CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
right wingers get big boners when they see the poor starving in the streets
To be fair, the Libertarian Right-Wing thinks this is outrageous (that one would get arrested for sharing the products of their labor in the manner they please). However, Conservatives tend to think this is the right thing to do--interestingly, that is completely at odds with "Small Government"
Arrested for Feeding the Homeless in Orlando: Common Occurence
Conservatives tend to think this is the right thing to do--interestingly, that is completely at odds with "Small Government"
The fact that cuntservatives want a small government is the whole problem. They should want the biggest government possible, because that's what democracy means.The MAJORITY rule.
The fact that cuntservatives want a small government is the whole problem. They should want the biggest government possible, because that's what democracy means.The MAJORITY rule.
Why don't you stop impersonating other members, you retarded Russian troll?
@ Daegonius;- In addition to the the post below I would add that if I was able to successfully defend myself against the hoods and cut throats of back street Belfast as a child and then, as a consequence being streetwise able to look after myself sufficiently to stave off the I.R.A. the U.D.A., as well as the U.V.F., I'm absolutely satisfied that the nigger doesn't exist who could get the better of me or find me in a vulnerable situation.
Some twenty five tears ago I had a 'run in' with a nigger outside Union Train Station in Chicago. I boarded the train, the nigger didn't.
It gives me enormous gratification to see life's losers suffering from the results of their own stupidity, lack of enterprise and their childlike dependence on others to provide for them.
Natural selection should be allowed to run its course and the survival instincts of those with any gumption will sooner or later kick in and they will assume responsibility for their own lives and take the necessary steps for self preservation.
The carcasses of the rest of the sub-orders could be scooped up and transported to the local fertilizer factory.
If the bleeding hearts brigade wish to donate a % of their hard earned dosh to feed these useless bums then of course they are free to do so.
However, those of us who do not wish to have their taxes spent on the preservation of the great unwashed who clutter up our streets with their foul smelling presence should be permitted to include a clause in their tax returns to that effect.
What are your thoughts concerning the need to have an address to get a job, and in order to have an address, one would already need a job & some down money?
I understand why apartments would want to ensure a steady income is coming in (thus the need to check for a job), however I don't know why McDonalds needs to know where one lives in order to come in and flip burgers, mop the floor, ect.? This would seem to be an unnecessary barrier to homeless people from getting a move on, would it not?
Having employed 130 people for over 30 years ( now retired, thank heavens) I can assure you that most employers would only recruit those with a permanent address and preferably from a stable background.
These basic requirements are to minimize the risk of someone, regardless of the nature of the job, ( and I wouldn't demean those who ''flip hamburgers'' as at least their out working for a living) running off with the day's takings or, what is more common, insidiously skimming the till until they're caught, eventually.
The questions I would ask as an employer is, why do these losers not have an address?
Why cannot they form a cooperative and pool whatever skills they have and go out and earn a regular income?
They could tend gardens, clean houses for the infirm and elderly, engage in government job creation schemes wash motor vehicles etc., etc.
Why don't they hire an accountant to keep their books which would provide evidence to any potential employer and/or landlord that they're trustworthy hardworking citizens.
A high % of these losers are illegal immigrants who never had an address in the United States or, as is more likely, daren't provide one.
These leeches are sucking the lifeblood out of the economy and feel it is their God given right to do so.
My opinion of the remaining indigenous spongers is that they are made up from a mixture of workshy,weak minded junkies and boozers who couldn't be relied upon to work conscientiously and honestly on a regular basis.
So, it's off to the fertilizer factory where their carcasses can be processed and made to be of some use.
I can assure you that most employers would only recruit those with a permanent address and preferably from a stable background.
Yes, that is the observation I am making
These basic requirements are to minimize the risk of someone, regardless of the nature of the job, ( and I wouldn't demean those who ''flip hamburgers'' as at least their out working for a living) running off with the day's takings or, what is more common, insidiously skimming the till until they're caught, eventually.
As for "flip hamburgers", I used to work at Pizza Hut as a second job while attending Community College where I mopped floors, made & delivered pizzas, did the dishes, ect. What I said wasn't "demeaning" any more than I was "demeaning" myself--rather, I was pointing out that it requires essentially no qualifications and anyone could do it. It is not a particularly big investment for the company since there are countless people that could fill that position. If you think there is a danger of them attempting to rip off the cash register, then I would suggest stating something up-front such as "you have 2 weeks to prove yourself, or I will have to let you go", to keep them 'on their toes'.
The questions I would ask as an employer is, why do these losers not have an address?
Here is one reason:
My parents were 'loose canons' & abusive (particularly aimed toward my brother), he "ran from home" at a young age and stayed with a friend for a short while, as I got my finances in order and made arrangements with a buddy to get an apartment--which, from time of signing to move-in date is (often) a several month process (thus, if a kid is forced to leave a situation where their parent are 'unstable', ect. at a moments notice, they will be without an official/legal address for likely quite some time as the combination of getting the type of money necessary together as well as sign to move-in date is likely to take at least half of a year or more (and that is if they work all the time)).
Now, he concluded he didn't have much of any option but to 'fake' his legal address as my parents place on job applications or else he wouldn't get hired (which, in it of itself is highly problematic & humiliating, as he despises my parents for obvious reasons), however there was still a significant problem that my parents address was some 50+ minutes from where he was staying (and employers aren't eager to higher a cashier from an hour away, as it wouldn't appear to make any sense at face-value). He eventually was able to find a job (after months), and once he had one job it was not difficult to find another employer as well (two more actually) since they saw he was already employed.
He went to live with my buddy and I (at our place) illegally for about 9 months, working 2-3 jobs, 80-100+ hours a week, just to get enough money to put down the down-payment and demonstrate that he had an income compatible with moving in to the apartment (typically, there are minimum income requirements).
Then, it was nearly a year after he left home until he was able to attain a legal/official address--and only because he had some friends willing to help him out as well as the personal willingness to work 100+ hour weeks to get together the requisite funding for the effort
Now, if that is how bad a situation a kid from suburban middle-class America can find themselves in within a heartbeat, imagine the situation city-kids find themselves in when their parents are most definitely orders of magnitude more incompetent, 'loose canons', ect. ect. then mine? The child didn't choose their parents or situation, and I can see from outside perspective that most of these kids should be disassociating from their parents as soon as possible. Also, an 18 year old kid is still half a decade or so away from cognitive maturity, so even though there are potential options available given proper planning, how would they possibly be able to do so since they are still so underdeveloped? Our society gives a tremendous amount of power in the parents hands at the expense of the children, even though so much as a glance at cities like Philadelphia, ect. it is obvious the child is in the "care" of incompetent and/or abusive, 'loose cannon' parents
A high % of these losers are illegal immigrants who never had an address in the United States or, as is more likely, daren't provide one.
Or, some were forced to flee abusive backgrounds and are now without an official address for some temporary phase of their life (which society has built in unnecessary barriers getting around into a more stable future)
My opinion of the remaining indigenous spongers is that they are made up from a mixture of workshy,weak minded junkies and boozers who couldn't be relied upon to work conscientiously and honestly on a regular basis.
I am in no way arguing that everyone is willing to work as necessary to provide housing, ect. for themselves. There would indeed still be lazy people who do not want to do so. My argument is that people can potentially very quickly find themselves in dire position (particularly the young and/or those coming from abusive backgrounds), which there is currently no safety-net for such people. One simple way of remedying this would be to open the Stafford Loan program up to those without an address at the time of application also--which would provide the means for any child to escape such a horrid situation with relative ease as well as attend Trade School or College simultaneously, thus giving them the opportunity to make something for themselves, regardless of background.
It is easy to tell you where handed everything and think you are more deserving than someone who was born into the toilet bowl of society through no fault of their own.
You view things in terms of natural selection, survival of the fittest, so why shouldn't some homeless nigger who was born into poverty rob you if that is their only means of survival and they are starving? If you are not fit enough to stop them that is your fault, they are, after all just an organism like you trying to acquire resources.
But that's not how it works is it? If someone is born into poverty or is too broke and homeless to get a job that's their fault for being born, they have to follow the rules of society that tells them to crawl in a hole and die instead of following their survival instincts, but in your case you get to be provided for even though you would fare no better than them in the wild, because an artificial socio-economic status that is created by a social construct is "natural selection"?
You want to be sheltered and protected and given resources because you are involved in the circle jerk of monetary exchange and then call this natural selection to ingratiate yourself. That's not natural selection, natural selection is when the strong and intelligent survive and the weak die. That is not how society is at all, instead people like Nicola Tesla where homeless and people like Justin Beiber are millionares.
Every post you make on the subject is just more proof that you don't know shit.
Human society has become the opposite of natural selection. It makes the poor and stupid even more poor and stupid yet keeps them alive and rewards gay pop singers more than genius engineers and physicists.
Once again shithead you're just about as wrong as wrong can be.
I was born into extreme poverty in the back streets of Belfast where I was reared with my five siblings in a small, two up-two down terraced house.
One of my sisters died very young.
I went to school,Roslyn Street Primary, more often than not on an empty belly.
Yes, we were poor but we became expert food shoplifters.
That was shoplifting not for profit, but to stay alive.
Holes in my shoes was normal so I became expert at walking on the outside edges of my footwear to avoid my feet getting soaked.
This worked okay except when walking through snow.
The 1/3 pint of free milk we all got kept me going until lunchtime when we either had porridge, flavoured with mice droppings, or if we fortunate, tripe and onions, no mouse droppings.
I left school at 15 with no formal qualifications but was able to secure a job as message boy with the U.K's largest Wholesale Factors.
After work I cycled across Belfast four times a week in the winter weather to attend night school where I attained some reasonable academic qualifications.
By the time I was 17 I was promoted to departmental manager in the firm which I started as a message boy.
I was the youngest departmental manager in the Brown Brothers Ltd., group of companies.
My career in employment culminated in being appointed general manager/director in Northern Ireland and the Isle of man for a multi-national concrete manufacturer.
After this I put my house up as security and obtained a £20 K overdraft facility from my bank with which I started up my own concrete and thermal insulation business which eventually employed over 130 full time members of staff.
Over this period I had to obtain sufficient work to keep my workforce employed, ensure the work was completed to the correct standards and then make sure I got paid.
My efforts were made more difficult by the local terrorist organizations demanding protection money and then put a price on my head as I refused to pay.
I had to carry a legally licensed .38 Smith & Wesson personal protection weapon and survived three attempts on my life by the I.R.A.
Each morning I had to check under my car in case a booby trap bomb had been planted.
I had three what was then £32,000, ( now £100,000) trucks burnt out along with the expensive plant and machinery.
I now live in a beautiful house at the sea overlooking the shore line of the Antrim coast and beyond to the west coast of Scotland.
I have a modest, but well positioned apartment in Nice, Cote d' Azure where I enjoy many delightful holidays.
I have travelled extensively throughout the United States and studied its fascinating history.
As a consequence of my travels I consider America and its people to be the best in the world'.
I consider my life to have been a success but feel that had I been born in the States I would have done much, much better.
Now, there may be a bit of confusion in what I am arguing. Also, it is difficult for me to comprehend after reading your story why you would be opposed to people feeding the poor starving in the local park from willing participants, considering you were forced to steal food for survival (from unwilling participants) and your sister died of malnourishment at 7(?) It seems to me this is the exact type of catastrophe that the people in the video I posted are attempting to stop through community efforts rather than government enforcement--you view this as highly contemptible? Would you not have been one of the people (in your youth) thankful that citizens band together as a community in order to help feed those in situations similar to you and your family?
Now, I am not arguing that indefinite homelessness is at all sensible nor that it is not indicative of apathy--it is. If one is homeless for a decade or more, then clearly they must take personal responsibility for where they are at. In the town I moved to where I attended Community College and worked, there was a homeless shelter that people were allowed to sign up and stay for as long as they pleased. It provided bunk-beds, tv, bookshelves, heating and air conditioning, bathroom with showers, though I don't think there was food provided, and it was managed by a few employees & possibly a security guard at all times. Now, if employers didn't demand an address, it would not be at all difficult to rise out of that situation in time (though it may take some time) since they could get a full pay-check from multiple jobs without paying rent. From there, after achieving an address, they could attend classes or learn a trade, ect. ect. to make it themselves while going through a rough patch in life. I am stating that the situation is made unnecessarily more difficult than it already is due to employment requirements, the position children are often put in, lack of initial loan/investment opportunity (that is, there is no loan/debt program to help get out of that situation when one needs the money the most), ect.
Also, such people still need food in the meantime, while undergoing such a project, which is the central topic of this Thread
What you did, you piece of black filth was through greed and as a consequence of your inborn criminal characteristics.
What we, as starving children did was necessary to stay alive.
As it happened my sister died of malutration anyway at the age of seven.
The choice was simple, pinch just sufficient food to survive or die.
There wouldn't have been a court in the land which would have convicted us for what we were forced to do.
Failed filth like you probably cannot believe, nor indeed even comprehend that there are people, millions of people, who can rise from the gutter and through ambition and hard work, make something of themselves.
When you read a success story you try to dismiss it as fiction, but somewhere in the dark crevices of your diseased mind you know it's true and that just didn't have what it takes to 'make it'.
You were happy sitting on your fat black arse and engaging in criminal activities.
You couldn't even do that properly, you got caught you fucking black enamelled shithead.
OH YES, I MUST ADD, CLEARLY WHAT I THINK OF YOU HAS BEEN BRANDED INTO YOUR SICK MIND.
WHAT AN INSIGNIFICANT CRIMINAL BONGO THINKS OF ME IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.
What you did, you piece of black filth was through greed and as a consequence of your inborn criminal characteristics
Hello again, A:
I'm a white Jewish guy from Seattle who smokes marijuana.. That's a VICTIMLESS crime, by the way, and it ISN'T even a crime anymore where I live...
But STEALING is. Justifying it because you NEED it MORE than the guy who OWNS it, makes it no less a CRIME, and makes you no less than a common CRIMINAL..
Believing that YOUR form of lawbreaking was honorable, while mine wasn't is as sleazy as you get... But, I'm used to your sleaze..
If that was the best you could do you would have been better turning off your computer and having a sleep.
The moral and legal difference between starving children stealing a few pennies worth of food to say alive and a hardened criminal such as you mugging old age pensioners and robbing banks for personal enrichment and greed is immeasurable.
Now, take that catnap I suggested and try to sleep off your hangover.
By futilely trying to compare chalk with cheese you're only making an even bigger idiot of yourself than you actually are, and that's saying something.
The moral and legal difference between starving children stealing a few pennies worth of food to say alive..
Hello again, A:
Here's the difference between you and me... When I was hungry, I didn't STEAL food from my grocer.. I MOPPED his FLOOR for it.. He has a family. He worked HARD for his money.. No matter what your lot in life, what in the hell ENTITLES you to HIS stuff??
No matter how much I NEED stuff, stealing just isn't in my makeup. It's clearly in yours..
I shoulda just come to you for my DNA test instead of wasting $50
Hi Con.
How many times do you need to be informed that Jewish is not a race before it registers? 20? 200? 2000?
DNA does not make you Jewish. Religion makes you Jewish. This is very demonstrable by the fact that there are black, white and Asian Jews. No particular type of DNA is required to make someone Jewish. Is this clear enough for you?
I'm 97% Ashkenazi Jewish
Ashkenazi Jewish is not a race, either. Ashkenazis are descended from European women, which means you and I probably share the same DNA.
It might be difficult for you, but please try to understand that religion is not part of your DNA. The Semitic race from which the original Jews are descended also incorporates many Palestinian Muslims. How much sense would it make to be a Palestinian Muslim and claim your DNA makes you Jewish?
None, is the answer you are looking for.
I believe it is perfectly clear that you are going to continue deluding yourself with this myth that you are Jewish however many times it is patiently explained to you that you are not Jewish.
DNA does not make you Jewish. Religion makes you Jewish.
Hello again, N:
I dunno.. How many times do I need to explain Talmudic law to you??? To BE a Christian, you have to BELIEVE in God.. It's a requirement.. If you don't believe in God, you aren't a Christian.. Jews don't HAVE that requirement... In order to BE a Jew, you have to ACT like one.. And, I do..
That, plus my DNA test, suggests that I'm pretty damn Jewish..
But, I got it. You'd like Jews to be defined the way YOU want to define them... That's kinda arrogant, no?
I dunno.. How many times do I need to explain Talmudic law to you???
Con, you have never tried to explain Talmudic law to me. Ever. Since Talmudic law is religious law, I have no idea why you think it would be relevant to a conversation about DNA.
Like I said, you obviously intend to keep deluding yourself. That's fine. As long as you are aware that you are no better than the people you spend all day arguing with. They cannot be reasoned with, but neither can you.
plus my DNA test
Thanks for ignoring my fairly comprehensive rebuttal of your belief that Jewish is a form of DNA, and repeating the exact same false premise. That is exactly what Republicans do, douchebag.
Thanks for ignoring my fairly comprehensive rebuttal
Hello again, N:
I didn't ignore it.. It's just contrary to science. Ignoring science is what right wingers do, isn't it douchebag??
Look. I never thought Judaism was a race either.. Ok, Talmudic law said I was a Jew, and that's good enough for me, but I get what you're talking about.
So, can you imagine my surprise then, when my lousy $50 DNA test said that I was 97% Ashkenazi Jewish?? DNA is science, right?
1)While vets starve in the streets, libs ignore them and wave in the illegals. How dare we think vets deserve welfare and food stamps more than foreign criminal intruders.
2)Conservatives give more to the poor while libs bitch about it and hold onto their wallets.
Number 2 we all know about how well the VA was run under the " Boy King" Obama. It was a complete disaster but you Progressives have what is referred to as "Short Memory Syndrome".
Veterans Affairs. At least 40 U.S. veterans died waiting for appointments at a Phoenix VA facility, many of whom had been on a secret waiting list—part of an effort to conceal that between 1,400 and 1,600 veterans were forced to wait months for appointments. A 2014 internal VA audit found “57,436 newly enrolled veterans facing a minimum 90-day wait for medical care; 63,869 veterans who enrolled over the past decade requesting an appointment that never happened.” Even Mr. Obama admitted, in a November 2016 press conference, that “it was scandalous what happened”—though minutes earlier he boasted that “we will—knock on wood—leave this administration without significant scandal.”
An ad hominem on Republican politicians is meaningless in a debate about "right wingers", which means us non politicians. I'm a right winger, a veteran, and don't "get hard" to see people starving. It's actually why I support the wall. If we weren't busy loading up on illegal immigrants, we could afford to easily "feed our poor".
Of course libs tell us everyone must be equal, which simply means everyone starves regardless of ambition or work ethic. But, despite being unable to defend it with logic, they still call you names if you think budgeting and controlling illegal immigration equals less starving legal Americans.
We believe that 100 fed people is better than 500 equally deprived people. Just imagine if all of the money spent on illegals was simply divided between legal Americans. We'd have a lot of fed legal Americans.
But libs prefer yapping on and on about the equal sharing of misery, imagining it as some fictional utopia because it makes them feel good to say it and daydream about it. The fact that it isn't reality doesn't matter. In their minds, in a country of 350 million people, there are invisible, nonexistent resources to feed 8 billion people on the planet. They can't dare say the blatant obvious, but I will.
If you live in a third world hellhole, are starving, and think life is a real bitch...quit having ten fucking kids asshole!
We have 1 or 2, maybe 3 kids. They have 13, and it's our fault that the 13 kids are poor and starving? Get the fuck out ta here. Oh and feed my daughter, my nephews, and my nieces while you're at it, or I'll call you an evil child hating imperialist. Oh, and don't you dare think I'm paying for it. Everyone is human, so feed my kids.
An ad hominem on Republican politicians is meaningless
Firstly, pointing out the various ways Republicans are betraying military veterans is not an ad hominem. When someone does something wrong and you call them out on it, that is not an ad hominem.
Secondly, you impossibly stupid Russian hypocrite, I responded to your own genuine ad hominem attack against liberals.
You are a fucking joke, bronto. You launched a completely unprovoked attack against Liberals and now you are accusing me of "ad hominem" for linking proof that it is the Republicans who are guilty of the accusation you are making, not the Democrats.
Firstly, pointing out the various ways Republicans are betraying military veterans is not an ad hominem
Sure it is. Rather than attack "right wingers' hearts" on starvation, you created a straw man and went after one person that happens to be a Republican. Your argument is trash and a logical fallacy. Why? Because you are a shit debater and don't the first thing about debate.
No it isn't, you silly Russian idiot. An ad hominem is when you attack the person rather than what the person has done. In this instance NumberOne laid out the Republican policies which are harming military veterans.
You should stop using words which you clearly don't understand the meaning of, you insufferable moron.
An ad hominem is when you attack the person rather than what the person has done
Actually it's when you attack the person rather than their argument. If you want to try to correct people at least give the right definition. You look like an ass clown. Of course, you always look like an ass clown.
No bronto, YOU got the definition wrong. If attacking a person's argument is the only form of attack which is not an ad hominem then therefore every other form of verbal attack must be an ad hominem. That's where your failed attempt to be clever has led you, you stupid vodka-swilling buffoon.
What ad hominem ISN'T, is NOT part of the definition of what ad hominem IS.
Thanks. I would have explained it myself if I thought for a moment he was here to listen to anything other than his own voice. He googled it and took the illustrative explanation as a literal definition, just to be argumentative.
You hit the nail on the head when you labelled him an insufferable moron. It's fairly common knowledge on CD that he's a Russian plant. Not much unique traffic here though, so we probably got the guy who finished bottom of his class.
Christ all mighty nom. Are you off the crazy meds again?
Trying to discredit other members by creating puppet accounts in which you slightly change their name and pretend to be them is not going to draw attention away from the incredibly annoying shilling you do all day for Putin. Sorry if you thought otherwise.
Not only have I pointed out that this is a lie, but so have other posters.
If you are not here to shill for Russia bronto, then why are you repeating information which you know is false?
Please see:-
Since the publication of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism it has become common for conservatives to say they give more to charity than liberals. Many, many conservatives have cited the book I just linked to for support.
However, that book is just wrong. A recent MIT study countered it finding:
"In this paper, we first show that conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity. Second, we show that while levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation."
Not only have I pointed out that this is a lie, but so have other posters
No. What you said is that "if you take out church giving, conservatives give no more", which is nonsensical because people, including myself, give to the church as a means to give to the poor.
You haven't even provided an argument, much less proven anything. With church giving, conservatives destroy liberals on giving.
Oh shut up you obnoxiously delusional Russian shill. You claimed that Conservatives give more to the poor and you are fully aware that this claim is false. Most church donations go toward improving church services, not helping the poor. You are lying your idiotic tits off as per usual, and simply ignoring the evidence which disproves you.
You are a nasty, offensive, thoroughly dishonest piece of work.
What you have to understand bronto is we liberals are all talk & are not going to drop a red cent to help the starving. I sure could suck a cock right now though.
California Today: State’s Homeless Population Drives National Increase
It could hardly come as a surprise to anyone who travels around the state: the number of people who are homeless in California continues to rise at a steady clip. Every year, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development releases a Point in Time count of the homeless population. This year that number reached nearly 554,000 — a 1 percent increase from last year, driven by the dramatic surge in West Coast cities.
More than one-quarter of the total homeless population nationwide lives in California, roughly 114,000. The vast majority are “unsheltered” — a more bureaucratic term to describe the thousands living on the streets, under freeways and tucked into grassy fields and parks in cities all around the state.
“It’s certainly a bigger increase than we would have expected,” said Ben Metcalf, the director of the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development. “There’s a tale of different countries here: We’re seeing a real significant increase and much of the rest of the country is not. We’re all doing the same things, but here the rent is too damn high. We’ve seen an incredible increase in the cost of housing.”
Number 2 why is the Progressive Nirvana that is California can't help the poor starving in the streets ?
ROFLOL, I always get a laugh when the hypocritical Left who supports even No Restriction abortions, judges and preaches about feeding the poor.
First of all, the Right supports safety nets for all people who can not support themselves. Show me some starving people that the Right does not want to feed.
On a given day in 2013, more than 600,000 Americans were homeless.
In the U.S., about 195 of every 100,000 people were homeless in 2013. Colorado, with a rate of 193 per 100,000, is the closest to that average.
The worst in terms of homelessness is the District of Columbia with a rate of 1,133 per 100,000 people. Because D.C. is a metropolitan area, its count is far above states, which aren’t comparable in this scenario.
For example, New York City is at 768 per 100,000, a lower rate than D.C., but nearly 10 times the homeless population. For this data, it’s unfair to include D.C. as the “worst state” in terms of homelessness.
States with high and low homeless rates are all over the country. The highest rates of homelessness among states are in Hawaii (465 per 100,000), followed by New York (399) and California (367).
The lowest homeless counts per capita come in Mississippi (81 per 100,000), Indiana (94) and Kansas (94).
Do notice Steven Rich of the Washington Compost does his best to cover up the homeless rate in D.C. under "Boy King" Obama.
According to Steven Rich Hawaii , New York and California are not the metropolitan are that D.C. is.
That's a hateful thing to say. I am half conservative, and I don't get off on human suffering, or any sufferering, and maybe God wants us to stop playing party politics. Conservatives are right sometimes. Give people like FromWithin a chance.
You present a false causality. Although it is true they have boners while people are starving it is not the starvation itself which causes the erection. It is the tax cuts and me first social policies which lead to both the starvations and the boners. "Ahhhhh, I get to keep more money... Boing. Hey, there's some poor people over there... Let's drive down a different street before I lose my boner."
The site hypocrite spews his judgmental hypocrisy once more.
You support the testing for, and killing of Special Need's babies for merely being diverse, and you sit on a debate site judging the Right when it comes to wanting to keep more of our money from corrupt politicians who use it to buy votes?
In all my years, I have yet to see fake news showing us these starving children you deceptive liars keep talking about in America. If there are, then there is parental abuse!
NO ONE is denying starving children food! This is as big a lie as the tax cuts supposedly only helping the Rich. Are all you Left wing liars living in some fake world or what?
Are you missing the simple intellect to see your mindless hypocrisy, or are you just that big a phony?
