack cocaine, or heroin are engaging in acts of severe self-harm, as oftentimes drug addicts will die as a result of their addictions.

Tanngrisnir said:
Bringing in law enforcement and the penal system just magnifies the costs associated with drugs use on the public dime and punishes people for what are mostly otherwise harmless, personal choices. I was/am a rather unwilling participant in fighting the WOD because I work in law enforcement. I saw (and still see) firsthand how utterly corrupt and misguided the WOD is.
Click to expand...

That is an argument against the efficacy in how we are fighting the war on drugs and what activities should be targeted and how they should be prosecuted and punished. But an argument about the WOD's efficacy does not touch upon the principle of whether people should be allowed to engage in acts of self-harm by taking addictive, mind-altering drugs. And even if I were to take your line of reasoning and we were to treat drug addiction as a physical/mental disease instead of a personal choice, our laws are not built for purpose. I personally think that if we are going to treat drug addiction as a "disease," we should make an effort to not allow "diseased" people to languish on the streets, or continue to "infect" themselves or others. They should be treated as we treat any person suffering from a mental disorder engaging in acts of self-harm (which they often are).

Tanngrisnir said:
We differ there. I don't see drug users and addicts as 'bad' people at all.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on the drug user or addict. If we are talking about someone who smokes marijuana that they buy from a local marijuana plant grower, certainly not. But if a person purchases drugs supplied by violent drug cartels in order to fuel their pleasure, I think the person is engaging in wicked behavior. And even if you argue that they cannot help making that decision because they are under the control of a disease and have diminished capacity, I would argue that anyone who would voluntarily initially infect themselves with a disease that they know is harmful, addictive and could diminish their capacity is engaging in immoral behavior.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
I understand both, I also understand that you can't admit when you make a stupid remark.
Click to expand...

You mean pointing out that the 'liberal hellhole' that posters have been claiming SF is actually reflects (and quite dramatically) the end result of the goals for todays GOP 'conservatives' - a place where the wealthy are so rich they price out the poor from housing, and then complain about poop in the streets because they covet a three million dollar home over their two million dollar home and dont invest any money in social services or affordable housing?

Or did you miss that subtle point?
 
This is delicious.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]“We” must all sacrifice for the environment[/h][FONT=&quot]Foreword by Paul Dreissen Being “hoisted by his own petard” means the bomb maker gets blown up and lifted sky high by his own explosive device. Former Colorado Department of Natural Resources director Greg Walcher notes that the term applies with delicious irony to the in-your-face, holier-than-thou environmentalists who inhabit and run San Francisco. Determined…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
This is delicious.

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/27/we-must-all-sacrifice-for-the-environment/"]
HetchHetchy-NPS-ClarisaFlores-460x260.jpg
[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]“We” must all sacrifice for the environment[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Foreword by Paul Dreissen Being “hoisted by his own petard” means the bomb maker gets blown up and lifted sky high by his own explosive device. Former Colorado Department of Natural Resources director Greg Walcher notes that the term applies with delicious irony to the in-your-face, holier-than-thou environmentalists who inhabit and run San Francisco. Determined…[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/27/we-must-all-sacrifice-for-the-environment/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Great article! :thumbs: It's going to be interesting to see what happens next when everything the elite want for themselves suddenly has to be shared with other human beings. I wish I could feel sadness for the poor put-upon darlings who expect to always have their way, but so far the irony meter still reads... NOPE not this time! :lamo
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Great article! :thumbs: It's going to be interesting to see what happens next when everything the elite want for themselves suddenly has to be shared with other human beings. I wish I could feel sadness for the poor put-upon darlings who expect to always have their way, but so far the irony meter still reads... NOPE not this time! :lamo
Click to expand...

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

I told you it was delicious.:mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom