Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There really is no peace'
By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
Chicago Tribune
April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-hazards-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/
Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the hazard
in question to other homeless people was from a homeless woman who, with either reckless disregard or murderous intent, set her own tent on fire, which led to all the other tents catching fire fire. Note that one of
the homeless men interviewed stated that the area under the viaduct is usually fried, so there are fires set repeatedly.
That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire should have
been stated in the first paragraph.
In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who walked
without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a doorway) was conflated. But the crime against him was attempted murder by someone who
was not homeless; he was set on fire while sleeping. It became a murder
as he later died of injuries sustained.
This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless
encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will set
fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy viaducts. Maybe
allowing "permanent" encampments once people start fires is horrifically
bad public policy.
Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There really is
no peace'
By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
Chicago Tribune
April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-hazards-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/
Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the hazard
in question to other homeless people was from a homeless woman who,
with either reckless disregard or murderous intent, set her own tent
on fire, which led to all the other tents catching fire fire. Note
that one of the homeless men interviewed stated that the area under
the viaduct is usually fried, so there are fires set repeatedly.
That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire should have
been stated in the first paragraph.
In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who walked
without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a doorway) was conflated. But the crime against him was attempted murder by someone
who was not homeless; he was set on fire while sleeping. It became a
murder as he later died of injuries sustained.
This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless
encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will set
fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy viaducts. Maybe
allowing "permanent" encampments once people start fires is
horrifically bad public policy.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There really is no
peace'
By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
Chicago Tribune
April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-hazards-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/
Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the hazard
in question to other homeless people was from a homeless woman who, with
either reckless disregard or murderous intent, set her own tent on fire,
which led to all the other tents catching fire fire. Note that one of
the homeless men interviewed stated that the area under the viaduct is
usually fried, so there are fires set repeatedly.
That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire should have
been stated in the first paragraph.
In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who walked
without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a doorway) was
conflated. But the crime against him was attempted murder by someone who
was not homeless; he was set on fire while sleeping. It became a murder
as he later died of injuries sustained.
This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless
encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will set
fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy viaducts. Maybe
allowing "permanent" encampments once people start fires is horrifically
bad public policy.
Newspapers typically have a dedicated headline writer, and it is standard
for them to base the headline entirely on the first paragraph the theory being that the person writing the article is good enough to put all the information you actually need in the first paragraph and do so correctly.
The system breaks down at every point.
On 4/13/2024 8:37 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:Starting with "if all the information you need is in the first paragraph
Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There really is no >>> peace'
By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
Chicago Tribune
April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-hazards-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/
Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the hazard
in question to other homeless people was from a homeless woman who, with >>> either reckless disregard or murderous intent, set her own tent on fire, >>> which led to all the other tents catching fire fire. Note that one of
the homeless men interviewed stated that the area under the viaduct is
usually fried, so there are fires set repeatedly.
That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire should have
been stated in the first paragraph.
In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who walked
without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a doorway) was
conflated. But the crime against him was attempted murder by someone who >>> was not homeless; he was set on fire while sleeping. It became a murder
as he later died of injuries sustained.
This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless
encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will set
fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy viaducts. Maybe
allowing "permanent" encampments once people start fires is horrifically >>> bad public policy.
Newspapers typically have a dedicated headline writer, and it is standard
for them to base the headline entirely on the first paragraph the theory
being that the person writing the article is good enough to put all the
information you actually need in the first paragraph and do so correctly.
The system breaks down at every point.
why are all the other paragraphs included?"
Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There really is no peace'
By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
Chicago Tribune
April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-haza
rds-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/
Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the hazard
in question to other homeless people was from a homeless woman who, with either reckless disregard or murderous intent, set her own tent on fire, which led to all the other tents catching fire fire. Note that one of
the homeless men interviewed stated that the area under the viaduct is usually fried, so there are fires set repeatedly.
That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire should have
been stated in the first paragraph.
In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who walked
without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a doorway) was conflated. But the crime against him was attempted murder by someone who
was not homeless; he was set on fire while sleeping. It became a murder
as he later died of injuries sustained.
This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless
encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will set
fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy viaducts. Maybe
allowing "permanent" encampments once people start fires is horrifically
bad public policy.
Sat, 13 Apr 2024 14:03:55 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There really is
no peace'
By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
Chicago Tribune
April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m. >>https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-hazards-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/
Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the hazard
in question to other homeless people was from a homeless woman who,
with either reckless disregard or murderous intent, set her own tent
on fire, which led to all the other tents catching fire fire. Note
that one of the homeless men interviewed stated that the area under
the viaduct is usually fried, so there are fires set repeatedly.
"The area under the viaduct is usually fried": what exactly does that
mean? I assume that the area isn't literally fried but I'm not sure what >euphemism you're attempting here.
That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire should have
been stated in the first paragraph.
In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who walked >>without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a doorway) was >>conflated. But the crime against him was attempted murder by someone
who was not homeless; he was set on fire while sleeping. It became a
murder as he later died of injuries sustained.
This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless
encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will set
fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy viaducts. Maybe >>allowing "permanent" encampments once people start fires is
horrifically bad public policy.
There was a major fire in a homeless encampment close to the Kitchener
and Cambridge boundary. It's a miracle there weren't some
fatalities. There's a homeless encampment in Kitchener that is very
close to the transit hub that is supposed to be built that has serious >problems with rats. The residents have also done significant property
damage to nearby businesses. The city and region have tried to evict
them but when it went to court, the judge was persuaded that the
residents couldn't be evicted because it violated their rights under
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That case now serves as a precedent
for the whole country making it hard to do much about homeless
encampments.
Three cheers for our bleeding-heart activist judges: fooey! fooey!
fooey!
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Sat, 13 Apr 2024 14:03:55 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.com>:
Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There really
is no peace'
By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
Chicago Tribune
April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m. >>https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-hazards-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/
Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the
hazard in question to other homeless people was from a homeless
woman who, with either reckless disregard or murderous intent, set
her own tent on fire, which led to all the other tents catching
fire fire. Note that one of the homeless men interviewed stated
that the area under the viaduct is usually fried, so there are
fires set repeatedly.
"The area under the viaduct is usually fried": what exactly does that
mean? I assume that the area isn't literally fried but I'm not sure
what euphemism you're attempting here.
It's what the homeless guy said. He meant that other homeless people
have set fires under that viaduct and there are scorch marks on the
abutments and sidewalks and underside of the viaduct.
That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire should
have been stated in the first paragraph.
In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who
walked without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a
doorway) was conflated. But the crime against him was attempted
murder by someone who was not homeless; he was set on fire while >>sleeping. It became a murder as he later died of injuries
sustained.
This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless >>encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will set >>fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy viaducts. Maybe >>allowing "permanent" encampments once people start fires is
horrifically bad public policy.
There was a major fire in a homeless encampment close to the
Kitchener and Cambridge boundary. It's a miracle there weren't some >fatalities. There's a homeless encampment in Kitchener that is very
close to the transit hub that is supposed to be built that has
serious problems with rats. The residents have also done significant >property damage to nearby businesses. The city and region have tried
to evict them but when it went to court, the judge was persuaded
that the residents couldn't be evicted because it violated their
rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That case now
serves as a precedent for the whole country making it hard to do
much about homeless encampments.
Three cheers for our bleeding-heart activist judges: fooey! fooey!
fooey!
Was that judicial activism or is such a right created in law?
In article <uve3ca$31lpn$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There really
is no peace'
By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
Chicago Tribune
April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-haza
rds-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/
Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the
hazard in question to other homeless people was from a homeless
woman who, with either reckless disregard or murderous intent, set
her own tent on fire, which led to all the other tents catching
fire fire. Note that one of the homeless men interviewed stated
that the area under the viaduct is usually fried, so there are
fires set repeatedly.
The 'progressive' media and politicians never give these people any
agency. All of the ills they both experience and commit-- from drug addiction, to crime, to sexual assault-- it's all visited on them
from some outside force beyond their control. They are *never* held accountable for their own choices or their own lives. They're treated
as if they're helpless infants.
That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire should
have been stated in the first paragraph.
A misleading headline, a misleading article, in the legacy media?
Surely you jest!
In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who
walked without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a
doorway) was conflated. But the crime against him was attempted
murder by someone who was not homeless; he was set on fire while
sleeping. It became a murder as he later died of injuries sustained.
This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless
encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will set
fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy viaducts. Maybe allowing "permanent" encampments once people start fires is
horrifically bad public policy.
You should have seen the tortured leaps of illogic and linguistic
legerdemain that Newsom and Karen Bass went through to avoid
admitting the fact that it was a vagrant encampment that they let
flourish that was responsible for burning down the 10 freeway back
before Christmas.
Nevertheless, the vagrants *were* responsible for the fire. So now we
have vagrants cutting one of the most traveled freeways in the
nation. When it was down, there was talking of merchandise shortages
all the way on the East Coast because of the blockage.
The White
House declared it a national emergency. This is what vagrants are now
doing and what has been the response? Nothing. Vagrants are still
being allowed to camp under freeways because literally noting they do
is bad enough to inconvenience them in any way.
Take down a freeway? Not bad enough.
Burn down a forest, destroy a couple hundred homes and kill a few
people? You go ahead and keep camping in the hills. It would be
insensitive of us to bother you.
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 12:19:04 -0700
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
In article <uve3ca$31lpn$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There really
is no peace'
By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
Chicago Tribune
April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-
haza
rds-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/
Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the
hazard in question to other homeless people was from a homeless
woman who, with either reckless disregard or murderous intent, set
her own tent on fire, which led to all the other tents catching
fire fire. Note that one of the homeless men interviewed stated
that the area under the viaduct is usually fried, so there are
fires set repeatedly.
The 'progressive' media and politicians never give these people any
agency. All of the ills they both experience and commit-- from drug addiction, to crime, to sexual assault-- it's all visited on them
from some outside force beyond their control. They are *never* held accountable for their own choices or their own lives. They're treated
as if they're helpless infants.
If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be pressure
to hold them accountable for their actions. That would undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything with vast new
and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all to be helpless
captives of their addictions and mental health so that "help" can be
applied in whatever fashion the government and their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions of tax dollars can then be
wasted on schemes that won't solve the problem but WILL enrich
the agencies that run the schemes.
That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire should
have been stated in the first paragraph.
A misleading headline, a misleading article, in the legacy media?
Surely you jest!
In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who
walked without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a
doorway) was conflated. But the crime against him was attempted
murder by someone who was not homeless; he was set on fire while sleeping. It became a murder as he later died of injuries sustained.
This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will set fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy viaducts. Maybe allowing "permanent" encampments once people start fires is
horrifically bad public policy.
You should have seen the tortured leaps of illogic and linguistic legerdemain that Newsom and Karen Bass went through to avoid
admitting the fact that it was a vagrant encampment that they let
flourish that was responsible for burning down the 10 freeway back
before Christmas.
Nevertheless, the vagrants *were* responsible for the fire. So now
we have vagrants cutting one of the most traveled freeways in the
nation in half. When it was down, there was talk of merchandise
shortages all the way on the East Coast because of the blockage.
"When it was down...." Am I correct in inferring from your verb tense
that 10 has been repaired and is now flowing normally? How did they accomplish that so quickly? Infrastructure projects typically take ages
to plan and execute.
The White
House declared it a national emergency. This is what vagrants are now
doing and what has been the response? Nothing. Vagrants are still
being allowed to camp under freeways because literally noting they do
is bad enough to inconvenience them in any way.
Take down a freeway? Not bad enough.
Burn down a forest, destroy a couple hundred homes and kill a few
people? You go ahead and keep camping in the hills. It would be
insensitive of us to bother you.
Who is running for governor this time around? I assume Newsom will have
an opponent or two. Are any of them likely to be competitive? I keep
thinking there must be lots of people in California who are beyond sick
of Gov. Hairgel and would love to see a change.
In article <20240413162248.000059fe@example.com>,
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 12:19:04 -0700
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
In article <uve3ca$31lpn$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There
really is no peace'
By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
Chicago Tribune
April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-
haza
rds-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/
Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the
hazard in question to other homeless people was from a homeless
woman who, with either reckless disregard or murderous intent,
set her own tent on fire, which led to all the other tents
catching fire fire. Note that one of the homeless men
interviewed stated that the area under the viaduct is usually
fried, so there are fires set repeatedly.
The 'progressive' media and politicians never give these people
any agency. All of the ills they both experience and commit--
from drug addiction, to crime, to sexual assault-- it's all
visited on them from some outside force beyond their control.
They are *never* held accountable for their own choices or their
own lives. They're treated as if they're helpless infants.
If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix
everything with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly
futile - programs to help the poor darlings. It's far better to
just declare them all to be helpless captives of their addictions
and mental health so that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion
the government and their agents in the civil service deem
necessary. Many many billions of tax dollars can then be wasted on
schemes that won't solve the problem but WILL enrich the agencies
that run the schemes.
That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire
should have been stated in the first paragraph.
A misleading headline, a misleading article, in the legacy media?
Surely you jest!
In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who
walked without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a
doorway) was conflated. But the crime against him was attempted
murder by someone who was not homeless; he was set on fire while sleeping. It became a murder as he later died of injuries
sustained.
This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will
set fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy
viaducts. Maybe allowing "permanent" encampments once people
start fires is horrifically bad public policy.
You should have seen the tortured leaps of illogic and linguistic legerdemain that Newsom and Karen Bass went through to avoid
admitting the fact that it was a vagrant encampment that they let flourish that was responsible for burning down the 10 freeway back
before Christmas.
Nevertheless, the vagrants *were* responsible for the fire. So now
we have vagrants cutting one of the most traveled freeways in the
nation in half. When it was down, there was talk of merchandise
shortages all the way on the East Coast because of the blockage.
"When it was down...." Am I correct in inferring from your verb
tense that 10 has been repaired and is now flowing normally? How
did they accomplish that so quickly? Infrastructure projects
typically take ages to plan and execute.
Newsom waived all the environmental regulations and bureaucracy
relating to contractor bidding with emergency executive orders. They
had it partially open within a week and completely fixed within a
month.
Amazing what can happen when government gets the hell out of the way,
isn't it?
The White
House declared it a national emergency. This is what vagrants are
now doing and what has been the response? Nothing. Vagrants are
still being allowed to camp under freeways because literally
noting they do is bad enough to inconvenience them in any way.
Take down a freeway? Not bad enough.
Burn down a forest, destroy a couple hundred homes and kill a few
people? You go ahead and keep camping in the hills. It would be insensitive of us to bother you.
Who is running for governor this time around? I assume Newsom will
have an opponent or two. Are any of them likely to be competitive?
I keep thinking there must be lots of people in California who are
beyond sick of Gov. Hairgel and would love to see a change.
There is no governors race this year.
Newsom is only halfway through
his second term. After that he can't run again so he won't have any opponents.
If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be pressure
to hold them accountable for their actions. That would undermine the >"progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything with vast new
and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs to help the poor >darlings. It's far better to just declare them all to be helpless
captives of their addictions and mental health so that "help" can be
applied in whatever fashion the government and their agents in the civil >service deem necessary. Many many billions of tax dollars can then be
wasted on schemes that won't solve the problem but WILL enrich
the agencies that run the schemes.
There was a major fire in a homeless encampment close to the Kitchener
and Cambridge boundary. It's a miracle there weren't some
fatalities. There's a homeless encampment in Kitchener that is very
close to the transit hub that is supposed to be built that has serious >problems with rats. The residents have also done significant property
damage to nearby businesses. The city and region have tried to evict
them but when it went to court, the judge was persuaded that the
residents couldn't be evicted because it violated their rights under
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That case now serves as a precedent
for the whole country making it hard to do much about homeless
encampments.
Uptown viaduct fire reminder of hazards to homeless: 'There really is no >peace'
By Caroline Kubzansky and Rebecca Johnson
Chicago Tribune
April 13, 2024 at 5:00 a.m. >https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/04/13/uptown-viaduct-fire-reminder-of-hazards-to-homeless-there-really-is-no-peace/
Despite the headline, we learn IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH that the hazard
in question to other homeless people was from a homeless woman who, with >either reckless disregard or murderous intent, set her own tent on fire, >which led to all the other tents catching fire fire. Note that one of
the homeless men interviewed stated that the area under the viaduct is >usually fried, so there are fires set repeatedly.
That headline was misleading, and I'd say who set the fire should have
been stated in the first paragraph.
In paragraph six, the murder of a well-known homeless man (who walked
without disturbing others rather than just sitting in a doorway) was >conflated. But the crime against him was attempted murder by someone who
was not homeless; he was set on fire while sleeping. It became a murder
as he later died of injuries sustained.
This was just bad reporting entirely. The danger from homeless
encampments under viaducts is that one or more individuals will set
fires, and fires spread. Gee. Fires can even destroy viaducts. Maybe
allowing "permanent" encampments once people start fires is horrifically
bad public policy.
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
though you'd have a devil of a time convincing a judge that the
outdoor camping homeless were mentally ill even when they refused free
indoor accomodation. (Though I remain highly dubious about judges that
allow campouts in public parts particularly when used needles and
weapons are found there)
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
I don't know what good solutions exist or even if there ARE any good >solutions. The documentary I saw on safe supply which showed it caused
many negative consequences, especially making increasingly younger
children junkies, made me strongly oppose that approach. I resent like
hell seeing public money being spent on people who contribute nothing
to society and who use the money we give them to get and stay high
while everyone else works their asses off to let them live that
lifestyle. This profoundly undermines society as a whole by giving too
many people the idea that it is just fine to get high all the time at
public expense.
You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be
pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would >undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix
everything with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly
futile - programs to help the poor darlings. It's far better to
just declare them all to be helpless captives of their
addictions and mental health so that "help" can be applied in
whatever fashion the government and their agents in the civil
service deem necessary. Many many billions of tax dollars can
then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the problem but WILL
enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health
facilities
Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us
should have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire,
whatever your delusions are telling you to do just going about our
daily lives.
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 12:10:48 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us
should have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, >whatever your delusions are telling you to do just going about our
daily lives.
Agreed - and to me that VERY much includes the guy vaping on the
outdoor patio at McDonalds in downtown Vancouver who was asked by the
dad at the next table to stop blowing his marijuana (which he was
taking by 'vape') into the guy's two year old's face. The response was
to whip out a 12" knife and fatally plunged it into Dad's neck.
I was outraged when the newspaper reporter said all that could be done
was a 5 year sentence (which generally means release after 2 1/2) - I
would have gone for indefinite sentence until the guy had demonstrated
he was clean of all drugs and only then begun his sentence for 2nd
degree murder.
Does any sane person believe this individual is safe to have on the streets?!?
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 11:58:16 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
I don't know what good solutions exist or even if there ARE any good >solutions. The documentary I saw on safe supply which showed it
caused many negative consequences, especially making increasingly
younger children junkies, made me strongly oppose that approach. I
resent like hell seeing public money being spent on people who
contribute nothing to society and who use the money we give them to
get and stay high while everyone else works their asses off to let
them live that lifestyle. This profoundly undermines society as a
whole by giving too many people the idea that it is just fine to get
high all the time at public expense.
Well one thing for sure - my meds cost me roughly $150-200 / month
beyond what the medical system pays for (I haven't filed my taxes yet
to have the complete number for 2023 - but Canadian income taxes
aren't due till 04/30 so no panic yet) so I tend to react extremely
badly when I hear of these folks getting non-prescription drugs for $
0.00 given what I'm paying and I'm well aware what I do pay is well
below US rates for the same medications
As a taxpayer I'm happy to pay big bucks to get those who want to get
clean clean, but I bitterly resent.paying a nickel for support
services for those who just want to go on getting high day after day
until the music finally stops.
It's not as if I obtain pleasure from doing the ones I do (all of
which are prescribed by a GP or specialist) after all and its
certainly not something I do for fun. (My cache is literally arms'
reach from my monitor with the only non-prescribed drugs there being
tylenol and some vitamins)
I hadn't heard about that case. It is truly awful. I agree that THAT >individual needs a very lengthy prison sentence and needs to get off
the drugs. Was this guy aboriginal? I wonder if he got a Gladue >recommendation for a reduced sentence....
I posted the other day about a drunk driver who killed a teenager here
in Ontario in a hit-and-run. He hid the car very effectively for 15
years and eluded 140 investigators before an anonymous tip finally
brought him down. When he started through the judicial process last
fall, the prosecutor and defense came to an agreement for a plea deal
and had him sent to prison for just 2.5 years! The most appalling thing
is that the police had a recording of him telling his daughter about
the accident after he was arrested: he told her that he had never once >considered turning himself in. This put the family and friends of the
victim into a horrible place for 15 years but the lawyers in their
infinite wisdom didn't seem to count that AT ALL.
The documentary pointed out that Danielle Smith is trying some far more >plausible stuff in Alberta. Definitely worth checking out!
You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
So, MAGA, then. Good idea!
In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably beYou're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 04:45:23 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should >>> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
So, MAGA, then. Good idea!
No - hardly.
On 4/14/24 3:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably beYou're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything >>>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs >>>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions >>>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
So, MAGA, then. Good idea!
On 4/14/24 2:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably beYou're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything >>>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs >>>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions >>>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
Oh for sure, and let us not forget right wing assholes helped this along
by giving everyone easy access to guns.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700 The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>:
. . .
You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700 The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>:
You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should >>have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
It is unfortunate that these cases aren't handled that way. The local >prosecutor could have a specialized team of assistant prosecutors that
take these cases directly to equity rather than criminal court, seeking
such an order.
In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably beYou're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
On 4/14/2024 3:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably beYou're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything >>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs >>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions >>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
Actually, there is *some* reason we run such risks: we give personal
freedom the benefit of doubt under necessarily imperfect diagnoses.
In article
<17c68b3bbff3bbdb$39147$3340453$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 4/14/2024 3:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably beYou're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything >>>>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs >>>>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all >>>>>> to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions >>>>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should >>> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
Actually, there is *some* reason we run such risks: we give personal
freedom the benefit of doubt under necessarily imperfect diagnoses.
A mentally ill guy diagnosis himself perfectly
someone. At that point we know something must be done about him that
involves removing him from society. The only question is whether that
removal is permanent or not.
On Apr 15, 2024 at 2:19:28 AM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 04:45:23 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed >>>> from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective, >>>> then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should >>>> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever >>>> your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives. >>>>
So, MAGA, then. Good idea!
No - hardly.
That's all Effa has.
travelers have done to the big blue cities in this country, so he just burps out protest signs about Trump, even though Trump has zero to do with why there
are vagrants downloading onto the sidewalks and setting commuters on fire on the subway trains.
In article
<17c68b3bbff3bbdb$39147$3340453$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 4/14/2024 3:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably beYou're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything >>>>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs >>>>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all >>>>>> to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions >>>>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should >>> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
Actually, there is *some* reason we run such risks: we give personal
freedom the benefit of doubt under necessarily imperfect diagnoses.
A mentally ill guy diagnosis himself perfectly when he violently attacks someone. At that point we know something must be done about him that
involves removing him from society. The only question is whether that
removal is permanent or not.
In article
<17c68b3bbff3bbdb$39147$3340453$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 4/14/2024 3:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably beYou're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should >> > have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
Actually, there is *some* reason we run such risks: we give personal
freedom the benefit of doubt under necessarily imperfect diagnoses.
A mentally ill guy diagnosis himself perfectly when he violently attacks >someone. At that point we know something must be done about him that
involves removing him from society. The only question is whether that
removal is permanent or not.
On 4/15/24 4:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article
<17c68b3bbff3bbdb$39147$3340453$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 4/14/2024 3:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably beYou're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything >>>>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs >>>>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all >>>>>> to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so >>>>>> that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and >>>>>> their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions >>>>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the >>>>>> problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should >>> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever >>> your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
Actually, there is *some* reason we run such risks: we give personal
freedom the benefit of doubt under necessarily imperfect diagnoses.
A mentally ill guy diagnoses himself perfectly when he violently attacks someone. At that point we know something must be done about him that involves removing him from society. The only question is whether that removal is permanent or not.
Kinda like attacking cops with flagpole spears? Like that kind of
violent attacks?
In article <uvlpcv$u7hv$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/24 4:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In articleKinda like attacking cops with flagpole spears? Like that kind of
<17c68b3bbff3bbdb$39147$3340453$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
On 4/14/2024 3:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,Actually, there is *some* reason we run such risks: we give personal
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, RhinoActually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably be >>>>>>>> pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would >>>>>>>> undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything >>>>>>>> with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs >>>>>>>> to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all >>>>>>>> to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so >>>>>>>> that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and >>>>>>>> their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions >>>>>>>> of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the >>>>>>>> problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.You're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities >>>>>>
You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed >>>>> from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective, >>>>> then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should >>>>> have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever >>>>> your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives. >>>>
freedom the benefit of doubt under necessarily imperfect diagnoses.
A mentally ill guy diagnoses himself perfectly when he violently attacks >>> someone. At that point we know something must be done about him that
involves removing him from society. The only question is whether that
removal is permanent or not.
violent attacks?
They were actually arrested and put them in prison,
If only our Democrat 'leaders' in California would do the same to our
violent nutbags. I guess arrest only comes when the violent attacker has different politics than a leftist. If you're down with the Agenda, you
can do whatever you want in Democrat-controlled California.
If only our Democrat 'leaders' in California would do the same to our
violent nutbags. I guess arrest only comes when the violent attacker has
different politics than a leftist. If you're down with the Agenda, you
can do whatever you want in Democrat-controlled California.
Not the people BEHIND it. They're either in office, or running for office.
So, the answer is "no". They weren't arrested and put in prison. The >flunkies and patsies were... and not even most of them.
If only our Democrat 'leaders' in California would do the same to our
violent nutbags. I guess arrest only comes when the violent attacker has >different politics than a leftist. If you're down with the Agenda, you
can do whatever you want in Democrat-controlled California.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 64:15:52 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,244 |
| Messages: | 5,356,124 |