Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More California insanity.

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Didn't say that. Said: The Bible makes it clear, as does history, that the Egyptians enslaved large numbers of peoples.

    And yes, the Catholic Church, which raped the New World, powered the Crusades and ran the Spanish Inquisition is, in fact, as powerful as people think. It is still the only religion in the world with it's own state, it's own passports and stamps, and it's own bank and spy service.
    The Catholic Church did none of those things the Spanish Monarchy did.

    If the Catholic Church was so powerful how did Catholic France get away with siding with the protestants in the 30 years war against the Holy Roman Empire? How did Henry the Eighth get away with just flipping the church off and starting his own church? If you really want to see how powerful Rome was look at the chaos in Italy and the bears between the city states in the early middle ages. I could think of a hundred other examples but you get the idea.

    I already told you to forget the inquisition because the protestants were worse. Look it up the figures have been tabulated and the truth is there for anyone who wants to know to know.

    The real Tyranny of the Catholic Church was intellectual. Since the only "educated" people in the early middle ages were associated with the church it had a great deal of influence over education. The uneducated rulers more or less ignored Rome. Once the printing press was invented so did much of the rest of Europe.

    The biggest propaganda success of the Catholic Church is how many non Catholics are convinced of it's relevance as a political power.
    We hunt the hunters

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

      The Catholic Church did none of those things the Spanish Monarchy did.

      If the Catholic Church was so powerful how did Catholic France get away with siding with the protestants in the 30 years war against the Holy Roman Empire? How did Henry the Eighth get away with just flipping the church off and starting his own church? If you really want to see how powerful Rome was look at the chaos in Italy and the bears between the city states in the early middle ages. I could think of a hundred other examples but you get the idea.

      I already told you to forget the inquisition because the protestants were worse. Look it up the figures have been tabulated and the truth is there for anyone who wants to know to know.

      The real Tyranny of the Catholic Church was intellectual. Since the only "educated" people in the early middle ages were associated with the church it had a great deal of influence over education. The uneducated rulers more or less ignored Rome. Once the printing press was invented so did much of the rest of Europe.

      The biggest propaganda success of the Catholic Church is how many non Catholics are convinced of it's relevance as a political power.
      Since the crimes of the accused were "heresy", which is a religious crime, I disagree. The Church was willingly complicit and took a major share of the profits.

      Some of the Protestants were worse, but if you are referring to the Puritans, they were driven out of Europe for their radicalism. OF course, they lacked the powerful wean of excommunication that the Catholics used so well.The Catholic Church was consistently at the forefront of violence, torture and greed, and has remained there since the very beginning. Have you forgotten that the Vatican shielded Nazi killers and torturers, or that to this day they continue to shield pedophiles? Have you ever visited the Vatican Museum? So proud of their stolen wealth.
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

        Since the crimes of the accused were "heresy", which is a religious crime, I disagree. The Church was willingly complicit and took a major share of the profits.

        Some of the Protestants were worse, but if you are referring to the Puritans, they were driven out of Europe for their radicalism. OF course, they lacked the powerful wean of excommunication that the Catholics used so well.The Catholic Church was consistently at the forefront of violence, torture and greed, and has remained there since the very beginning. Have you forgotten that the Vatican shielded Nazi killers and torturers, or that to this day they continue to shield pedophiles? Have you ever visited the Vatican Museum? So proud of their stolen wealth.
        I'm not here to defend the Catholic Church, at least one moderator has ask me to stop attacking it in fact, I'm here to provide historical perspective. I don't blame Roman religion for the crimes of Rome nor do I blame Catholicism for the crimes of Catholics. My only argument was about the power of the church to alter political forces of which it was just one among many. Think about the atrocities of the Roman Catholic Church and then think about the atrocities committed by the society from which it gets it's name. The continuity is unsettling in a way. Public torture was just one of the things that the church inherited.

        The question of Christianity being apolitical in origin is a more interesting topic but I think I will skip that speculation.
        We hunt the hunters

        Comment


        • #79
          nor do I blame Catholicism for the crimes of Catholics
          If not then who do you blame. What was the Inquisition all about

          ,Ah yes, blame it on the Jews, always
          convenient
          or the new bad boy, the Muslims, humm may be the Lutheran of Germany

          Now about the truth, the RCC.


          "Ask not what your country can do for you"

          Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

          you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

          Comment


          • #80
            And now for something even more idiotic from California...

            SB 608. The "Right to Rest" act.

            Here's a synopsis:

            https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/20...2/18769367.php

            Basically, what this bill does is legalize squatting and vagrancy. It would allow the homeless and vagrants to set up tents on sidewalks, in parks, etc., and essentially start living there if they wanted to. It would, at the state level, overturn most vagrancy and related laws at the local level in the state if it passes. Just what California needs: A permanent class of squatters and panhandlers that can't be arrested for those activities...

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              And now for something even more idiotic from California...

              SB 608. The "Right to Rest" act.

              Here's a synopsis:

              https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/20...2/18769367.php

              Basically, what this bill does is legalize squatting and vagrancy. It would allow the homeless and vagrants to set up tents on sidewalks, in parks, etc., and essentially start living there if they wanted to. It would, at the state level, overturn most vagrancy and related laws at the local level in the state if it passes. Just what California needs: A permanent class of squatters and panhandlers that can't be arrested for those activities...
              Just what Californian democrats WANT. Until they start squatting on their property, that is.
              The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post

                Just what Californian democrats WANT. Until they start squatting on their property, that is.
                Oh...we can be absolutely certain that that will not be allowed to happen.
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  And now for something even more idiotic from California...

                  SB 608. The "Right to Rest" act.

                  Here's a synopsis:

                  https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/20...2/18769367.php

                  Basically, what this bill does is legalize squatting and vagrancy. It would allow the homeless and vagrants to set up tents on sidewalks, in parks, etc., and essentially start living there if they wanted to. It would, at the state level, overturn most vagrancy and related laws at the local level in the state if it passes. Just what California needs: A permanent class of squatters and panhandlers that can't be arrested for those activities...
                  The bill died in 2016. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...201520160SB608

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post
                    It's back again...

                    http://wraphome.org/wp-content/uploa....05.2018-1.pdf

                    This time, the state legislature has the Democrats to pass it without need of Republicans.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                      It's back again...

                      http://wraphome.org/wp-content/uploa....05.2018-1.pdf

                      This time, the state legislature has the Democrats to pass it without need of Republicans.
                      Not surprised to learn it is back.

                      It is not just a moral/ethical question. The federal government apparently says current state and local laws are unconstitutional.

                      (o) Both the federal government – through its Interagency Council on Homelessness – and the
                      United Nations have recognized that criminalizing homelessness violates the constitutional
                      and internationally recognized human rights of people who are homeless, including the right
                      to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The federal government and the United
                      Nations have called upon governments to cease enactment and enforcement of such laws.

                      On its face, the current state and local laws against homeless persons appear to be unconstitutional.

                      If they are unconstitutional, the should be eliminated.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post

                        Not surprised to learn it is back.

                        It is not just a moral/ethical question. The federal government apparently says current state and local laws are unconstitutional.

                        (o) Both the federal government – through its Interagency Council on Homelessness – and the
                        United Nations have recognized that criminalizing homelessness violates the constitutional
                        and internationally recognized human rights of people who are homeless, including the right
                        to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The federal government and the United
                        Nations have called upon governments to cease enactment and enforcement of such laws.

                        On its face, the current state and local laws against homeless persons appear to be unconstitutional.

                        If they are unconstitutional, the should be eliminated.
                        On the contrary...

                        First off who gives a flying F what the UN thinks or says. They hold ZERO legal power over the sovereignty of any nation and any crap they say is only enforceable to the extent that member states want to enforce it. So, citing them is worthless in terms of a legal document in the US.

                        As for what's constitutional, the laws cited in this bill refer to ones that discriminated on the basis of disability, race, origin, etc. Those things are unconstitutional and those laws should be struck down. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives any individual the right to deprive others of fair us of their property, take property without compensation, or force anyone to give something to others.

                        The homeless situation, along with vagrancy, panhandling, etc., is not first and foremost a moral / ethical question. It is one of public safety, and health first and foremost, and of criminal activity secondarily.


                        In terms of public safety, having squatter's camps randomly placed wherever creates situations that put those in them, and the public, at risk. Considerations like hazardous building and safety code violations are a major concern. These can lead to serious fire risks and deaths, like in this case:

                        http://www.ktvu.com/news/fire-crews-...ess-encampment

                        The inadequacy of fire escapes, basic sanitation methods, and the like can do likewise. Sanitation is a huge issue with squatter's camps. They won't have adequate sanitation or waste disposal. Often it will be dealt with in ways that put the public at risk. The "poop map" for San Francisco gives a small idea of what this problem is.



                        The homeless won't be wanting to squat in the middle of nowhere. They want to do it where there is access to marks willing to give them handouts and money, drugs, alcohol, and other vice.

                        So, by legalizing their ability to squat on public and private land, you are only encouraging more crime and risks to public health and safety. The "Right to Rest" bill ignores all that in what it mistakenly thinks is being compassionate to the homeless.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          It's pretty much a public health time bomb.
                          We hunt the hunters

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                            It's pretty much a public health time bomb.
                            As well as public safety. Without doubt California is hell bent on its own destruction as rapidly as possibly. It's almost like a scorched earth retreat from reality.
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                              On the contrary...

                              First off who gives a flying F what the UN thinks or says. They hold ZERO legal power over the sovereignty of any nation and any crap they say is only enforceable to the extent that member states want to enforce it. So, citing them is worthless in terms of a legal document in the US.

                              As for what's constitutional, the laws cited in this bill refer to ones that discriminated on the basis of disability, race, origin, etc. Those things are unconstitutional and those laws should be struck down. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives any individual the right to deprive others of fair us of their property, take property without compensation, or force anyone to give something to others.

                              The homeless situation, along with vagrancy, panhandling, etc., is not first and foremost a moral / ethical question. It is one of public safety, and health first and foremost, and of criminal activity secondarily.


                              In terms of public safety, having squatter's camps randomly placed wherever creates situations that put those in them, and the public, at risk. Considerations like hazardous building and safety code violations are a major concern. These can lead to serious fire risks and deaths, like in this case:

                              http://www.ktvu.com/news/fire-crews-...ess-encampment

                              The inadequacy of fire escapes, basic sanitation methods, and the like can do likewise. Sanitation is a huge issue with squatter's camps. They won't have adequate sanitation or waste disposal. Often it will be dealt with in ways that put the public at risk. The "poop map" for San Francisco gives a small idea of what this problem is.



                              The homeless won't be wanting to squat in the middle of nowhere. They want to do it where there is access to marks willing to give them handouts and money, drugs, alcohol, and other vice.

                              So, by legalizing their ability to squat on public and private land, you are only encouraging more crime and risks to public health and safety. The "Right to Rest" bill ignores all that in what it mistakenly thinks is being compassionate to the homeless.
                              The homeless have no rights that intrude in any way upon the rights of others. Nothing in the Constitution grants any such nonsense. They are also not in any way entitled to a free living at the expense of others.

                              The United Nonsense is not the law of the land. And if it were, then the nations that originate all of these illegals would be held internationally responsible for all aspects of their housing, care, etc.

                              The Union cannot enforce anything that mandates one nation to take in the refuse of all the other nations -not without placing the burden squarely back where it belongs.

                              Maybe the UN could mandate that all drug profits be used to take care of the worlds homeless. Let's see them enforce that for a change.
                              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                                On the contrary...

                                First off who gives a flying F what the UN thinks or says. They hold ZERO legal power over the sovereignty of any nation and any crap they say is only enforceable to the extent that member states want to enforce it. So, citing them is worthless in terms of a legal document in the US.

                                As for what's constitutional, the laws cited in this bill refer to ones that discriminated on the basis of disability, race, origin, etc. Those things are unconstitutional and those laws should be struck down. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives any individual the right to deprive others of fair us of their property, take property without compensation, or force anyone to give something to others.

                                The homeless situation, along with vagrancy, panhandling, etc., is not first and foremost a moral / ethical question. It is one of public safety, and health first and foremost, and of criminal activity secondarily.


                                In terms of public safety, having squatter's camps randomly placed wherever creates situations that put those in them, and the public, at risk. Considerations like hazardous building and safety code violations are a major concern. These can lead to serious fire risks and deaths, like in this case:

                                http://www.ktvu.com/news/fire-crews-...ess-encampment

                                The inadequacy of fire escapes, basic sanitation methods, and the like can do likewise. Sanitation is a huge issue with squatter's camps. They won't have adequate sanitation or waste disposal. Often it will be dealt with in ways that put the public at risk. The "poop map" for San Francisco gives a small idea of what this problem is.



                                The homeless won't be wanting to squat in the middle of nowhere. They want to do it where there is access to marks willing to give them handouts and money, drugs, alcohol, and other vice.

                                So, by legalizing their ability to squat on public and private land, you are only encouraging more crime and risks to public health and safety. The "Right to Rest" bill ignores all that in what it mistakenly thinks is being compassionate to the homeless.
                                We agree and disagree.

                                IDK what the UN thinks.
                                Homelessness presents a serious health hazard. It also increases crime, increases fire hazards, and negatively affects local businesses.

                                But if the current laws are ruled unconstitutional, we as a society must find another way of dealing with the problem.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X