There are actually many, many, many more times more vacant houses in this country than there are homeless people.

As a society, we could house every single homeless person if we wanted to.

We just choose not to.

Because there they will get some kind of services and not none.

No sir. The problem is neoliberalism and/or capitalism.

Let me define these for you.

Neoliberalism is basically, you're on your own, but we will take from you as we see fit.

Capitalism is basically, unless you're the capital owner, you get what we decide to give you.

So how does that work vis a vis homelessness?

Neoliberalism is making so that homeless people are responsible for errors made prior to their existence. If you grew up in an unstable home or whatever, there is no government support to help you get on your feet. If your parents were assholes, then you will grow up poor.

That segues into capitalism. If you are poor, entering a capitalist system, you are the most vulnerable. You are the most desperate, most exploitable. People like these don't get to shop around, don't have private safety nets to rely on. And with the absence of public safety nets, its either homelessness or, well homelessness.

Thanks to the leverage given to corporations, most of these desperate people can't afford a place to live even if they do work.

I don't know wtf you people want anymore. Just define what it is that you want that deserves a living wage and lets put that into law.

I think homeless and starving children that have access to jobs that pay over $1 million a year but are unwilling to work should to go the gulag.

"and shooting children in the face"

Yeah that's part of the problem.

The 2nd Amendment was written to create a militia in the absence of a standing army.

Let's do a thought experiment.

No standing army, but every household is armed. That's a good idea. Hence the 2nd Amendment, using privately owned guns for the defense of the country.

But we do have a standing army. And privately owned arms aren't used for national defense. Instead, they are a public safety hazard.

I suggest something, buy a gun, turn it in to your national guard armory, and there you can check it in and out like a library book to shoot on their range. But you cannot leave the premises with it.

The only people who opposed the Patriot Act were liberals and they paid politically. Please try to get your facts straight.

Define "your" and define "guns" please if you will. Pretty please with a cherry on top.

Yes. Yes he did. He was on camera.

Whatever side of the debate you're on, he said it.

Nope. There are a whole bunch of mental gymnastics you have to go through to there.

Lets break the question down.

Drag queen story hour. Why does it exist? At least to teach children tolerance of people not like them. Lets just stipulate that for a second.

Commie plot. I don't know where such a person making this claim has been for the past 70 years but, communists don't have much influence in the US. You would be hard-pressed to get a tea party of communists assembled, let alone the scale of what it would take to execute a plot of this scale. And then given the number of people involved and the nature of the programs, it would not be a secret for long. There would be evidence by now.

Destroy our nations children. Define destroy. Its a pretty subjective term in this context.

If you are a transphobe who wants everyone in the country to look, walk, act, and talk like you, yes, whoever it is doing this, is trying to destroy your children, to you.

However, if you want a peaceful, serene society without all this identity strife where people just accept or at least tolerate each other, then no, the children will be fine.

And so, to revisit the first point we stipulated earlier now that we established what the end actually is, it's actually a two-way street. That is, these lessons should be teaching children not only to tolerate others, but to also tolerate themselves and expect tolerance from others when they are different. To not change and conform to what intolerant people want.

One final point. This is not just some bespoke SJW talking point or whatever. All of these mini-fights over rights and tolerance of smaller groups are just examples of the overall scheme of tolerating and giving rights to people who don't fit the template.

And please think about that for a second. There is a template of what a person should or shouldn't be. Let's call the template, the super person, or ubermensch in German, and this person has all of the characteristics the majority of the population desire. The farther you stray from the template, the more likely you will get mocked, harassed, attacked, have your rights taken away, or even die.

I think many people confuse fascism with something like authoritarianism.

You can have non-fascist authoritarian states like monarchies.

To be a fascist there are two critical components that make it impossible for anti-facsists to be fascist.

First is that fascist regimes place value on or persecute people based on race, ethnicity, gender, and/or nationality. Anti-fascists are specifically fighting against judging people on these characteristics. Even if an anti-fascist is violent or intolerant of whatever it is they are protesting, it doesn't make them a fascist. Its like saying they are racist against short people. You can discriminate against short people, sure. But its not racism. Its the wrong terminology.

Second, fascists need a capitalist system and anti-fascists are, by and large, socialist or some derivative of socialism such as communist. The reason why fascism needs capitalism is because they are deliberately trying to increase inequality to people who aren't the right race, nationality, or ethnicity. If you are poor or lack rights, its because you don't subscribe to our nationalist identity or you are not the right type of person. This is incompatible with socialism or anything like it. Socialism tries to reduce inequality regardless of who you are or what you think, hence cannot be fascistic.

You might hate anti-fascists and think of them as violent bullies. And in some cases I would agree with the latter. But calling them fascist is simply wrong use of the terminology.