Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thread for obviously newsworthy stuff

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BeBro
    replied
    Poor octonauts

    Leave a comment:


  • Broken_Erika
    replied
    Meanwhile, Scientists and researchers seek to answer one of life's great mysteries; What would happen if we feed party drugs to an Octupus.

    https://getpocket.com/explore/item/w...=pocket-newtab

    Leave a comment:


  • BeBro
    replied
    Donald Trump is a genocidal warlord hell bent on destroying half of existence in the universe. That’s not a criticism from the unhinged leftwing media, it’s apparently how the president and his team see him.
    full: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...d-marvel-video

    Should have watched the full movie before posing as Thanos. Yay Avengers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dinner
    replied
    Oh, I agree that 40+ years of restrictive zoning and regulation combined with state environmental laws designed to be abused by NIMBYs is the heart of the problem wrt affordable housing. The drug crisis and permissive laws about public drug abuse as well as allowing addicts, the mentally ill, and homeless to be absolutely above the law no matter what they do is an entirely different issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • giblets
    replied
    Problem is California cities need to reform their zoning laws but landlords and middle class who view their house as an investment will oppose that because restricting supply benefits them. If they had more reasonable zoning laws like Texas the homeless problem wouldn't be anywhere near as bad.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dinner
    replied
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/3882484002

    Billions and billions and it will never be enough. Fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dinner
    replied
    Increase we have any housing first idiots here... It is not possible on the west coast. L.A. is spending $1 billion on housing first, it costs them $650,000 per one bedroom or studio apartment on average, it will only end up housing a tiny fraction of the current homeless and take a decade to do it. Overheard is eating up 2/3rds of the available budget. In a decade the homeless population will undoubtedly increase.

    Worse, other states bus in their homeless to California to get rid of them while homeless themselves seek to move here as cities and state governments give them money simply for being homeless, word has spread that many cities have stopped enforcing drug laws, plus it hardly ever snows so they love it. Not to mention free food, clothing, and tents are giving out every where so they all rush here. 40% of all the homeless people in America, 3/4ths from other states, it never ends. We have to crack down and send the moochers back where they came from because our taxes can’t support them all and give everyone a free $650,000 house. It is impossible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dinner
    commented on 's reply
    Ignorant hog wash. Spoken like someone who has never volunteered in a shelter. If you had then you’d know the very many practical reasons why this is a problem. Also if you had lived in one of the west coast enabling areas where drug use has been decriminalized and homeless people have been made above the laws (as in police cannot enforce anything against them because of horrible clueless liberals) then you would know what lawless hell holes they turn communities into. I cite SF, Portland, and Seattle of examples not to become.

  • Dinner
    replied
    Originally posted by giblets View Post
    What exactly is the point in requiring them to abstain from drugs in order to have shelter? Just seems like a moral crusade. There are drug users who manage to hold down jobs.
    That when they are drugged out of their minds no one can work with them? That for the majority substance abuse is why they cannot hold a job or maintain shelter? That for those who do not have substance abuse issues this is absolutely no problem? That people on drugs often become violent or unruly those damaging the quality of life of everyone else in the shelter? Need I go on?

    Leave a comment:


  • -Jrabbit
    commented on 's reply
    It's a common technique, conjuring up moral issues as a requirement to gain state benefits. Puts your liberal opponents in the position of supporting illegal drugs while dehumanizing the poor.

  • giblets
    replied
    What exactly is the point in requiring them to abstain from drugs in order to have shelter? Just seems like a moral crusade. There are drug users who manage to hold down jobs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dinner
    replied
    Originally posted by giblets View Post
    Instead of helping them get homes some would rather just kick them off the trains.
    There are lots of shelters and the shelters are clean and well run. The addicts don’t like that the shelters require them to be sober though so they avoid the shelters. There simply must be both a carrot (meaning shelter space and long term supportive housing for people who complete programs) as well as a stick (meaning legal consequences for people who refuse to help and who just want to continue being street junkies). Under no conditions should we ever simply enable street junkies to continue being street junkies.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dinner
    replied
    Originally posted by giblets View Post

    California sounds like a dystopian novel.
    That is what happens when you are a one party state and the majority never considers voting for anyone else.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bereta_Eder
    replied
    I'm old enough to remember when there were no homeless in Athens or Greece.
    It seems to go hand in hand with "progress"

    Leave a comment:


  • giblets
    replied
    Instead of helping them get homes some would rather just kick them off the trains.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X