47

Beerman said:

I'm not sure what question you're speaking of?   Feel free to ask me directly.   

I'm also not sure of the importance of the "kill the homeless " comment.  What am I missing?

Question: how does disagreeing with you make someone "radical lunatic left" 

Answer: because some people who disagree with me are radical lunatic left. (Seriously?)

As for the "kill the homeless" remark, it's a data point in a developing pattern, as is your refusal to talk about it. Context matters.
  -ongoing efforts to criminalize homelessness, ruled legal by the Supreme Court in 2024
 - Two mass shootings at homeless           encampments in Minneapolis one week after the comment dropped. 
  - The escalation of anti-homeless violence by law enforcement and local governments. 
 - The 50 year war on the poor by "conservatives" and libertarians. 
- the silence since then. Enforced silence is a go-to tactic for diverting attention away from threatening subjects.

For starters.

Sincerely, LRL

heron said:

Question: how does disagreeing with you make someone "radical lunatic left" 

Answer: because some people who disagree with me are radical lunatic left. (Seriously?)

As for the "kill the homeless" remark, it's a data point in a developing pattern, as is your refusal to talk about it. Context matters.
  -ongoing efforts to criminalize homelessness, ruled legal by the Supreme Court in 2024
 - Two mass shootings at homeless           encampments in Minneapolis one week after the comment dropped. 
  - The escalation of anti-homeless violence by law enforcement and local governments. 
 - The 50 year war on the poor by "conservatives" and libertarians. 
- the silence since then. Enforced silence is a go-to tactic for diverting attention away from threatening subjects.

For starters.

Sincerely, LRL

I reject the premise of the question.  Just because I disagree with someone does not mean they are part of the radical lunatic left.  And, I have never said such a thing.

The Supreme Court said it wasnt unconstitutional for cities to enforce anti-camping ordinances.  Thats all.  That's not "criminalizing homelessness".

The shootings were a dispute between drug dealers over territories, as I understand.  Nothing to do with the statement by the Fox host.

50 year war on the poor, eh?  You'll have to be more specific. And, the silence...I really have no idea what you mean.

GrumpyRN said:

Oh yes heron, it is blatantly obvious that direct questions never get answered.

Your question was based in a false premise. 

Beerman said:

I reject the premise of the question.  Just because I disagree with someone does not mean they are part of the radical lunatic left.  And, I have never said such a thing.

The Supreme Court said it wasnt unconstitutional for cities to enforce anti-camping ordinances.  Thats all.  That's not "criminalizing homelessness".

The shootings were a dispute between drug dealers over territories, as I understand.  Nothing to do with the statement by the Fox host.

50 year war on the poor, eh?  You'll have to be more specific. And, the silence...I really have no idea what you mean.

So ...

Re name-calling: from Grumpy's post above, it seems s/he was using "you" in the general, collective sense. Even taking your claim at face value, you re still either maga or maga-adjacent. They do use "radical left" as a pejorative label to justify dismissing criticism. Your leader is particularly fond of this tactic. "Fake news", anyone? Sorry, dude, but lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

Re anticamping ordinances: who else besides the homeless camps in a city? Or even in a public area of a town? The Girl Scouts? Anthropologists doing field work? Criminalizing behaviors common among an "undesirable" population is a very efficient way to suppress that population. Why do you think cannabis wound up classified as a narcotic?

Re the shootings: I have only found one report (in a local paper) that the police chief speculated that the shooter/s were drug dealers. Mebbe so, mebbe no. I couldn't find any report that the shooter/s have actually been identified, let alone arrested. Not going to agree or disagree with you on this one. "Not proven" is the best I can do.

Re the war on the poor: Start with Saint Ronnie's "welfare queen" schtick and follow the breadcrumbs. They lead through Uncle Newt's mean-spirited proposals to the recent changes in child labor laws. And that's just federal legislation and campaign rhetoric.

Consider also cultural stereotypes of poor people, the deterioration of public education, patterns of policing, so-called "reform" in public assistance, patterns of access to necessary services, ie food deserts, public transportation, health care, housing and, yes, education. For starters.

Re: silencing: suppression of discussion is the first-line tactic for suppression of disturbing or threatening facts.

For instance, we've known the basic facts of climate change since they were discovered by oil company scientists in the 70's. Those same oil companies buried the data, while the various levels of government actively edited out any mention of climate change in their reports and records. There was a city on the East Coast that actually passed a law prohibiting city planners from considering climate change as a factor in their process.

When silencing starts to fail, the next step is escalation to ridicule and misrepresentation.

In my opinion, not only is it important to look over there but then to talk about what I see. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

Sincerely. LRL

Speaking of looking over there:

Sarah Longwell and Andrew Weissman had a great conversation about the Comey indictment on the Bulwark's YouTube channel. (Sponsored by a commercial CBD vendor and a monetized herb peddler so far - and I 'm only halfway through the video!) Always fun to just listen to smart people talking.

Sincerely: LRL, keeping my feet dry.

We had an encampment downtown that was aggressively moved in 2024.  They were required to offer up alternatives than to camp in a public park.   Business owners in the area pressured the city to enforce existing laws.  I'm not sure how it all worked out but they were removed.

I know years ago when I was a Universalist Unitarian we fed the homeless in that park and the city said we could not feed the homeless on public property. (This was before the encampment, but the park was a favorite hangout for the homeless who got dumped out of shelters during the day).  Fortunately the church was nearby and we set up on the church's property and word got out that there was a meal there once a week. 

I do think that if a homeless person refuses what you offer they shouldn't be threatened with fines or jail time.  Because that's not freedom.  If someone can't live in an unauthorized encampment and wants to wander the streets that's their freedom.  

Also we need to acknowledge that programs to help them, such as addiction and housing services have been cut.  Homeless shelter beds in some areas a full.  I know sometimes we try to discharge our homeless patients to the Salvation Army where they reserve us some respite beds (and even our Home Health Nurses will go there to check on them) and they are full.  

I don't have any answers but I understand that if I owned a bar or coffee shop and there is a tent city in the park across the street I would be bothered.

https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2007/08/07/homeless-whose-tents-were-slashed-sue-city/

Tweety said:

We had an encampment downtown that was aggressively moved in 2024.  They were required to offer up alternatives than to camp in a public park.   Business owners in the area pressured the city to enforce existing laws.  I'm not sure how it all worked out but they were removed.

I know years ago when I was a Universalist Unitarian we fed the homeless in that park and the city said we could not feed the homeless on public property. (This was before the encampment, but the park was a favorite hangout for the homeless who got dumped out of shelters during the day).  Fortunately the church was nearby and we set up on the church's property and word got out that there was a meal there once a week. 

I do think that if a homeless person refuses what you offer they shouldn't be threatened with fines or jail time.  Because that's not freedom.  If someone can't live in an unauthorized encampment and wants to wander the streets that's their freedom.  

Also we need to acknowledge that programs to help them, such as addiction and housing services have been cut.  Homeless shelter beds in some areas a full.  I know sometimes we try to discharge our homeless patients to the Salvation Army where they reserve us some respite beds (and even our Home Health Nurses will go there to check on them) and they are full.  

I don't have any answers but I understand that if I own a bar or coffee shop and there is a tent city in the park across the street I would be bothered.

https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2007/08/07/homeless-whose-tents-were-slashed-sue-city/

Yup - it's a hard one. I cut my nursing teeth in the early seventies at a municipal hospital, on a medical floor. Before EMTALA and during the for-profit conversion of health care. My AIDS unit was part of the state public health system in the late 80's - early nineties. The homeless version of a home away from home, along with corrections.

A whole 'nother thread.

heron said:

So ...

Re name-calling: from Grumpy's post above, it seems s/he was using "you" in the general, collective sense. Even taking your claim at face value, you re still either maga or maga-adjacent. They do use "radical left" as a pejorative label to justify dismissing criticism. Your leader is particularly fond of this tactic. "Fake news", anyone? Sorry, dude, but lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

 

Not until I called him, and you, out on it was it used in general.  Remember, you said I didn't answer the question.  And, then he changed his tune.  And, now you are, too.  

And, never mind that in the general, collective sense, didn't even make sense in the context of the discussion that got us to that point.

It's so much fun when you all get yourselves twisted in knots trying backtrack off of things.

Anyway, much of the criticism sounds like radical left lunacy.  Comparing Trump to Hitler, Trump will order the murders of citizens, Kirk was a Nazi, etc.  Say lunatic things, and you just might be labeled a lunatic.

heron said:

Re anticamping ordinances: who else besides the homeless camps in a city? Or even in a public area of a town? The Girl Scouts? Anthropologists doing field work? Criminalizing behaviors common among an "undesirable" population is a very efficient way to suppress that population. Why do you think cannabis wound up classified as a narcotic?

Again, you've gotten off track.  Your radical leftist lunatic statement was that the Supreme Court criminalized homelessness.  But, that's not correct, and that's why you're deflecting.  It's local governments who make the laws, or criminalize homelessness if you prefer.  The SCOTUS only determines, when asked to, if the law is or was applied constitutionally. 

As far as the anti-camping laws go, they aren't criminalizing homelessness as much as they are criminalizing things that come with people camping on public and private property.  Drugs, alcohol, human waste, garbage, etc.  Tell me, how many homeless people would you tolerate living on the sidewalk in front of your house or business?  

Hopefully you don't ignore the question like you accuse others of doing,

heron said:

Re the shootings: I have only found one report (in a local paper) that the police chief speculated that the shooter/s were drug dealers. Mebbe so, mebbe no. I couldn't find any report that the shooter/s have actually been identified, let alone arrested. Not going to agree or disagree with you on this one. "Not proven" is the best I can do.

You've strongly implied that that the shootings had something to do with the words of the Fox host.  As if someone went hunting down homeless people.  That was "not proven".   Didn't stop ya now, did it.

Do you see where "radical leftist lunatics" might come from?

Tweety said:

I do think that if a homeless person refuses what you offer they shouldn't be threatened with fines or jail time.  Because that's not freedom.  If someone can't live in an unauthorized encampment and wants to wander the streets that's their freedom.  

Their freedom doesn't entail being able to live on the sidewalk in front of my business or home.  If the threat of a fine or jail keeps that from happening, I'll all for it.

Beerman said:

Their freedom doesn't entail being able to live on the sidewalk in front of my business or home.  If the threat of a fine or jail keeps that from happening, I'll all for it.

QED