Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More California insanity.

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

  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post

    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.
    The current laws aren't unconstitutional. The argument against them is they are "unfair" and "harsh" against the homeless and vagrancy. California WRAP is the group mostly backing this bill.

    https://wraphome.org/what/homeless-b...t-to-rest-act/

    They think it is wrong to "criminalize" homelessness and vagrancy. That is, they argue that doing things like squatting and panhandling shouldn't be criminalized.

    Leave a comment:


  • JustAGuy
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    It's pretty much a public health time bomb.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • JustAGuy
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • JustAGuy
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hida Akechi
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    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.


    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X