|
|
Post by azson on Apr 29, 2024 9:37:05 GMT -8
Unfortunately, your two lame takes do not alter the Democrat's culpability for the crap sandwich that grips San Francisco. The problem is..you never have a take. You throw stones from a distance, and troll. I grew up in the Bay Area and parts of Oakland and San Francisco were not safe even in 1970. I came out of a concert venue one night in 1972, and every car window was broken, on both sides, for 2 whole blocks. Mental health institutions throughout California were closed in the early 80's. Sheer population increase and lack of public services foretold this future long, long ago. It's easy to sit at home and watch right wing TV all day. Do you ever add a personal observation that is interesting or add something anecdotal that piques the interest? How bout a potential solution to any issue you see out there? You bore the hell out of me. Damn blue state/Dem shenanigans! Oh wait... www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/ |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on May 1, 2024 3:44:02 GMT -8
Unfortunately, your two lame takes do not alter the Democrat's culpability for the crap sandwich that grips San Francisco. The problem is..you never have a take. You throw stones from a distance, and troll. I grew up in the Bay Area and parts of Oakland and San Francisco were not safe even in 1970. I came out of a concert venue one night in 1972, and every car window was broken, on both sides, for 2 whole blocks. Mental health institutions throughout California were closed in the early 80's. Sheer population increase and lack of public services foretold this future long, long ago. It's easy to sit at home and watch right wing TV all day. Do you ever add a personal observation that is interesting or add something anecdotal that piques the interest? How bout a potential solution to any issue you see out there? You bore the hell out of me. Fact is that California Democrats have had virtually unfettered control of state policy since 1998, so please spare us the crap about the 1980s. And the ACLU had as much or more to do with gutting non-criminal mental commitments than anything else back then. My brother was an LA cop in mid the 70s to early 90s and they couldn't put a kookie drug-addled homeless person in a mental institution for more than a day or so as they were free to leave if they were not considered a threat to themselves or violent. Michael Shellenberger, in his book San Fransicko, exposes how progressives ruin American cities, so how about reading his book for more details? It's the misguided leniency and the clear enabling that dooms our cities. I have a friend who runs a business with a homeless encampment adjacent the property. Drug addiction is the cause of the both the mental illness and thevhomelessness there, so please don't say it housing prices or wages that cause it. My friend calls the city when they get unruly or overly filthy and yet the only thing that happens is a cleaning crew comes out and gets paid $150 or so for every $#!+ pile they clean up. He talked to the cleaning crew and found that they are now filthy rich (pun intended). Nothing changes but at least someone is benefitting from the Democrat's lame attempts at addressing the issues at hand. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on May 1, 2024 3:45:25 GMT -8
Unfortunately, your two lame takes do not alter the Democrat's culpability for the crap sandwich that grips San Francisco. The problem is..you never have a take. You throw stones from a distance, and troll. I grew up in the Bay Area and parts of Oakland and San Francisco were not safe even in 1970. I came out of a concert venue one night in 1972, and every car window was broken, on both sides, for 2 whole blocks. Mental health institutions throughout California were closed in the early 80's. Sheer population increase and lack of public services foretold this future long, long ago. It's easy to sit at home and watch right wing TV all day. Do you ever add a personal observation that is interesting or add something anecdotal that piques the interest? How bout a potential solution to any issue you see out there? You bore the hell out of me. Fact is that California Democrats have had virtually unfettered control of state policy since 1998, so please spare us the crap about the 1980s. And the ACLU had as much or more to do with gutting non-criminal mental commitments than anything else back then. My brother was an LA cop in mid the 70s to early 90s and they couldn't put a kookie drug-addled homeless person in a mental institution for more than a day or so as they were free to leave if they were not considered a threat to themselves or violent. Michael Shellenberger, in his book San Fransicko, exposes how progressives ruin American cities, so how about reading his book for more details? It's the misguided leniency and the clear enabling that dooms our cities. I have a friend who runs a business with a homeless encampment adjacent the property. Drug addiction is the cause of the both the mental illness and the homelessness there, so please don't say it housing prices or wages that cause it. My friend calls the city when they get unruly or overly filthy and yet the only thing that happens is a cleaning crew comes out and gets paid $150 or so for every $#!+ pile they clean up. He talked to the cleaning crew and found that they are now filthy rich (pun intended). Nothing changes but at least someone is benefitting from the Democrat's lame attempts at addressing the issues at hand. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on May 1, 2024 5:24:35 GMT -8
The problem is..you never have a take. You throw stones from a distance, and troll. I grew up in the Bay Area and parts of Oakland and San Francisco were not safe even in 1970. I came out of a concert venue one night in 1972, and every car window was broken, on both sides, for 2 whole blocks. Mental health institutions throughout California were closed in the early 80's. Sheer population increase and lack of public services foretold this future long, long ago. It's easy to sit at home and watch right wing TV all day. Do you ever add a personal observation that is interesting or add something anecdotal that piques the interest? How bout a potential solution to any issue you see out there? You bore the hell out of me. Fact is that California Democrats have had virtually unfettered control of state policy since 1998, so please spare us the crap about the 1980s. And the ACLU had as much or more to do with gutting non-criminal mental commitments than anything else back then. My brother was an LA cop in mid the 70s to early 90s and they couldn't put a kookie drug-addled homeless person in a mental institution for more than a day or so as they were free to leave if they were not considered a threat to themselves or violent. Michael Shellenberger, in his book San Fransicko, exposes how progressives ruin American cities, so how about reading his book for more details? It's the misguided leniency and the clear enabling that dooms our cities. I have a friend who runs a business with a homeless encampment adjacent the property. Drug addiction is the cause of the both the mental illness and the homelessness there, so please don't say it housing prices or wages that cause it. My friend calls the city when they get unruly or overly filthy and yet the only thing that happens is a cleaning crew comes out and gets paid $150 or so for every $#!+ pile they clean up. He talked to the cleaning crew and found that they are now filthy rich (pun intended). Nothing changes but at least someone is benefitting from the Democrat's lame attempts at addressing the issues at hand. Can you please explain to me why anything, regarding California, prior to 1998 is irrelevant? Is that because Ronald Reagan had back to back terms in the late 60's and 70's? Of course you probably consider other Republicans who were Governor...rinos. I grew up in California since 1954 and am well familiar with the history and issues. You can't bull$#!+ me. Yes, Reagan didn't close the mental institutions by himself, but he had a hand in it. The reason you get accused of trolling is because you fail to look at the big picture and history and always say it's the Democrats fault. Do you think rich people in California (Dems and Reps) building 4,000 sq. foot houses on one acre lots with 4 car garages, while using the water and energy of a village of 2,000 in third world ever gave a f x x x about fixing any problem in California? I saw stuff in the late 60's and early 70's that are exactly the same as today in California...but on a more limited scale. Today's problem is called population expansion and critical mass. As far as drugs are concerned, Republicans never gave a f x x x as long as it was heroin and crack in Harlem, Oakland and other minority inner cities. It wasn't until the ophiod epidemic hit middle America that the alarm bells went off. And guess what? It wasn't the cartels that stoked the flames, it was the American medical industry handing out Vicodin like candy. In fact, the most famous "Doctor Shopper" for Vicodin at the time, was your own Rush Limbaugh! Yes, the same guy, on his show, who made fun of Jerry Garcia when he died of a drug overdose. "Just another dead hippy"! There is complexity and nuance to the issues that face California, but somehow you just can't discuss, or understand it. Now, if you were Governor of California, you do what about the issues you brought up? |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on May 2, 2024 17:39:26 GMT -8
Fact is that California Democrats have had virtually unfettered control of state policy since 1998, so please spare us the crap about the 1980s. And the ACLU had as much or more to do with gutting non-criminal mental commitments than anything else back then. My brother was an LA cop in mid the 70s to early 90s and they couldn't put a kookie drug-addled homeless person in a mental institution for more than a day or so as they were free to leave if they were not considered a threat to themselves or violent. Michael Shellenberger, in his book San Fransicko, exposes how progressives ruin American cities, so how about reading his book for more details? It's the misguided leniency and the clear enabling that dooms our cities. I have a friend who runs a business with a homeless encampment adjacent the property. Drug addiction is the cause of the both the mental illness and the homelessness there, so please don't say it housing prices or wages that cause it. My friend calls the city when they get unruly or overly filthy and yet the only thing that happens is a cleaning crew comes out and gets paid $150 or so for every $#!+ pile they clean up. He talked to the cleaning crew and found that they are now filthy rich (pun intended). Nothing changes but at least someone is benefitting from the Democrat's lame attempts at addressing the issues at hand. Can you please explain to me why anything, regarding California, prior to 1998 is irrelevant? Is that because Ronald Reagan had back to back terms in the late 60's and 70's? Of course you probably consider other Republicans who were Governor...rinos. I grew up in California since 1954 and am well familiar with the history and issues. You can't bull$#!+ me. Yes, Reagan didn't close the mental institutions by himself, but he had a hand in it. The reason you get accused of trolling is because you fail to look at the big picture and history and always say it's the Democrats fault. Do you think rich people in California (Dems and Reps) building 4,000 sq. foot houses on one acre lots with 4 car garages, while using the water and energy of a village of 2,000 in third world ever gave a f x x x about fixing any problem in California? I saw stuff in the late 60's and early 70's that are exactly the same as today in California...but on a more limited scale. Today's problem is called population expansion and critical mass. As far as drugs are concerned, Republicans never gave a f x x x as long as it was heroin and crack in Harlem, Oakland and other minority inner cities. It wasn't until the ophiod epidemic hit middle America that the alarm bells went off. And guess what? It wasn't the cartels that stoked the flames, it was the American medical industry handing out Vicodin like candy. In fact, the most famous "Doctor Shopper" for Vicodin at the time, was your own Rush Limbaugh! Yes, the same guy, on his show, who made fun of Jerry Garcia when he died of a drug overdose. "Just another dead hippy"! There is complexity and nuance to the issues that face California, but somehow you just can't discuss, or understand it. Now, if you were Governor of California, you do what about the issues you brought up? Hard drug use should still be illegal and arrested users should be given the option of either going to rehab or go to jail. Hard Drug sellers should go to jail. Prop 47 should be repealed as shop lifting and petty theft end up funding the addictions. Homeless encampments should be outlawed. They are havens for disease, drug dealing, prostitution, theft and death. The homeless do need shelters but private shelters are expensive and the people given them without sobriety still die at very high rates. Private sheltering must be earned by passing drug tests and group sheltering, at a minimum, should be available to the homeless that are taken off the street. They say the "war against drugs" was wrong or misguided, but aggressive drug law enforcement causes the cost of drugs to go up and that reduces use and deaths. And aggressive drug law enforcement would mean that more people would be in rehab as well. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on May 3, 2024 11:22:11 GMT -8
Can you please explain to me why anything, regarding California, prior to 1998 is irrelevant? Is that because Ronald Reagan had back to back terms in the late 60's and 70's? Of course you probably consider other Republicans who were Governor...rinos. I grew up in California since 1954 and am well familiar with the history and issues. You can't bull$#!+ me. Yes, Reagan didn't close the mental institutions by himself, but he had a hand in it. The reason you get accused of trolling is because you fail to look at the big picture and history and always say it's the Democrats fault. Do you think rich people in California (Dems and Reps) building 4,000 sq. foot houses on one acre lots with 4 car garages, while using the water and energy of a village of 2,000 in third world ever gave a f x x x about fixing any problem in California? I saw stuff in the late 60's and early 70's that are exactly the same as today in California...but on a more limited scale. Today's problem is called population expansion and critical mass. As far as drugs are concerned, Republicans never gave a f x x x as long as it was heroin and crack in Harlem, Oakland and other minority inner cities. It wasn't until the ophiod epidemic hit middle America that the alarm bells went off. And guess what? It wasn't the cartels that stoked the flames, it was the American medical industry handing out Vicodin like candy. In fact, the most famous "Doctor Shopper" for Vicodin at the time, was your own Rush Limbaugh! Yes, the same guy, on his show, who made fun of Jerry Garcia when he died of a drug overdose. "Just another dead hippy"! There is complexity and nuance to the issues that face California, but somehow you just can't discuss, or understand it. Now, if you were Governor of California, you do what about the issues you brought up? Hard drug use should still be illegal and arrested users should be given the option of either going to rehab or go to jail. Hard Drug sellers should go to jail. Prop 47 should be repealed as shop lifting and petty theft end up funding the addictions. Homeless encampments should be outlawed. They are havens for disease, drug dealing, prostitution, theft and death. The homeless do need shelters but private shelters are expensive and the people given them without sobriety still die at very high rates. Private sheltering must be earned by passing drug tests and group sheltering, at a minimum, should be available to the homeless that are taken off the street. They say the "war against drugs" was wrong or misguided, but aggressive drug law enforcement causes the cost of drugs to go up and that reduces use and deaths. And aggressive drug law enforcement would mean that more people would be in rehab as well. not unreasonable, but you still need funding and implementation. |
|
|
|
Post by azson on May 3, 2024 14:39:01 GMT -8
Can you please explain to me why anything, regarding California, prior to 1998 is irrelevant? Is that because Ronald Reagan had back to back terms in the late 60's and 70's? Of course you probably consider other Republicans who were Governor...rinos. I grew up in California since 1954 and am well familiar with the history and issues. You can't bull$#!+ me. Yes, Reagan didn't close the mental institutions by himself, but he had a hand in it. The reason you get accused of trolling is because you fail to look at the big picture and history and always say it's the Democrats fault. Do you think rich people in California (Dems and Reps) building 4,000 sq. foot houses on one acre lots with 4 car garages, while using the water and energy of a village of 2,000 in third world ever gave a f x x x about fixing any problem in California? I saw stuff in the late 60's and early 70's that are exactly the same as today in California...but on a more limited scale. Today's problem is called population expansion and critical mass. As far as drugs are concerned, Republicans never gave a f x x x as long as it was heroin and crack in Harlem, Oakland and other minority inner cities. It wasn't until the ophiod epidemic hit middle America that the alarm bells went off. And guess what? It wasn't the cartels that stoked the flames, it was the American medical industry handing out Vicodin like candy. In fact, the most famous "Doctor Shopper" for Vicodin at the time, was your own Rush Limbaugh! Yes, the same guy, on his show, who made fun of Jerry Garcia when he died of a drug overdose. "Just another dead hippy"! There is complexity and nuance to the issues that face California, but somehow you just can't discuss, or understand it. Now, if you were Governor of California, you do what about the issues you brought up? Hard drug use should still be illegal and arrested users should be given the option of either going to rehab or go to jail. Hard Drug sellers should go to jail. Prop 47 should be repealed as shop lifting and petty theft end up funding the addictions. Homeless encampments should be outlawed. They are havens for disease, drug dealing, prostitution, theft and death. The homeless do need shelters but private shelters are expensive and the people given them without sobriety still die at very high rates. Private sheltering must be earned by passing drug tests and group sheltering, at a minimum, should be available to the homeless that are taken off the street. They say the "war against drugs" was wrong or misguided, but aggressive drug law enforcement causes the cost of drugs to go up and that reduces use and deaths. And aggressive drug law enforcement would mean that more people would be in rehab as well. Wow, an actual reasonable response from you that didn't include some sort of jab at the left. I feel like I've just seen a unicorn. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Nov 7, 2024 11:03:47 GMT -8
Link: Prop 36 Passes with a Huge MajorityCalifornians overwhelmingly approved (>70% Yes) the Prop 36 initiative that attempts to reverse the unintended yet predictable negative effects caused by the passage of Prop 47. No surprise Gavin Newsome and Progressive Democrats opposed it. "Out of Touch" with the issues and concerns of the average California citizen doesn't even come close to describing them. I expect their ilk will to try and gut its implementation at every level they have influence.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 7, 2024 13:10:48 GMT -8
Link: Prop 36 Passes with a Huge MajorityCalifornians overwhelmingly approved (>70% Yes) the Prop 36 initiative that attempts to reverse the unintended yet predictable negative effects caused by the passage of Prop 47. No surprise Gavin Newsome and Progressive Democrats opposed it. "Out of Touch" with the issues and concerns of the average California citizen doesn't even come close to describing them. I expect their ilk will to try and gut its implementation at every level they have influence. My problem with this prop was that in reading the voter guide it turns mere drug possession into a felony. Sale and distribution should be felonies, but not possession. That merely turns a lot of people into permeant felons. That's not right. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Nov 7, 2024 14:12:01 GMT -8
Link: Prop 36 Passes with a Huge MajorityCalifornians overwhelmingly approved (>70% Yes) the Prop 36 initiative that attempts to reverse the unintended yet predictable negative effects caused by the passage of Prop 47. No surprise Gavin Newsome and Progressive Democrats opposed it. "Out of Touch" with the issues and concerns of the average California citizen doesn't even come close to describing them. I expect their ilk will to try and gut its implementation at every level they have influence. One thing that I saw in the bill is that it can force drug users to go into mental health/drug rehabilitation, and into prison if they don't. I like that. But I would also like to see housing assistance funding going to these types of people so that they can stay above water, so to speak, and not fall back into old habits. I think that the insane costs of housing is causing a lot of these issues - drug dealers becoming dealers not just to pay for their habits, but also rent. On the other side, people becoming homeless due to financial pressures, then becoming drug users due to depression and hopelessness is also a very real concern. So I think that this proposition is only half of the solution. I don't think rent control is the solution at all (and the Prop. failed). I think that you have to rezone for dense multi-story apartments, so rent prices can go down and people can get financial relief. I think that you have to provide more state resources to make it happen too (easier permitting process, state loan funding at low interest rates so more projects get approved, maybe even some grant funding - all of this to encourage the creation of more property development firms, and more housing under construction). |
|
