Two myths of homelessness

[Rudy Canoza]

1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial
percentage of homeless people are ordinary people
who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide
people with essential help.

FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers,
mentally ill, or both. That isn't to say that there
might not be some greater role of government in
providing help to people with serious mental or
substance abuse problems, but these people are *not*
like the majority of people. There are virtually no
two-parent intact families with children who find
themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation
like "offshoring". There are some single women with
children among the homeless, but these women again are
*not* like most people, in that they generally have low
levels of educational achievement, and - big difference
- were never married despite having one or more children.


2. The segment of homeless who are mentally ill are
Ronald Reagan's fault. Reagan "emptied out" the
mental hospitals, turning hundreds of thousands if not
millions of mental patients into homeless victims.

FALSE. The push to move mentally ill patients out of
in-patient mental hospital settings began in the 1950s,
and achieved its full vigor with John F. Kennedy's
signing of the Community Mental Health Act in October
1963. The state mental hospitals in California had
already begun to move patients back into community
treatment facilities years before Reagan became
governor of California in 1966, and of course Reagan
had nothing to do with the identical moves occurring in
other states.

[publius2k]

Post by Rudy Canoza
1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial
percentage of homeless people are ordinary people
who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide
people with essential help.
FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers,
mentally ill, or both.

True, since they are primarily veterans who are suffering from the inhumane actions they
were forced to carry out under false and immoral pretexts. These soldiers have in fact
turned to self-medication with 'illegal' drugs to fight against the mental illness induced
by the military indoctrination machine.

Post by Rudy Canoza
2. The segment of homeless who are mentally ill are
Ronald Reagan's fault. Reagan "emptied out" the
mental hospitals, turning hundreds of thousands if not
millions of mental patients into homeless victims.
FALSE. The push to move mentally ill patients out of
in-patient mental hospital settings began in the 1950s,
and achieved its full vigor with John F. Kennedy's
signing of the Community Mental Health Act in October
1963. The state mental hospitals in California had
already begun to move patients back into community
treatment facilities years before Reagan became
governor of California in 1966, and of course Reagan
had nothing to do with the identical moves occurring in
other states.

The fact is that after the USA military created the problem, the soldiers were abandoned,
turned out on the streets with little or no support and denied or hindered from getting
adequate therapy and treatment by VA after they were used up.

Homelessness and poverty are intentionally created as a means to coerce submission to
unjust economic systems and it matters not the slightest that even veterans suffer from
the plan.

More humane systems were and can still be practiced but since they undermine and conflict
with the 'law of supply and demand' and tend to prevent inequitable disparities in wealth,
they are aggressively oppressed.

Over a hundred years ago, under the pretext of giving each person a fair share of land and
a ticket in the 'American Dream Lottery', the controllers of the USA plotted to breakup
Indian Territory so as to privatize it. The real intent was to make the land more readily
accessible to non-native landlords for adding to their estates. In 1883 Senator Dawes of
the infamous Dawes Act and the related Dawes Rolls toured the lands and...

"After his visit to the 'Five Tribes', Dawes noted of the Cherokee "The head chief told us
that there was not a family in that whole Nation that had not a home of its own. There is
not a pauper in that Nation, and the Nation does not owe a dollar. It built its own
capitol, in which we had this examination, and built its schools and hospitals. Yet the
defect of the system was apparent. They have got as far as they can go, because they hold
their land in common. It is Henry George's system, and under that there is no enterprise
to make your home any better than that of your neighbors. There is no selfishness, which
is at the bottom of civilization. Till these people will consent to give up their lands,
and divide them among their citizens so that each can own the land he cultivates, they
will not make much progress." - Redbird Smith and the Nighthawk Keetoowahs [1983 - p. 31]
by Janey B. Hendrix



lets review that...

under Cherokee communal society, there was:

no homeless
no poverty/paupers/panhandlers
no national debt
fine civic infrastructure
fine hospitals
fine schools

[as of 1907, the Cherokee nation had produced more college grads than Texas and Arkansas
combined. The white settlers fought to have their kids attend the more advanced Cherokee
schools.]

"Yet the defect of the system was apparent. "

"There is no selfishness, which is at the bottom of civilization."

--
Said American [Indian] Chieftain Acuera in reply to
the invader de Soto's demand for submission to
the king and the church so as to 'enjoy the benefits
of 'civilization' and service:

"I have long since learned who you [European Christians] are,
through others of you who came years ago to my land;
and I already know very well what your customs and
behavior are like. To me you are professional
vagabonds who wander from place to place,
gaining your livelihood by robbing, sacking and
murdering people who have given you no offense.
... Accordingly, I and all of my people have vowed
to die a hundred deaths to maintain the freedom
of our land. This is our answer, both
for the present and forevermore."
-- "Florida of the Inca" (1591)
by El Inca [aka Garcilaso de la Vega]
- First American Author to be published.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by publius2k

Post by Rudy Canoza
1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial
percentage of homeless people are ordinary people
who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide
people with essential help.
FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers,
mentally ill, or both.

True, since they are primarily veterans

FALSE; they are not primarily veterans, even though
some Vietnam-era veterans may be disproportionately
represented among homeless.

Post by publius2k

Post by Rudy Canoza
2. The segment of homeless who are mentally ill are
Ronald Reagan's fault. Reagan "emptied out" the
mental hospitals, turning hundreds of thousands if not
millions of mental patients into homeless victims.
FALSE. The push to move mentally ill patients out of
in-patient mental hospital settings began in the 1950s,
and achieved its full vigor with John F. Kennedy's
signing of the Community Mental Health Act in October
1963. The state mental hospitals in California had
already begun to move patients back into community
treatment facilities years before Reagan became
governor of California in 1966, and of course Reagan
had nothing to do with the identical moves occurring in
other states.

The fact is that after the USA military created the problem,

The "USA military" did not create the problem. You're
trying to launch some new homelessness myths, and they
won't fly.

[z***@yahoo.com]

Post by publius2k

Post by Rudy Canoza
1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial
percentage of homeless people are ordinary people
who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide
people with essential help.
FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers,
mentally ill, or both.

True, since they are primarily veterans who are suffering from the inhumane actions they
were forced to carry out under false and immoral pretexts. These soldiers have in fact
turned to self-medication with 'illegal' drugs to fight against the mental illness induced
by the military indoctrination machine.

I've read a few posts by Rudy, and he sure seems to be angry and
swears a lot, generally for no obvious reason. However despite that I
think his point here is more accurate than yours.

It's pretty bizarre to claim that the US military is the cause of
homelessness in the US. That might have been plausible in the years
after the Vietnam War, but the fact is that Vietnam ended 34 years
ago. A man who came home from Vietnam at age 25 in 1971 for instance,
would be 60 years old today. It doesn't take a genuis to walk around
and see that there are plenty of homeless people who aren't senior
citizens.

Even though he said it in a pretty ham-handed way, Rudy's basic point
is unfortunately correct: A huge percentage of people who are homless
suffer from mental illness or substance abuse - or both. Go try and
do some volunteer work with them if you don't believe me.

Unfortunately if people don't understand the nature of the problem,
it's hard to know how to solve it. For instance, having a bunch of
jobs that need filling doesn't help homelessness if people are so out-
of-it that they don't even know how to go about looking for a job, or
what it means to show up for work every day. Even handouts aren't
that effective if the homeless people don't know how to get them, or
worse if they're too mentally ill to realize that they should try.

It's a vicious circle, sometimes. People are mentally ill or have a
drug problem and end up on the streets, and living on the streets
makes them, well, even crazier. Sometimes crime gets in the loop too,
where people steal things to get substances, end up in jail for a
while, then get tossed back on the streets afterwards and are in an
even worse position with regards to getting a job and turning their
life around. Anybody who claims it's a simple matter of one government
agency or another not doing its job fails to appreciate the complex
nature of the problem.

And it's a problem for even the most cynical person who doesn't care
about the homeless, because having a bunch of desperate, drug-addicted
ex-criminals on the street doesn't exactly do wonders for public
safety.

[Roger]

Post by Rudy Canoza
1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial
percentage of homeless people are ordinary people
who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide
people with essential help.

I've never heard anyone say this. I have heard that with a few misfortunes
we could be like them.

Post by Rudy Canoza
FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers,
mentally ill, or both. That isn't to say that there
might not be some greater role of government in
providing help to people with serious mental or
substance abuse problems, but these people are *not*
like the majority of people. There are virtually no
two-parent intact families with children who find
themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation
like "offshoring". There are some single women with
children among the homeless, but these women again are
*not* like most people, in that they generally have low
levels of educational achievement, and - big difference
- were never married despite having one or more children.
2. The segment of homeless who are mentally ill are
Ronald Reagan's fault. Reagan "emptied out" the
mental hospitals, turning hundreds of thousands if not
millions of mental patients into homeless victims.
FALSE. The push to move mentally ill patients out of
in-patient mental hospital settings began in the 1950s,
and achieved its full vigor with John F. Kennedy's
signing of the Community Mental Health Act in October
1963. The state mental hospitals in California had
already begun to move patients back into community
treatment facilities years before Reagan became
governor of California in 1966, and of course Reagan
had nothing to do with the identical moves occurring in
other states.

When did homelessness start increasing? During the mid-1960s?

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Roger

Post by Rudy Canoza
1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial
percentage of homeless people are ordinary people
who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide
people with essential help.

I've never heard anyone say this. I have heard that with a few misfortunes
we could be like them.

You haven't been paying attention.

"Homeless people are just that — people, human beings,
just like you and me, who have rights and feelings and
dreams."

http://www.youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=2641


"I don't think those of you who bad mouth the homeless
people have ever really talked to them in person or
known any of them. They are people just like you and me."

http://vegasblog.latimes.com/vegas/2006/12/las_vegas_vs_ho.html


"The shame of it is that the homeless and poor are
people just like you and me."

http://www.heartsandminds.org/articles/homegary.htm


"Rev. Callahan sums it all up: “Homeless people are
still people just like you and me. What happens to them
can happen to anyone."

http://www.newarkmetro.rutgers.edu/essays/display.php?id=65

Post by Roger

Post by Rudy Canoza
FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers,
mentally ill, or both. That isn't to say that there
might not be some greater role of government in
providing help to people with serious mental or
substance abuse problems, but these people are *not*
like the majority of people. There are virtually no
two-parent intact families with children who find
themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation
like "offshoring". There are some single women with
children among the homeless, but these women again are
*not* like most people, in that they generally have low
levels of educational achievement, and - big difference
- were never married despite having one or more children.
2. The segment of homeless who are mentally ill are
Ronald Reagan's fault. Reagan "emptied out" the
mental hospitals, turning hundreds of thousands if not
millions of mental patients into homeless victims.
FALSE. The push to move mentally ill patients out of
in-patient mental hospital settings began in the 1950s,
and achieved its full vigor with John F. Kennedy's
signing of the Community Mental Health Act in October
1963. The state mental hospitals in California had
already begun to move patients back into community
treatment facilities years before Reagan became
governor of California in 1966, and of course Reagan
had nothing to do with the identical moves occurring in
other states.

When did homelessness start increasing? During the mid-1960s?

There have always been homeless people. They used to
be called bums, tramps, hobos.

I think you need to refine your question a little.

[Roger]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Roger

Post by Rudy Canoza
1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial
percentage of homeless people are ordinary people
who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide
people with essential help.

I've never heard anyone say this. I have heard that with a few
misfortunes we could be like them.

You haven't been paying attention.
"Homeless people are just that — people, human beings, just like you and
me, who have rights and feelings and dreams."

They are.

This is true.

They are human beings.

If they aren't, what are they?

Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=2641
"I don't think those of you who bad mouth the homeless people have ever
really talked to them in person or known any of them. They are people just
like you and me."

They are.

This is true.

They are people.

If they aren't, what are they?

Post by Rudy Canoza
http://vegasblog.latimes.com/vegas/2006/12/las_vegas_vs_ho.html
"The shame of it is that the homeless and poor are people just like you
and me."

They are.

This is true.

They are people.

If they aren't, what are they?

Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.heartsandminds.org/articles/homegary.htm
"Rev. Callahan sums it all up: “Homeless people are still people just like
you and me. What happens to them can happen to anyone."

They are.

This is true.

They are people.

If they aren't, what are they?

Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.newarkmetro.rutgers.edu/essays/display.php?id=65

Post by Roger

Post by Rudy Canoza
FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers,
mentally ill, or both. That isn't to say that there
might not be some greater role of government in
providing help to people with serious mental or
substance abuse problems, but these people are *not*
like the majority of people. There are virtually no
two-parent intact families with children who find
themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation
like "offshoring". There are some single women with
children among the homeless, but these women again are
*not* like most people, in that they generally have low
levels of educational achievement, and - big difference
- were never married despite having one or more children.
2. The segment of homeless who are mentally ill are
Ronald Reagan's fault. Reagan "emptied out" the
mental hospitals, turning hundreds of thousands if not
millions of mental patients into homeless victims.
FALSE. The push to move mentally ill patients out of
in-patient mental hospital settings began in the 1950s,
and achieved its full vigor with John F. Kennedy's
signing of the Community Mental Health Act in October
1963. The state mental hospitals in California had
already begun to move patients back into community
treatment facilities years before Reagan became
governor of California in 1966, and of course Reagan
had nothing to do with the identical moves occurring in
other states.

When did homelessness start increasing? During the mid-1960s?

There have always been homeless people. They used to be called bums,
tramps, hobos.
I think you need to refine your question a little.

You don't understand English very well.

"They are just like you and me."

is not equivelent to

"They are people just like you and me."

[Rudy Canoza]

His statement is false. There are *not* "many causes" of
homelessness. For over 90% of homeless, there are but two possible
causes: serious mental illness and substance abuse. Very few
homeless people got that way simply by virtue of some bad economic
luck, e.g., being a textile worker in the south when the textile
industry decamped to Asia.

Bullshit. I lived in Ventura, California during one of our (relatively)
recent recessions. California was in pretty good condition financially
during that particular recession, so people were coming from all over
the country looking for jobs. What they didn't realize was that rent
was "rip-off" high

You mean the landlord was getting the most he could for
it, just as you would do for your labor.

and got higher with the influx of more people. So,
even though the husband often found a good job, he and his wife and
kids lived in the station wagon until the family could scrape up enough
money to get first and last month's rent, plus a deposit.

Undocumented anecdote; worthless.

Wage earners, those who rent because they can't afford to buy a house,
are often only a couple months away from homelessness, should they lose
their job, or get hurt, or both.

And yet, it doesn't happen often at all.

And there are a *lot* more wage
earners living from paycheck to paycheck then most people realize.
That's why "payday loan" outfits are a booming industry in this
country.
Another major recession and there are going to be a lot of homeless
people.

Could be; probably not.

And it's not going to be because they are drug abusers or have
mental problems. Our government will probably do what Henry VIII did
when his policies pauperized the people, arrest them for loitering and
put them in work houses.
And the self-righteous shitheads will be there cheering on the
government and parroting the lie that all homeless people are druggies
or have mental problems. Much easier to do that then face the reality
that these are good people who are suffering.

[Opinions]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Roger

Post by Rudy Canoza
1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial
percentage of homeless people are ordinary people
who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide
people with essential help.

I've never heard anyone say this. I have heard that with a few misfortunes
we could be like them.

You haven't been paying attention.
"Homeless people are just that — people, human beings,
just like you and me, who have rights and feelings and
dreams."
http://www.youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=2641
"I don't think those of you who bad mouth the homeless
people have ever really talked to them in person or
known any of them. They are people just like you and me."

One thing for sure, homelessness is way up under the Republican shysters who
continue to ship good jobs overseas for decades.

It started under Reagan. The allowing of cheap foreign made products to enter
the marketplace is destabilizing America.

Post by Rudy Canoza
http://vegasblog.latimes.com/vegas/2006/12/las_vegas_vs_ho.html
"The shame of it is that the homeless and poor are
people just like you and me."
http://www.heartsandminds.org/articles/homegary.htm
"Rev. Callahan sums it all up: “Homeless people are
still people just like you and me. What happens to them
can happen to anyone."
http://www.newarkmetro.rutgers.edu/essays/display.php?id=65

Post by Roger

Post by Rudy Canoza
FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers,
mentally ill, or both. That isn't to say that there
might not be some greater role of government in
providing help to people with serious mental or
substance abuse problems, but these people are *not*
like the majority of people. There are virtually no
two-parent intact families with children who find
themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation
like "offshoring". There are some single women with
children among the homeless, but these women again are
*not* like most people, in that they generally have low
levels of educational achievement, and - big difference
- were never married despite having one or more children.
2. The segment of homeless who are mentally ill are
Ronald Reagan's fault. Reagan "emptied out" the
mental hospitals, turning hundreds of thousands if not
millions of mental patients into homeless victims.
FALSE. The push to move mentally ill patients out of
in-patient mental hospital settings began in the 1950s,
and achieved its full vigor with John F. Kennedy's
signing of the Community Mental Health Act in October
1963. The state mental hospitals in California had
already begun to move patients back into community
treatment facilities years before Reagan became
governor of California in 1966, and of course Reagan
had nothing to do with the identical moves occurring in
other states.

When did homelessness start increasing? During the mid-1960s?

There have always been homeless people. They used to
be called bums, tramps, hobos.
I think you need to refine your question a little.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Opinions

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Roger

Post by Rudy Canoza
1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial
percentage of homeless people are ordinary people
who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide
people with essential help.

I've never heard anyone say this. I have heard that with a few misfortunes
we could be like them.

You haven't been paying attention.
"Homeless people are just that — people, human beings,
just like you and me, who have rights and feelings and
dreams."
http://www.youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=2641
"I don't think those of you who bad mouth the homeless
people have ever really talked to them in person or
known any of them. They are people just like you and me."

One thing for sure, homelessness is way up under the Republican shysters who
continue to ship good jobs overseas for decades.

Prove it.

Post by Opinions
It started under Reagan.

It didn't.

Post by Opinions

Post by Rudy Canoza
http://vegasblog.latimes.com/vegas/2006/12/las_vegas_vs_ho.html
"The shame of it is that the homeless and poor are
people just like you and me."
http://www.heartsandminds.org/articles/homegary.htm
"Rev. Callahan sums it all up: “Homeless people are
still people just like you and me. What happens to them
can happen to anyone."
http://www.newarkmetro.rutgers.edu/essays/display.php?id=65

Post by Roger

Post by Rudy Canoza
FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers,
mentally ill, or both. That isn't to say that there
might not be some greater role of government in
providing help to people with serious mental or
substance abuse problems, but these people are *not*
like the majority of people. There are virtually no
two-parent intact families with children who find
themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation
like "offshoring". There are some single women with
children among the homeless, but these women again are
*not* like most people, in that they generally have low
levels of educational achievement, and - big difference
- were never married despite having one or more children.
2. The segment of homeless who are mentally ill are
Ronald Reagan's fault. Reagan "emptied out" the
mental hospitals, turning hundreds of thousands if not
millions of mental patients into homeless victims.
FALSE. The push to move mentally ill patients out of
in-patient mental hospital settings began in the 1950s,
and achieved its full vigor with John F. Kennedy's
signing of the Community Mental Health Act in October
1963. The state mental hospitals in California had
already begun to move patients back into community
treatment facilities years before Reagan became
governor of California in 1966, and of course Reagan
had nothing to do with the identical moves occurring in
other states.

When did homelessness start increasing? During the mid-1960s?

There have always been homeless people. They used to
be called bums, tramps, hobos.
I think you need to refine your question a little.

[Chip Flintknapper]

Post by Roger

Post by Rudy Canoza
1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial
percentage of homeless people are ordinary people
who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide
people with essential help.

I've never heard anyone say this. I have heard that with a few misfortunes
we could be like them.

Post by Rudy Canoza
FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers,
mentally ill, or both. That isn't to say that there
might not be some greater role of government in
providing help to people with serious mental or
substance abuse problems, but these people are *not*
like the majority of people. There are virtually no
two-parent intact families with children who find
themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation
like "offshoring". There are some single women with
children among the homeless, but these women again are
*not* like most people, in that they generally have low
levels of educational achievement, and - big difference
- were never married despite having one or more children.
2. The segment of homeless who are mentally ill are
Ronald Reagan's fault. Reagan "emptied out" the
mental hospitals, turning hundreds of thousands if not
millions of mental patients into homeless victims.
FALSE. The push to move mentally ill patients out of
in-patient mental hospital settings began in the 1950s,
and achieved its full vigor with John F. Kennedy's
signing of the Community Mental Health Act in October
1963. The state mental hospitals in California had
already begun to move patients back into community
treatment facilities years before Reagan became
governor of California in 1966, and of course Reagan
had nothing to do with the identical moves occurring in
other states.

When did homelessness start increasing? During the mid-1960s?

It didn't exist prior to 1981. All you need to do is go to the library
or your local newspaper and read the old microfiche files. The stories
begin in the summer of 1981. That is simply historical proof.

The mental cases were added around February 1982.

We always had some bums downtown when I was a kid. That was back in the
1950's and 60's. I grew up in Dallas TX, and there must have been 40 or
50 of them. But they were not "Homeless" people, they were winos.

Then the "Hippies" came along in the late 60's until about 1974. They
weren't the homeless either. Mostly they were kids who weren't old
enough to be in the service anyway.

Then, by the mid-1980's, there were millions of "Mentally Ill Substance
Abusers" all over the place, who were generally condemned, and had fewer
rights than old-time "Jim Crow" negroes. Anyone who denies these facts
is probably part of the system that caused it, and living in fear of
prosecution.

Ask people who are in their 50's or 60's what they personally remember
about the whole thing, and ask them to be truthful with you. You will
gain new insight.

Be well.

[Roger]

Post by Chip Flintknapper

Post by Roger

Post by Rudy Canoza
1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial
percentage of homeless people are ordinary people
who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide
people with essential help.

I've never heard anyone say this. I have heard that with a few misfortunes
we could be like them.

Post by Rudy Canoza
FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers,
mentally ill, or both. That isn't to say that there
might not be some greater role of government in
providing help to people with serious mental or
substance abuse problems, but these people are *not*
like the majority of people. There are virtually no
two-parent intact families with children who find
themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation
like "offshoring". There are some single women with
children among the homeless, but these women again are
*not* like most people, in that they generally have low
levels of educational achievement, and - big difference
- were never married despite having one or more children.
2. The segment of homeless who are mentally ill are
Ronald Reagan's fault. Reagan "emptied out" the
mental hospitals, turning hundreds of thousands if not
millions of mental patients into homeless victims.
FALSE. The push to move mentally ill patients out of
in-patient mental hospital settings began in the 1950s,
and achieved its full vigor with John F. Kennedy's
signing of the Community Mental Health Act in October
1963. The state mental hospitals in California had
already begun to move patients back into community
treatment facilities years before Reagan became
governor of California in 1966, and of course Reagan
had nothing to do with the identical moves occurring in
other states.

When did homelessness start increasing? During the mid-1960s?

It didn't exist prior to 1981. All you need to do is go to the library
or your local newspaper and read the old microfiche files. The stories
begin in the summer of 1981. That is simply historical proof.
The mental cases were added around February 1982.
We always had some bums downtown when I was a kid. That was back in the
1950's and 60's. I grew up in Dallas TX, and there must have been 40 or
50 of them. But they were not "Homeless" people, they were winos.
Then the "Hippies" came along in the late 60's until about 1974. They
weren't the homeless either. Mostly they were kids who weren't old
enough to be in the service anyway.
Then, by the mid-1980's, there were millions of "Mentally Ill Substance
Abusers" all over the place, who were generally condemned, and had fewer
rights than old-time "Jim Crow" negroes. Anyone who denies these facts
is probably part of the system that caused it, and living in fear of
prosecution.
Ask people who are in their 50's or 60's what they personally remember
about the whole thing, and ask them to be truthful with you. You will
gain new insight.
Be well.

You're talking about words. I'm talking about people.

There have ALWAYS been homeless people. There will ALWAYS be homeless
people.

Some want it, many don't. We should help those who want help.

Saying that they are not like us, that that they are less than us, is wrong
and doesn't help anyone.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Roger

Post by Chip Flintknapper

Post by Roger

Post by Rudy Canoza
1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial
percentage of homeless people are ordinary people
who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide
people with essential help.

I've never heard anyone say this. I have heard that with a few misfortunes
we could be like them.

Post by Rudy Canoza
FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers,
mentally ill, or both. That isn't to say that there
might not be some greater role of government in
providing help to people with serious mental or
substance abuse problems, but these people are *not*
like the majority of people. There are virtually no
two-parent intact families with children who find
themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation
like "offshoring". There are some single women with
children among the homeless, but these women again are
*not* like most people, in that they generally have low
levels of educational achievement, and - big difference
- were never married despite having one or more children.
2. The segment of homeless who are mentally ill are
Ronald Reagan's fault. Reagan "emptied out" the
mental hospitals, turning hundreds of thousands if not
millions of mental patients into homeless victims.
FALSE. The push to move mentally ill patients out of
in-patient mental hospital settings began in the 1950s,
and achieved its full vigor with John F. Kennedy's
signing of the Community Mental Health Act in October
1963. The state mental hospitals in California had
already begun to move patients back into community
treatment facilities years before Reagan became
governor of California in 1966, and of course Reagan
had nothing to do with the identical moves occurring in
other states.

When did homelessness start increasing? During the mid-1960s?

It didn't exist prior to 1981. All you need to do is go to the library
or your local newspaper and read the old microfiche files. The stories
begin in the summer of 1981. That is simply historical proof.
The mental cases were added around February 1982.
We always had some bums downtown when I was a kid. That was back in the
1950's and 60's. I grew up in Dallas TX, and there must have been 40 or
50 of them. But they were not "Homeless" people, they were winos.
Then the "Hippies" came along in the late 60's until about 1974. They
weren't the homeless either. Mostly they were kids who weren't old
enough to be in the service anyway.
Then, by the mid-1980's, there were millions of "Mentally Ill Substance
Abusers" all over the place, who were generally condemned, and had fewer
rights than old-time "Jim Crow" negroes. Anyone who denies these facts
is probably part of the system that caused it, and living in fear of
prosecution.
Ask people who are in their 50's or 60's what they personally remember
about the whole thing, and ask them to be truthful with you. You will
gain new insight.
Be well.

You're talking about words. I'm talking about people.
There have ALWAYS been homeless people. There will ALWAYS be homeless
people.
Some want it, many don't. We should help those who want help.

Go ahead. Use your own money.

Post by Roger
Saying that they are not like us, that that they are less than us, is wrong
and doesn't help anyone.

It is factually correct, it is morally neutral, and it
*does* help us not to be confused about what to do
about the homeless.

[Chip Flintknapper]

Post by Roger

Post by Chip Flintknapper

Post by Roger

Post by Rudy Canoza
1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial
percentage of homeless people are ordinary people
who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide
people with essential help.

I've never heard anyone say this. I have heard that with a few misfortunes
we could be like them.

Post by Rudy Canoza
FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers,
mentally ill, or both. That isn't to say that there
might not be some greater role of government in
providing help to people with serious mental or
substance abuse problems, but these people are *not*
like the majority of people. There are virtually no
two-parent intact families with children who find
themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation
like "offshoring". There are some single women with
children among the homeless, but these women again are
*not* like most people, in that they generally have low
levels of educational achievement, and - big difference
- were never married despite having one or more children.
2. The segment of homeless who are mentally ill are
Ronald Reagan's fault. Reagan "emptied out" the
mental hospitals, turning hundreds of thousands if not
millions of mental patients into homeless victims.
FALSE. The push to move mentally ill patients out of
in-patient mental hospital settings began in the 1950s,
and achieved its full vigor with John F. Kennedy's
signing of the Community Mental Health Act in October
1963. The state mental hospitals in California had
already begun to move patients back into community
treatment facilities years before Reagan became
governor of California in 1966, and of course Reagan
had nothing to do with the identical moves occurring in
other states.

When did homelessness start increasing? During the mid-1960s?

It didn't exist prior to 1981. All you need to do is go to the library
or your local newspaper and read the old microfiche files. The stories
begin in the summer of 1981. That is simply historical proof.
The mental cases were added around February 1982.
We always had some bums downtown when I was a kid. That was back in the
1950's and 60's. I grew up in Dallas TX, and there must have been 40 or
50 of them. But they were not "Homeless" people, they were winos.
Then the "Hippies" came along in the late 60's until about 1974. They
weren't the homeless either. Mostly they were kids who weren't old
enough to be in the service anyway.
Then, by the mid-1980's, there were millions of "Mentally Ill Substance
Abusers" all over the place, who were generally condemned, and had fewer
rights than old-time "Jim Crow" negroes. Anyone who denies these facts
is probably part of the system that caused it, and living in fear of
prosecution.
Ask people who are in their 50's or 60's what they personally remember
about the whole thing, and ask them to be truthful with you. You will
gain new insight.
Be well.

You're talking about words. I'm talking about people.
There have ALWAYS been homeless people. There will ALWAYS be homeless
people.
Some want it, many don't. We should help those who want help.
Saying that they are not like us, that that they are less than us, is wrong
and doesn't help anyone.

No, I'm talking about a new class of people, created in the early
1980's. The government wants you to confuse them with the poor. Most of
the originals have either been killed, died from exposure and disease,
or institutionalized, and replaced by an entirely different set of
people; but the system itself has been maintained as a convenient
dumping ground, or, if you will, a "prison without bars".

These people do not need "treatment" (which amounts to political
correction), they need housing and cash. Being warehoused in a shelter
is not housing. Don't tell me that they can just go and "get a job",
because unclean people, who have no addresses, don't get hired. Besides,
there are plenty of illegal aliens to do the menial work.

I doubt that there is another civilized country on this planet that
allows people to live face down in the dirt, and eat from garbage cans.
The old excuse that they are all a lot of mental patients or addicts
just make the facts worse, if they are indeed true.

Who do you think has been getting the money allotted to the homeless by
Congress since 1988? Certainly not the homeless. That money is either
diverted to the poor, or given to the maintainers of the shelter system.
They would have a hell of a lot to lose if it all ended. That is why the
system was designed to remain in place in perpetuity.

The people behind it all are monstrous fascists, and their day is coming
soon. Before you know it, they will all be sitting in the same cells
that they built for you and me.

[Roger]

Post by Chip Flintknapper

Post by Roger

Post by Chip Flintknapper

Post by Roger

Post by Rudy Canoza
1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial
percentage of homeless people are ordinary people
who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide
people with essential help.

I've never heard anyone say this. I have heard that with a few misfortunes
we could be like them.

Post by Rudy Canoza
FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers,
mentally ill, or both. That isn't to say that there
might not be some greater role of government in
providing help to people with serious mental or
substance abuse problems, but these people are *not*
like the majority of people. There are virtually no
two-parent intact families with children who find
themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation
like "offshoring". There are some single women with
children among the homeless, but these women again are
*not* like most people, in that they generally have low
levels of educational achievement, and - big difference
- were never married despite having one or more children.
2. The segment of homeless who are mentally ill are
Ronald Reagan's fault. Reagan "emptied out" the
mental hospitals, turning hundreds of thousands if not
millions of mental patients into homeless victims.
FALSE. The push to move mentally ill patients out of
in-patient mental hospital settings began in the 1950s,
and achieved its full vigor with John F. Kennedy's
signing of the Community Mental Health Act in October
1963. The state mental hospitals in California had
already begun to move patients back into community
treatment facilities years before Reagan became
governor of California in 1966, and of course Reagan
had nothing to do with the identical moves occurring in
other states.

When did homelessness start increasing? During the mid-1960s?

It didn't exist prior to 1981. All you need to do is go to the library
or your local newspaper and read the old microfiche files. The stories
begin in the summer of 1981. That is simply historical proof.
The mental cases were added around February 1982.
We always had some bums downtown when I was a kid. That was back in the
1950's and 60's. I grew up in Dallas TX, and there must have been 40 or
50 of them. But they were not "Homeless" people, they were winos.
Then the "Hippies" came along in the late 60's until about 1974. They
weren't the homeless either. Mostly they were kids who weren't old
enough to be in the service anyway.
Then, by the mid-1980's, there were millions of "Mentally Ill Substance
Abusers" all over the place, who were generally condemned, and had fewer
rights than old-time "Jim Crow" negroes. Anyone who denies these facts
is probably part of the system that caused it, and living in fear of
prosecution.
Ask people who are in their 50's or 60's what they personally remember
about the whole thing, and ask them to be truthful with you. You will
gain new insight.
Be well.

You're talking about words. I'm talking about people.
There have ALWAYS been homeless people. There will ALWAYS be homeless
people.
Some want it, many don't. We should help those who want help.
Saying that they are not like us, that that they are less than us, is wrong
and doesn't help anyone.

No, I'm talking about a new class of people, created in the early
1980's. The government wants you to confuse them with the poor. Most of
the originals have either been killed, died from exposure and disease,
or institutionalized, and replaced by an entirely different set of
people; but the system itself has been maintained as a convenient
dumping ground, or, if you will, a "prison without bars".
These people do not need "treatment" (which amounts to political
correction), they need housing and cash. Being warehoused in a shelter
is not housing. Don't tell me that they can just go and "get a job",
because unclean people, who have no addresses, don't get hired. Besides,
there are plenty of illegal aliens to do the menial work.
I doubt that there is another civilized country on this planet that
allows people to live face down in the dirt, and eat from garbage cans.
The old excuse that they are all a lot of mental patients or addicts
just make the facts worse, if they are indeed true.
Who do you think has been getting the money allotted to the homeless by
Congress since 1988? Certainly not the homeless. That money is either
diverted to the poor, or given to the maintainers of the shelter system.
They would have a hell of a lot to lose if it all ended. That is why the
system was designed to remain in place in perpetuity.
The people behind it all are monstrous fascists, and their day is coming
soon. Before you know it, they will all be sitting in the same cells
that they built for you and me.

You're reading a lot into my reply that isn't there.

Some people DO need treatment for mental and other illnesses. I didn't say
they should be forced to have this, since I don't believe that. If they want
it, they should get it.

I never said they are all "mental patients or addicts" since I don't believe
that.

I never said 'they can just go and "get a job"' because I don't believe that
either.

Please READ WHAT I WROTE and talk about that, not your imaginations.

[Chip Flintknapper]

Post by Roger

Post by Chip Flintknapper

Post by Roger

Post by Chip Flintknapper

Post by Roger

Post by Rudy Canoza
1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial
percentage of homeless people are ordinary people
who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide
people with essential help.

I've never heard anyone say this. I have heard that with a few misfortunes
we could be like them.

Post by Rudy Canoza
FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers,
mentally ill, or both. That isn't to say that there
might not be some greater role of government in
providing help to people with serious mental or
substance abuse problems, but these people are *not*
like the majority of people. There are virtually no
two-parent intact families with children who find
themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation
like "offshoring". There are some single women with
children among the homeless, but these women again are
*not* like most people, in that they generally have low
levels of educational achievement, and - big difference
- were never married despite having one or more children.
2. The segment of homeless who are mentally ill are
Ronald Reagan's fault. Reagan "emptied out" the
mental hospitals, turning hundreds of thousands if not
millions of mental patients into homeless victims.
FALSE. The push to move mentally ill patients out of
in-patient mental hospital settings began in the 1950s,
and achieved its full vigor with John F. Kennedy's
signing of the Community Mental Health Act in October
1963. The state mental hospitals in California had
already begun to move patients back into community
treatment facilities years before Reagan became
governor of California in 1966, and of course Reagan
had nothing to do with the identical moves occurring in
other states.

When did homelessness start increasing? During the mid-1960s?

It didn't exist prior to 1981. All you need to do is go to the library
or your local newspaper and read the old microfiche files. The stories
begin in the summer of 1981. That is simply historical proof.
The mental cases were added around February 1982.
We always had some bums downtown when I was a kid. That was back in the
1950's and 60's. I grew up in Dallas TX, and there must have been 40 or
50 of them. But they were not "Homeless" people, they were winos.
Then the "Hippies" came along in the late 60's until about 1974. They
weren't the homeless either. Mostly they were kids who weren't old
enough to be in the service anyway.
Then, by the mid-1980's, there were millions of "Mentally Ill Substance
Abusers" all over the place, who were generally condemned, and had fewer
rights than old-time "Jim Crow" negroes. Anyone who denies these facts
is probably part of the system that caused it, and living in fear of
prosecution.
Ask people who are in their 50's or 60's what they personally remember
about the whole thing, and ask them to be truthful with you. You will
gain new insight.
Be well.

You're talking about words. I'm talking about people.
There have ALWAYS been homeless people. There will ALWAYS be homeless
people.
Some want it, many don't. We should help those who want help.
Saying that they are not like us, that that they are less than us, is wrong
and doesn't help anyone.

No, I'm talking about a new class of people, created in the early
1980's. The government wants you to confuse them with the poor. Most of
the originals have either been killed, died from exposure and disease,
or institutionalized, and replaced by an entirely different set of
people; but the system itself has been maintained as a convenient
dumping ground, or, if you will, a "prison without bars".
These people do not need "treatment" (which amounts to political
correction), they need housing and cash. Being warehoused in a shelter
is not housing. Don't tell me that they can just go and "get a job",
because unclean people, who have no addresses, don't get hired. Besides,
there are plenty of illegal aliens to do the menial work.
I doubt that there is another civilized country on this planet that
allows people to live face down in the dirt, and eat from garbage cans.
The old excuse that they are all a lot of mental patients or addicts
just make the facts worse, if they are indeed true.
Who do you think has been getting the money allotted to the homeless by
Congress since 1988? Certainly not the homeless. That money is either
diverted to the poor, or given to the maintainers of the shelter system.
They would have a hell of a lot to lose if it all ended. That is why the
system was designed to remain in place in perpetuity.
The people behind it all are monstrous fascists, and their day is coming
soon. Before you know it, they will all be sitting in the same cells
that they built for you and me.

You're reading a lot into my reply that isn't there.
Some people DO need treatment for mental and other illnesses. I didn't say
they should be forced to have this, since I don't believe that. If they want
it, they should get it.
I never said they are all "mental patients or addicts" since I don't believe
that.
I never said 'they can just go and "get a job"' because I don't believe that
either.
Please READ WHAT I WROTE and talk about that, not your imaginations.

I haven't imagined a single thing. If you were old enough to remember
when this country wasn't fascist, then you would know that.

All that you know is what you have been told to know.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Chip Flintknapper

Post by Roger

Post by Rudy Canoza
1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial
percentage of homeless people are ordinary people
who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide
people with essential help.

I've never heard anyone say this. I have heard that with a few misfortunes
we could be like them.

Post by Rudy Canoza
FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers,
mentally ill, or both. That isn't to say that there
might not be some greater role of government in
providing help to people with serious mental or
substance abuse problems, but these people are *not*
like the majority of people. There are virtually no
two-parent intact families with children who find
themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation
like "offshoring". There are some single women with
children among the homeless, but these women again are
*not* like most people, in that they generally have low
levels of educational achievement, and - big difference
- were never married despite having one or more children.
2. The segment of homeless who are mentally ill are
Ronald Reagan's fault. Reagan "emptied out" the
mental hospitals, turning hundreds of thousands if not
millions of mental patients into homeless victims.
FALSE. The push to move mentally ill patients out of
in-patient mental hospital settings began in the 1950s,
and achieved its full vigor with John F. Kennedy's
signing of the Community Mental Health Act in October
1963. The state mental hospitals in California had
already begun to move patients back into community
treatment facilities years before Reagan became
governor of California in 1966, and of course Reagan
had nothing to do with the identical moves occurring in
other states.

When did homelessness start increasing? During the mid-1960s?

It didn't exist prior to 1981.

That's a lie. It just became PC about then to rename
the bums as "homeless".

Post by Chip Flintknapper
We always had some bums downtown when I was a kid. That was back in the
1950's and 60's. I grew up in Dallas TX, and there must have been 40 or
50 of them. But they were not "Homeless" people, they were winos.

Winos and junkies and some mental defectives, as are
the vast majority of those who are today labeled
"homeless".

Post by Chip Flintknapper
Then the "Hippies" came along in the late 60's until about 1974. They
weren't the homeless either. Mostly they were kids who weren't old
enough to be in the service anyway.

False. But this began the phenomenon of
homeless-by-choice.

Post by Chip Flintknapper
Then, by the mid-1980's, there were millions of "Mentally Ill Substance
Abusers" all over the place, who were generally condemned, and had fewer
rights than old-time "Jim Crow" negroes.

Bullshit.

[Topaz]

Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
capitalism is that it puts no special value on people. Capitalism is
based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato
chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt,
and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more
value than the potatoes or the salt. And they consider it good to pay
they humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.

According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying
its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the
sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If
there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.

The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?

In a hypothetical case suppose technology progressed so far that
all
the work were done by machines. Huge farms gathering food and all
automated. You would think everything would be great, but under
capitalism the people would starve because there wouldn't be enough
jobs.

Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue? If
there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
everything while most people would not pay one thin dime. We have
welfare so people all pay their fair share. It is part of having
civilization.

We have many laws that make things better for people.
There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
hours. There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
to be as greedy as possible.There are laws that keep people from
getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
Capitalism is bad for people.




http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html http://www.nsm88.com/

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Topaz
Capitalism and Communism are both bad.

Capitalism is not bad. It is based in liberty.

[publius2k]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Topaz
Capitalism and Communism are both bad.

Capitalism is not bad. It is based in liberty.

unfettered capitalism is bad. and the only liberty it suggests is that which Bush
referred to when he lied "OUR freedoms are under attack".

That is true, but only when one knows what "Our" is. As used by Bush and apologists for
capitalism, liberty is the freedom to do whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever
they want to whomever they want, without regard to any notion of similar liberty and
freedom for their victims. iow, economic justice is for 'just us'.



--
Said American [Indian] Chieftain Acuera in reply to
the invader de Soto's demand for submission to
the king and the church so as to 'enjoy the benefits
of 'civilization' and service:

"I have long since learned who you [European Christians] are,
through others of you who came years ago to my land;
and I already know very well what your customs and
behavior are like. To me you are professional
vagabonds who wander from place to place,
gaining your livelihood by robbing, sacking and
murdering people who have given you no offense.
... Accordingly, I and all of my people have vowed
to die a hundred deaths to maintain the freedom
of our land. This is our answer, both
for the present and forevermore."
-- "Florida of the Inca" (1591)
by El Inca [aka Garcilaso de la Vega]
- First American Author to be published.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by publius2k

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Topaz
Capitalism and Communism are both bad.

Capitalism is not bad. It is based in liberty.

unfettered capitalism is bad.

No.

[Roger]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:47:58 GMT, Rudy Canoza

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Topaz
Capitalism and Communism are both bad.

Capitalism is not bad. It is based in liberty.

unfettered capitalism is bad.

No.

The voice driven by the brain that contains no history.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Roger

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:47:58 GMT, Rudy Canoza

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Topaz
Capitalism and Communism are both bad.

Capitalism is not bad. It is based in liberty.

unfettered capitalism is bad.

No.

The voice driven by

...by the truth.

[Jafo]

Post by publius2k

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Topaz
Capitalism and Communism are both bad.

Capitalism is not bad. It is based in liberty.

unfettered capitalism is bad.

No.

Any form of government can be misapplied and misused, Rudy.

--
Jafo

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by Jafo

Post by publius2k

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Topaz
Capitalism and Communism are both bad.

Capitalism is not bad. It is based in liberty.

unfettered capitalism is bad.

No.

Any form of government can be misapplied and misused, Rudy.

Capitalism isn't a form of government.

[Topaz]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:47:58 GMT, Rudy Canoza

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by Topaz
Capitalism and Communism are both bad.

Capitalism is not bad. It is based in liberty.

This web site explains what is going on with the "left" and the
"right" in the modern economic sense.
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm

The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.

The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
corrupt the culture of the nation.

Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.

The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
the nation better. There are beaches where normal families will not go
because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
When the liberals say they are for freedom this is kind of thing they
are talking about. Of course people should be free to do what they
want most of the time. There is no argument there. Liberals are
talking about being free to do things that many people object to and
want outlawed. Their philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion,
would not allow the law that says drivers have to stop at the red
lights. Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold on grocery
store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV. Their philosophy
would result in chaos and degeneracy.

Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
that the state can't tell them what they can't do. People don't like
laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
but good laws would make a nation good.

The Communists were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to dissolve the
government and have an anarchy.


The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about the
present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in
Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the
freedom of individuals to be as decadent as they want. To see the kind
of society
libertarians are fighting for see the movie "8MM", they aren't for the
snuff part, but
other than that it shows liberalism in action.

http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html http://www.nsm88.com/

[unknown]

Post by Topaz
Capitalism and Communism are both bad.

You are right, though I disagree with your definitions of both.
Depending on what you include in either, they could also be both good.

Post by Topaz
The problem with
capitalism is that it puts no special value on people. Capitalism is
based on supply and demand.

When you say "based", you are correct, capitalism is based on a market
system. It is however not identical to a market system. It is a
outgrowth of it, like a wart is "based" on the human body, but not
identical to it.

Post by Topaz
A capitalist company that made potato
chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt,
and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more
value than the potatoes or the salt. And they consider it good to pay
they humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.

This gets boring, but I agree with you. The problem is that the workers
don't own their company, and hence become machines for someone else.
The problem is a certain distribution of ownership, and this is neither
equal to a market system, though capitalism heavily depends on this type
of dictatorial ownership relations for the purpose of extracting maximum
capital from companies (low wages = high profit = high potential investment
returns). Dictatorial business relations are what Capitalism is based
on within a market system.

Post by Topaz
According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying
its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the
sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If
there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.

Couldn't agree more.

Post by Topaz
The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?

That would be the solution to the problem. By the way, note that this
is communism, though not as it historically existed, rather among
its original theories (which were many and diverse, but went in your
direction). A `soviet' means `worker council', it was meant as a
worker government for each company; which would disperse profit obviously.

Post by Topaz
In a hypothetical case suppose technology progressed so far that all
the work were done by machines. Huge farms gathering food and all
automated. You would think everything would be great, but under
capitalism the people would starve because there wouldn't be enough
jobs.
Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue? If
there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
everything while most people would not pay one thin dime. We have
welfare so people all pay their fair share. It is part of having
civilization.

Capitalists say people should be helped by welfare so that they don't
have to pay, and so that their system doesn't come under additional
attacks.

Post by Topaz
We have many laws that make things better for people.

This may be a matter of some debate. Laws often exist to make things
better for the top people, discipline makes for greater profits.
Though, for instance, it is perfectly fine for top people to kill
whomever in the interest of their wealth, this is not true for ordinary
workers, because if ordinary workers start killing eachother, that
is an additional cost factor. You don't want the slaves killing
eachother, because it costs slaves. But you do want to kill union
leaders and wage wars, since that can be good for profits.

This type of thing is only acceptable, if without such a top layer
of greedy/violent people, society would be in total chaos/anarchy.
The wealth of the roman empire rulers is only acceptable, if the
alternative is even worse (which it probably wouldn't be, though). The
roman empire rulers do some things in order to maximize their wealth:
build discipline top-down, build reduced violence horizontally (law),
and extract wealth. In a sense, it isn't even a negative activity,
depending on what would happen otherwise.

Post by Topaz
There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
hours. There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
to be as greedy as possible.There are laws that keep people from
getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
Capitalism is bad for people.

Correct. But markets are not bad. So what do we do ? We combine
anti-capitalism with free markets and lots of democracy.

If you are interested, I've written an example law system that seems to
respond to your interests: http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb/constitution.html
and that could be *stable* (I hope). Unlike historical communism which
was unstable because of its heavy integration of everything (plan
economy, collectives), and unstable capitalism, which forever needs
to stir chaos in the economy to promote businesses lending more money,
promotes dictatorial businesses and forever pressures for bad working
conditions, and war. The problem with capitalism is that it seeks to
harvest profits that concentrated somewhere. If a country is
concentrating profits, then capitalists elsewhere will seek to harvest
them (hostile takeover). If a country is thoroughly democratic and
unwilling to concentrate profits, then it would be useless to conquer.
It is all about money. Capitalism also breeds war, everywhere.

[Rudy Canoza]

Someone fatuously objected to the first of the myths -
that the homeless are "just like you and me" - saying
he had never heard anyone say that. When I found half
a dozen or so citations of people saying exactly that,
he fatuously objected again, saying that what they
really were saying is that the homeless "are people,
just like you and me," which he presumably took to mean
that the homeless are people just as the rest of us are
people.

That interpretation is absurd and cannot be the meaning
of the "...just like you and me" rubbish. No one
questions that the homeless are people. If someone is
merely trying to point out that the homeless are
people, then the "just like you and me" nonsense is
utterly superfluous; it adds no meaning.

No, the people who use the "just like you and me"
construction clearly mean to imply a likeness of
attributes. What they're saying is that the homeless
really aren't much different from the rest of us. And
that's why it's one of the Two Myths, because they very
clearly ARE NOT "just like you and me", for the most
part. They are not normal, responsible, hard-working
people who have simply had some terrible luck. They
are, rather, *fundamentally* different from most
people. The vast majority of them suffer serious,
debilitating mental illness, or are chronic substance
abusers, or both.

Observing this does not, as one recklessly reactive
person wrote, mean one lacks compassion. What it does
mean is that the person who makes this observation
knows that useful assistance given to the vast majority
of the homeless must take a very different form from
the help that would be appropriate for a normal person
who has simply experienced some bad luck. For such an
unlucky normal person, the appropriate help probably
would take the form of some free but temporary housing
and some job training. After that, the person would be
ready to move on, fully responsible for himself once again.

But for the vast majority of the homeless, this would
be inappropriate and an utter waste. These people
nearly always need *medical* treatment, and the sort of
housing assistance that would be appropriate for them
would be very different - some kind of dormitory or
communal lodging, not their own apartments.

[zeez]

Post by Rudy Canoza
1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial
percentage of homeless people are ordinary people
who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide
people with essential help.
FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers,
mentally ill, or both. T

Mental illness is *NOT* a morality issue, it's a DISEASE. Damn, you
sound like one of those people who
used to chain the mentally ill by the necks to wall and accuse them of
being demon worshipers.
\And yess, there are whole families that are homeless due to
economics. Unless you've
experienced homelessness for yourself. (Not hard to do, esp. when we
are becomming an almost pure ¢ervice
economy).please shut the hell up.

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by zeez

Post by Rudy Canoza
1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial
percentage of homeless people are ordinary people
who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide
people with essential help.
FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers,
mentally ill, or both. T

Mental illness is *NOT* a morality issue, it's a DISEASE.

I didn't say it was a morality issue. I don't know
where you got that idea.

Post by zeez
Damn, you
sound like one of those people who
used to chain the mentally ill by the necks to wall and accuse them of
being demon worshipers.

Hardly.

Post by zeez
And yess, there are whole families that are homeless due to
economics.

No. This is the myth. There are virtually *ZERO* such
families. This myth is spun by ideologues for entirely
political reasons, but it's just not true.

[zeez]

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by zeez

Post by Rudy Canoza
1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial
percentage of homeless people are ordinary people
who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide
people with essential help.
FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers,
mentally ill, or both. T

Mental illness is *NOT* a morality issue, it's a DISEASE.

I didn't say it was a morality issue. I don't know
where you got that idea.

Post by zeez
Damn, you
sound like one of those people who
used to chain the mentally ill by the necks to wall and accuse them of
being demon worshipers.

Hardly.

Post by zeez
And yess, there are whole families that are homeless due to
economics.

No. This is the myth. There are virtually *ZERO* such

No, "virtualy zero" is a myth

Post by Rudy Canoza
families. This myth is spun by ideologues for entirely
political reasons, but it's just not true.

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/families.pdf
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=homeless+families&btnG=Google+Search

[Rudy Canoza]

Post by zeez

Post by Rudy Canoza

Post by zeez

Post by Rudy Canoza
1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial
percentage of homeless people are ordinary people
who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide
people with essential help.
FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers,
mentally ill, or both. T

Mental illness is *NOT* a morality issue, it's a DISEASE.

I didn't say it was a morality issue. I don't know
where you got that idea.

Post by zeez
Damn, you
sound like one of those people who
used to chain the mentally ill by the necks to wall and accuse them of
being demon worshipers.

Hardly.

Post by zeez
And yess, there are whole families that are homeless due to
economics.

No. This is the myth. There are virtually *ZERO* such

No, "virtualy zero" is a myth

No. There are almost *NO* whole families that are
homeless due to economics.