"New Face of Homeless" (L.A. Daily News) + Comments re Venezuela

Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. :O|

Chavez has a lot more money than SF does.

Stan de SD

2006-12-27 03:22:45 UTC

Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. :O|

Chavez has a lot more money than SF does.

Great - he will have a lot more bums.

Economics

2006-12-27 04:03:02 UTC

Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. :O|

Chavez has a lot more money than SF does.

Great - he will have a lot more bums.

Actually this is a good way to aolve the homeless problem. Some Republicans
don't realize this, but giving a basic allowance to the underclass means
they spend it right back into the economy, creating economic growth where it
did not exist before.

We see proof of how the opposite doesn't work in how Reagan's cuts in social
programs in the early 1980s caused America's national debt to grow from $1
trillion to $4 trillion. By cutting social programs like subsidized
college, it seemed on paper like it would save the government money, but in
reality it cost the government more money.

Stan de SD

2006-12-27 11:56:19 UTC

Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. :O|

Chavez has a lot more money than SF does.

Great - he will have a lot more bums.

Only an idiot liberal such as yourself sees subtance-abusing derelicts who
place an expensive burden on social services as "benefitting the economy".

Merlin Dorfman

2006-12-27 16:33:27 UTC

Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. :O|

Chavez has a lot more money than SF does.

Great - he will have a lot more bums.

Actually this is a good way to aolve the homeless problem. Some

Republicans

Post by Economics
don't realize this, but giving a basic allowance to the underclass means
they spend it right back into the economy, creating economic growth where

Post by Economics
did not exist before.

Only an idiot liberal such as yourself sees subtance-abusing derelicts who
place an expensive burden on social services as "benefitting the economy".

Only an idiot conservative such as yourself sees all the
underclass as homeless, substance-abusing derelicts.

Stan de SD

2006-12-28 05:29:18 UTC

Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. :O|

Chavez has a lot more money than SF does.

Great - he will have a lot more bums.

Actually this is a good way to aolve the homeless problem. Some

Republicans

Post by Economics
don't realize this, but giving a basic allowance to the underclass means
they spend it right back into the economy, creating economic growth where

Post by Economics
did not exist before.

Only an idiot liberal such as yourself sees subtance-abusing derelicts who
place an expensive burden on social services as "benefitting the economy".

Only an idiot conservative such as yourself sees all the
underclass as homeless, substance-abusing derelicts.

I never said ALL of them were, but most of them clearly are. Get a clue,
Mervin.

Merlin Dorfman

2006-12-28 15:56:05 UTC

President Hugo Chavez has pledged to do away with homelessness in
Venezuela through an aggressive outreach program that is offering
street people communal housing, drug treatment and a modest

stipend.

Post by Stan de SD
Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn.

:O|

Post by Merlin Dorfman
Chavez has a lot more money than SF does.

Great - he will have a lot more bums.

Actually this is a good way to aolve the homeless problem. Some

Republicans

Post by Economics
don't realize this, but giving a basic allowance to the underclass

means

Post by Economics
they spend it right back into the economy, creating economic growth

where

Post by Economics
it

Post by Economics
did not exist before.

Only an idiot liberal such as yourself sees subtance-abusing derelicts

who

Post by Economics
place an expensive burden on social services as "benefitting the

economy".

Post by Merlin Dorfman
Only an idiot conservative such as yourself sees all the
underclass as homeless, substance-abusing derelicts.

I never said ALL of them were, but most of them clearly are. Get a clue,
Mervin.

OK, delete "all:"
"Only an idiot conservative such as yourself sees most of the
underclass as homeless, substance-abusing derelicts."
Happy now?

Rudy Canoza

2006-12-28 18:03:24 UTC

Sounds like SF's program - proof that idiot Lefties never learn. :O|

Chavez has a lot more money than SF does.

Great - he will have a lot more bums.

Actually this is a good way to aolve the homeless problem. Some

Republicans

Post by Economics
don't realize this, but giving a basic allowance to the underclass means
they spend it right back into the economy, creating economic growth where

Post by Economics
did not exist before.

Only an idiot liberal such as yourself sees subtance-abusing derelicts who
place an expensive burden on social services as "benefitting the economy".

Only an idiot conservative such as yourself sees all the
underclass as homeless, substance-abusing derelicts.

Most are.

There are three main groups of homeless:
substance-abusers who render themselves homeless by
choice; seriously mentally ill people who have no care;
and ordinary people who slipped on the proverbial and
figurative banana peel.

Bleeding heart liberals pretend that this third group
is the largest one, and that an unfair capitalist
system with an inadequate safety net is at fault.
That's bullshit. The third group is the *smallest*
one, and while an inadequate safety net may be
implicated to some extent, it's far from the whole
story. There are virtually *zero* intact two-parent
families in which the couple are legally married
contained in this group. You do get some number of
single women with children, but we're not talking
professional women with degrees who suddenly are laid
off from a six-figure salaried job and can't find work;
rather, they consist of never-married women who had
children out of wedlock, have little education and
almost no skills. These women made choices, and they
were bad ones. But don't lose sight of the fact that
his group is the smallest one among all homeless.

The first and second groups have a considerable
overlap, because long term substance abuse which may
have started out as a choice can lead to mental illness
and a lifelong inability to be self-sustaining.

It isn't clear what to do about truly insane people.
At one time a lot of them were involuntarily
hospitalized in state hospitals. The Kennedy
administration undertook initiatives to get people out
of state hospitals (Reagan is usually wrongly blamed
for this), where they were in essence imprisoned, and
return them to communities to be treated on an
outpatient basis. Funding for these programs waxes and
wanes, but the outcome is that crazy people who
formerly would have been confined are out and about,
and because we're a free society we don't compel them
to participate in programs if they don't want to
participate.

Finally, there is the first group, of more or less able
people who disable themselves through chronic and acute
substance abuse. It isn't as if resources aren't
available to them to deal with their substance abuse.
If they won't avail themselves of these programs and
CLEAN THEMSELVES UP, and stay clean and fend for
themselves, why should society have some obligation to
feed and house them? Answer: we don't.

Merlin Dorfman

2006-12-28 18:56:04 UTC

...

Post by Stan de SD
Only an idiot liberal such as yourself sees subtance-abusing derelicts who
place an expensive burden on social services as "benefitting the economy".

Only an idiot conservative such as yourself sees all the
underclass as homeless, substance-abusing derelicts.

Most are.
substance-abusers who render themselves homeless by
choice; seriously mentally ill people who have no care;
and ordinary people who slipped on the proverbial and
figurative banana peel.
Bleeding heart liberals pretend that this third group
is the largest one, and that an unfair capitalist
system with an inadequate safety net is at fault.

What fraction do you think are in each group, given
that there is a lot of overlap between groups 1 and 2?
And why do you "blame" Kennedy for the de-institutional-
ization? It was started by Reagan when he was governor
of California, and then moved to national policy. The
idea originated with the development of anti-psychotic
medications, which made it possible to control the
chronically mentally ill without physical confinement.
The original plan was that storefront locations would be
widely available so that they could get their medications
conveniently, but once they were out of hospitals it was
easy to forget about the plan, and few neighborhood
treatment centers were ever built. Hence getting the
medication became somewhat difficult and of course many
who needed it didn't go through the difficulties. Thus we
have, as I understand it, about 30% of the homeless who are
mentally ill, might be "helped" by medication, and are not
getting it.
As for the others, note that there are millions of
people who are one paycheck away from homelessness. Just as
the great majority of bankruptcies are not due to spending
sprees but to medical bills, unemployment, divorce or other
family crisis, or some combination of the above, so there are
many homeless for these reasons, though a good number are
able to recover sufficiently in the short term to get off
the streets.
It is certainly true that most of the homeless are there
due to "bad choices." The proof is the number of people who
grow up in the worst of circumstances but are able to pull
themselves up by their bootstraps, work hard, get the
training or education they need, and really make a life for
themselves. I have endless admiration for such people.
However the reality is that the majority can't or won't.
Left to their own devices they will not make the right choices
and/or work hard enough. Some of this number are hopeless--
you can shower them with money and opportunity and all they
will do is squander it. But many--the greatest number, in my
opinion--can be helped. Given a little financial relief,
some support for education and/or training, they can be
productive citizens and pay back the investment many times
over. My concern is that we just pass these people off as
having made bad choices and unworthy of help. Many can be
helped and as a society we benefit by providing them the
second and even third chances. Separating them from the truly
hopeless is a challenge.
---------------------------------------

Post by Rudy Canoza
That's bullshit. The third group is the *smallest*
one, and while an inadequate safety net may be
implicated to some extent, it's far from the whole
story. There are virtually *zero* intact two-parent
families in which the couple are legally married
contained in this group. You do get some number of
single women with children, but we're not talking
professional women with degrees who suddenly are laid
off from a six-figure salaried job and can't find work;
rather, they consist of never-married women who had
children out of wedlock, have little education and
almost no skills. These women made choices, and they
were bad ones. But don't lose sight of the fact that
his group is the smallest one among all homeless.
The first and second groups have a considerable
overlap, because long term substance abuse which may
have started out as a choice can lead to mental illness
and a lifelong inability to be self-sustaining.
It isn't clear what to do about truly insane people.
At one time a lot of them were involuntarily
hospitalized in state hospitals. The Kennedy
administration undertook initiatives to get people out
of state hospitals (Reagan is usually wrongly blamed
for this), where they were in essence imprisoned, and
return them to communities to be treated on an
outpatient basis. Funding for these programs waxes and
wanes, but the outcome is that crazy people who
formerly would have been confined are out and about,
and because we're a free society we don't compel them
to participate in programs if they don't want to
participate.
Finally, there is the first group, of more or less able
people who disable themselves through chronic and acute
substance abuse. It isn't as if resources aren't
available to them to deal with their substance abuse.
If they won't avail themselves of these programs and
CLEAN THEMSELVES UP, and stay clean and fend for
themselves, why should society have some obligation to
feed and house them? Answer: we don't.

Stan de SD

2006-12-30 10:46:02 UTC

Post by Merlin Dorfman
What fraction do you think are in each group, given
that there is a lot of overlap between groups 1 and 2?
And why do you "blame" Kennedy for the de-institutional-
ization? It was started by Reagan when he was governor
of California, and then moved to national policy. The
idea originated with the development of anti-psychotic
medications, which made it possible to control the
chronically mentally ill without physical confinement.
The original plan was that storefront locations would be
widely available so that they could get their medications
conveniently, but once they were out of hospitals it was
easy to forget about the plan, and few neighborhood
treatment centers were ever built. Hence getting the
medication became somewhat difficult and of course many
who needed it didn't go through the difficulties. Thus we
have, as I understand it, about 30% of the homeless who are
mentally ill, might be "helped" by medication, and are not
getting it.

The whole problem with this scheme was that liberals (and unfortunately,
quite a few conservatives as well) assumed that people who were psychotic
would take their medication voluntarily, without any need for supervision.
Unlike most people who suffer some type of affliction, mentally ill people
generally don't recognize that they are sick. As Mona Charen pointed out in
her book "DO-GOODERS - How Liberals Hurt Those they claim to Help (and the
Rest of Us)" (ISBN 1-59523-003-3) in a discussion about violent mentally ill
people on the streets of NYC:

"A series of liberal initiatives made treating the homeless mentally ill
difficult to impossible. Involuntary commitment laws in many states were
diluted to the point that a psychotic person would have to be caught in a
violent act in order to be hospitalized without his or her consent. New
York's law was particularly narrow, making it nearly impossible to
hospitalize the mentally ill unless they requested it The catch-22, of
course, was that the nature of the illness made many schizophrenics deny
that they were mentally ill..."

Merlin Dorfman

2006-12-31 04:25:02 UTC

I don't think liberals drove this at all; as above, it was
Reagan who first pushed it in California, and, as most mental health
professionals (unlike those in other aspects of health) tend to be
liberal, putting all those docs, nurses, and attendants at mental
hospitals out of jobs was not popular with the Left. Plus it was
Reagan's idea which in itself was probably sufficient to secure the
opposition of liberals.
As far as taking medication...I'm far from an expert, but I've
been told that patients, when on their anti-psychotic medication,
recognize the need to keep taking it and, if convenient, will do
so. However if they ever get off, they indeed don't recognize that
they are having a problem and will probably not take medication even
if put in front of them.

Post by Stan de SD
"A series of liberal initiatives made treating the homeless mentally ill
difficult to impossible. Involuntary commitment laws in many states were
diluted to the point that a psychotic person would have to be caught in a
violent act in order to be hospitalized without his or her consent. New
York's law was particularly narrow, making it nearly impossible to
hospitalize the mentally ill unless they requested it The catch-22, of
course, was that the nature of the illness made many schizophrenics deny
that they were mentally ill..."

There is a real issue here. There were (and are) serious
problems with people being involuntarily committed because their
relatives, physicians, etc., find them a nuisance and a bother,
and ask the authorities to have them declared mentally incompetent
and committed. Hence the drive to make it more difficult to
commit a person against their will.
Frankly I'm amazed that conservatives are on the other side
of this issue. What could be a more intrusive government act than
to deprive a person of liberty without extensive due process?
Shouldn't individuals be permitted all sorts of annoying,
irrational, pointless behavior without being deprived of liberty,
as long as they are not a danger to themselves or others: proven
beyond a reasonable doubt? That would seem to me to be the proper
position for conservatives who want individuals, not government,
to be responsible for the way people behave.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-01 09:09:53 UTC

I don't think liberals drove this at all; as above, it was
Reagan who first pushed it in California,

I already told you that is simply bullshit. It's the
popular bleeding-heart myth, and it's bullshit. The
Community Mental Health Act of 1963, signed by Kennedy,
is what began to move mentally ill people out of
hospitals into community treatment centers that
*already* were underfunded. This took place more than
three years before Reagan became governor of California.

Unhappily for shitbag liberals who love to wallow in
their bullshit mythology, anything Reagan did as
governor has ZERO explanatory power for events that
happened in the rest of the country. The problem of
homeless crazy people around the country began long
before Reagan became president.

You're going to need to find a new scapegoat.

Merlin Dorfman

2007-01-01 19:39:46 UTC

...

Post by Stan de SD
The whole problem with this scheme was that liberals (and unfortunately,
quite a few conservatives as well) assumed that people who were psychotic
would take their medication voluntarily, without any need for supervision.
Unlike most people who suffer some type of affliction, mentally ill people
generally don't recognize that they are sick. As Mona Charen pointed out in
her book "DO-GOODERS - How Liberals Hurt Those they claim to Help (and the
Rest of Us)" (ISBN 1-59523-003-3) in a discussion about violent mentally ill

I don't think liberals drove this at all; as above, it was
Reagan who first pushed it in California,

I already told you that is simply bullshit.

Somehow "I already told you" doesn't constitute proof in my
world.

Post by Rudy Canoza
It's the
popular bleeding-heart myth, and it's bullshit. The
Community Mental Health Act of 1963, signed by Kennedy,
is what began to move mentally ill people out of
hospitals into community treatment centers that
*already* were underfunded. This took place more than
three years before Reagan became governor of California.
Unhappily for shitbag liberals who love to wallow in
their bullshit mythology, anything Reagan did as
governor has ZERO explanatory power for events that
happened in the rest of the country. The problem of
homeless crazy people around the country began long
before Reagan became president.
You're going to need to find a new scapegoat.

If you can lay off the four-letter words for a few minutes,
there is a later message in this thread that addresses the
question. If you are looking for the ultimate original idea
for de-institutionalization, you have to go back to the 1950s.
If you are looking for real action, backed by funding and
mandated action, Reagan (and, of course, the California
legislature) are it.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-01 19:44:47 UTC

I don't think liberals drove this at all; as above, it was
Reagan who first pushed it in California,

I already told you that is simply bullshit.

Somehow "I already told you" doesn't constitute proof in my
world.

I provided you with:

- the federal law: the Community Mental Health Act
- the year of its signing: 1963
- the name of the president who signed it: John F.
Kennedy

and several web pages that *EXPLICITLY* addressed the
way in which this law exemplified the law of unintended
consequences, specifically the rapid growth in
homelessness of mentally ill people. You simply have
refused to acknowledge your demonstrated error.

The actual governmental action was a product of the
Kennedy administration.

Post by Merlin Dorfman
If you are looking for real action, backed by funding and
mandated action, Reagan (and, of course, the California
legislature) are it.

Not for the US as a whole.

You're still trying to cling to the myth, because
you're a partisan liar.

Merlin Dorfman

2007-01-02 05:01:22 UTC

...

Post by Merlin Dorfman
If you can lay off the four-letter words for a few minutes,
there is a later message in this thread that addresses the
question. If you are looking for the ultimate original idea
for de-institutionalization, you have to go back to the 1950s.

The actual governmental action was a product of the
Kennedy administration.

A law was passed. Little or nothing happened, because no
funding came with it. I can tell you first-hand that nothing
happened in California, and I gave you references to that
effect. Things began to happen in California after Reagan
became governor, of course with the cooperation of the
legislature. Other states followed--Reagan can't be blamed
for that, just for the idea of state initiative and funding.
I never said he did anything along this line as president, it
was all over by then.

Post by Merlin Dorfman
If you are looking for real action, backed by funding and
mandated action, Reagan (and, of course, the California
legislature) are it.

Not for the US as a whole.

In other words, you agree that real action along this line
started in California, when Reagan was governor, at his
initiative.

Post by Rudy Canoza
You're still trying to cling to the myth, because
you're a partisan liar.

One last four-letter word you need to drop: "liar."
And "partisan" cuts both ways.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 05:14:32 UTC

The actual governmental action was a product of the
Kennedy administration.

A law was passed. Little or nothing happened,

It began the move of in-patient hospitalized people in
state mental hospitals into the community well before
Reagan became governor of California.

Reagan as governor of California had nothing to do with
other states moving their in-patient mental health
patients out of their state hospitals. Admit this.
Admit it now.

Post by Merlin Dorfman
If you are looking for real action, backed by funding and
mandated action, Reagan (and, of course, the California
legislature) are it.

Not for the US as a whole.

In other words, you agree that real action along this line
started in California,

No, nothing of the sort, little leftist "merlin".

Post by Rudy Canoza
You're still trying to cling to the myth, because
you're a partisan liar.

One last

You're a little partisan liar, "merlin".

Merlin Dorfman

2007-01-02 17:37:38 UTC

The actual governmental action was a product of the
Kennedy administration.

A law was passed. Little or nothing happened,

It began the move of in-patient hospitalized people in
state mental hospitals into the community well before
Reagan became governor of California.

Little or no Federal funding followed passage of this
law, which merely expressed the intention and authorized
Federal support--per your citation. Therefore very little
actually happened, and, again, first-hand, next to nothing
happened in California until Reagan took the initiative.
Can you show that other states stepped in and provided
state funding for this type of activity before California
did? I didn't think so.

Post by Rudy Canoza
Reagan as governor of California had nothing to do with
other states moving their in-patient mental health
patients out of their state hospitals. Admit this.
Admit it now.

As I've said several times, he provided the idea for
action at the state level. No, California didn't send any
money to other states for them to follow California's lead.
Got it?

Post by Merlin Dorfman
If you are looking for real action, backed by funding and
mandated action, Reagan (and, of course, the California
legislature) are it.

Not for the US as a whole.

In other words, you agree that real action along this line
started in California,

No, nothing of the sort, little leftist "merlin".

Oh? Where did the real action start, given that the Federal
government didn't send the states money for them to empty their
mental hospitals?

Post by Rudy Canoza
You're still trying to cling to the myth, because
you're a partisan liar.

One last

You're a little partisan liar, "merlin".

You're a big partisan...exaggerator, "rudy."
And are you satisfied that medical, family, and job
problems are the leading causes of bankruptcy?

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 17:45:34 UTC

The actual governmental action was a product of the
Kennedy administration.

A law was passed. Little or nothing happened,

It began the move of in-patient hospitalized people in
state mental hospitals into the community well before
Reagan became governor of California.

Post by Rudy Canoza
Reagan as governor of California had nothing to do with
other states moving their in-patient mental health
patients out of their state hospitals. Admit this.
Admit it now.

As I've said several times, he provided the idea for
action at the state level. No, California didn't send any
money to other states for them to follow California's lead.
Got it?

Post by Merlin Dorfman
If you are looking for real action, backed by funding and
mandated action, Reagan (and, of course, the California
legislature) are it.

Not for the US as a whole.

In other words, you agree that real action along this line
started in California,

No, nothing of the sort, little leftist "merlin".

Oh? Where did the real action start, given that the Federal
government didn't send the states money for them to empty their
mental hospitals?

It started all over the country, little lying leftist
"merlin", and it started before Reagan was governor of
California.

Post by Rudy Canoza
You're still trying to cling to the myth, because
you're a partisan liar.

One last

You're a little partisan liar, "merlin".

You're a big partisan...exaggerator,

Nope. You are a partisan liar, little leftist
"merlin". You have your comfy little hate-based myth,
and you're just not going to let go of it no matter how
anachronistic its elements. It has a nice convenient
bogeyman for a lying polemical ideologue like you, and
that's far more satisfying to you than honest analysis.

Merlin Dorfman

2007-01-03 22:48:57 UTC

In ba.general Rudy Canoza <rudy-***@excite.com> wrote:

...

Post by Rudy Canoza
Nope. You are a partisan liar, little leftist
"merlin". You have your comfy little hate-based myth,

(Plonk)

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-03 23:36:00 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza
Nope. You are a partisan liar, little leftist
"merlin". You have your comfy little hate-based myth,

(Plonk)

Little "merlin" predictably cuts and runs.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-03 23:58:42 UTC

Individuals with substance use disorders are more
prevalent in community samples of the homeless than in
the general housed population, with risk ratios of over
two. [1-4] Excess rates of mental illness, particularly
serious mental illness, are similarly high or even
higher compared to housed populations? [1,2] Not
surprisingly, homeless individuals also demonstrate
high levels of physical and mental health problems
[5-11] and excess health care costs compared to the
general housed population. [8,12]

American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse,
republished at
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0978/is_3_28/ai_105439150

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-05 06:54:27 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza
Individuals with substance use disorders are more
prevalent in community samples of the homeless than in
the general housed population, with risk ratios of over
two. [1-4] Excess rates of mental illness, particularly
serious mental illness, are similarly high or even
higher compared to housed populations? [1,2] Not
surprisingly, homeless individuals also demonstrate
high levels of physical and mental health problems
[5-11] and excess health care costs compared to the
general housed population. [8,12]

Duh.
Of course homeless folks have higher incidence of mental health,
general health and substance abuse problems. Homelessness tends to do
that to people, and vica versa

No, you have the causation exactly backward.
Homelessness didn't "do" it to them; "it" - mental
illness and/or substance abuse - caused them to be
homeless.

torresdD

2007-01-24 02:03:57 UTC

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-05 06:56:24 UTC

Duh.
Of course homeless folks have higher incidence of mental health,
general health and substance abuse problems. Homelessness tends to do
that to people, and vica versa

No, you have the causation exactly backward. Homelessness didn't "do"
it to them; "it" - mental illness and/or substance abuse - caused them
to be homeless.

It happens both ways.

Prove it. Prove that homelessness causes schizophrenia, bipolar
disorder, and other severe mental illness. Prove that homelessness
causes substance abuse.

Prove it?? To you???

Yes, timmie - prove it, you fucking lying idiot.

You're completely full of shit and you know it, in
particular as concerns mental illness. I can well
believe that homelessness might *worsen* a substance
abuser's frequency and intensity of abuse, although
probably not cause it; but the idea that homelessness
is going to *cause* schizophrenia or bipolar disorder,
which have biological etiologies, is laughable on its face.

You're such a chump, timmie.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 19:14:41 UTC

The actual governmental action was a product of the
Kennedy administration.

A law was passed. Little or nothing happened,

It began the move of in-patient hospitalized people in
state mental hospitals into the community well before
Reagan became governor of California.

Little or no Federal funding followed passage of this
law,

False, little lying leftist "merlin". LOTS of money
initially was delivered, specifically earmarked for
community mental health. Later, when the funding was
changed to non-categorical block grants, the states -
including states other than California - chose not to
spend money on community mental health. Reagan had
nothing to do with that.

Post by Rudy Canoza
Reagan as governor of California had nothing to do with
other states moving their in-patient mental health
patients out of their state hospitals. Admit this.
Admit it now.

As I've said several times, he provided the idea for
action at the state level.

No, he didn't, little leftist "merlin". The idea came
about more than 10 years before Reagan became governor
of California.

No, California didn't send any

Post by Merlin Dorfman
money to other states for them to follow California's lead.
Got it?

Post by Merlin Dorfman
If you are looking for real action, backed by funding and
mandated action, Reagan (and, of course, the California
legislature) are it.

Not for the US as a whole.

In other words, you agree that real action along this line
started in California,

No, nothing of the sort, little leftist "merlin".

Oh? Where did the real action start, given that the Federal
government didn't send the states money for them to empty their
mental hospitals?

It started all over the country, little lying leftist
"merlin", and it started before Reagan was governor of
California.

Post by Rudy Canoza
You're still trying to cling to the myth, because
you're a partisan liar.

One last

You're a little partisan liar, "merlin".

You're a big partisan...exaggerator,

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 19:20:46 UTC

http://www.fortfreedom.org/n22.htm

[From The Wall Street Journal, 14 December 1989, p.
A22:3]

[Kindly uploaded by Freeman 10602PANC]

You know it's the holiday season when the media
make their
annual rediscovery of homelessness in
America. Since
Thanksgiving ABC News has named a Massachusetts
homeless advocate
as its ``Person of the Week,'' the New York Times and
USA Today
have made the nonurban homeless front-page news,
and CBS has
aired the made-for-TV movie ``No Place Like
Home.'' NBC's
``Golden Girls'' and CBS's ``Jake and the Fat Man''
are running
their own holiday segments on the homeless.
Unfortunately, this barrage of attention tells us
more about
the media than about the homeless. The Center for
Media and
Public Affairs found that, from 1986 to 1989, the
television
networks ran twice as many stories on the homeless
from November
through February as during the other eight months of
the year.
And homeless people in New York City appeared five
times as often
as those in any other city. Call them the seasonally
adjusted,
conveniently located homeless.
The media's portrait of homelessness is skewed
by more than
laziness or a short attention span. The coverage
reflects the
advocacy approach that journalists adopt when they see
a need for
social reform, eschewing balanced coverage of two
sides. And
this raises the tension that can arise between
journalists' dual
roles as champions of the underdog and disinterested
chroniclers
of social change.
In his 1973 book ``News From Nowhere,'' media
analyst Edward
J. Epstein noted that institutional controls on
journalistic
advocacy are lifted on news reports about
subjects like
pollution, hunger, racial discrimination and poverty.
On such
topics, a CBS executive told Mr. Epstein,
correspondents are
expected ``openly to advocate the eradication of
the presumed
evil and even put it in terms of a crusade.''
The Center for Media and Public Affairs study
shows that
homelessness can now be added to this list. We
analyzed 103
stories on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts
and 26 often
lengthy articles in Time, Newsweek and U.S. News and
World Report
from November 1986 through February 1989. The results
provide a
blueprint of advocacy journalism:
o Create empathy. The homeless were presented
as ordinary
people who differ from other Americans mainly be
being more
victimized by the social and political system. As
CBS's Martha
Teichner put it, ``People who once gave to the needy
now are the
needy.'' Fewer than one in four of the homeless
people featured
in the stories we examined were identified as
unemployed, only
one in 14 as a drug or alcohol user, only one in 12
as mentally
ill, and under 1% as having a criminal record.
Yet recent studies by the U.S. Conference of
Mayors and the
Urban Institute suggest vastly higher rates -- 75%
unemployed,
35% substance abusers, 25% mentally ill, 20% to 25%
with prison
records.
o Blame the system. In keeping with this
portrait of the
deserving poor, only one source in 25 blamed
homelessness on the
personal problems of the homeless themselves, such
as mental
illness, drug or alcohol abuse, or lack of skills or
motivation.
The other 96% blamed social or political conditions
for their
plight. The primary culprit cited was the
housing market,
including forces like high mortgage interest rates,
high rents,
downtown redevelopment, etc. Next in line was
government
inaction, especially the government's failure to
provide adequate
public housing.
o Issue a call to arms. Every source who
evaluated the
government's role in fighting homelessness found it
inadequate.
The repeated denunciations of government passivity and
calls for
a kind of ``war on homelessness'' provided clear
indications of
the crusading mentality. For example, CBS's
Susan Spencer
charged that ``government as usual has meant virtual
paralysis.''
As a corollary to the call for federal action,
the private
sector's role was minimized. When sources discussed
who should
be responsible for helping the homeless, nearly three
out of four
named the government, and only 4% specified the private
sector.
o Engage the emotions. A distinctive feature
of advocacy
journalism is the emotional quality of its
language. The
coverage is full of apocalyptic imagery, despairing
descriptions
and dire predictions. Thus, a sociologist
proclaimed in U.S.
News and World Report: ``What we are dealing with is
a collapse
of moral leadership in this country. ... It's hard
to remember
that this is America, not Calcutta.'' Such
overheated rhetoric
transforms the subject from a problem that needs to
be solved
into a cause that must be joined.
o Speak for yourself. The homeless story is
built mainly on
quotations from the affected group and its advocates,
rather than
community leaders or those in officially sanctioned
positions of
authority. Thus, homeless individuals were quoted
more often
than all federal, state and local officials
combined, and the
flamboyant homeless advocate Mitch Snyder was heard
from more
often than either George Bush or Ronald Reagan.
Indeed,
reporters themselves accounted for over
two-thirds of the
comments on the causes of homelessness. Rather
than citing
officials or experts, they seemed eager to
carry on the
discussion themselves. So it's not too surprising
that Newsweek
would conclude, ``The homeless won't get very far
unless they can
persuade a Republican to break with Ronald Reagan's
policies --
or elect a Democrat.''
Is anything wrong with all this? Surely the
homeless are
deserving of our sympathy and our assistance. But a
journalist's
first duty is to the facts, not the cause, however worthy.
In playing down any ``skid row'' image and
presenting them as
victims of economic dislocation and Republican
heartlessness, the
media surely have increased public sympathy for the
homeless.
But they may also have increased the difficulty
of fully
understanding and effectively addressing their
plight. Robert
Hayes, director of the National Coalition for the
Homeless,
recently told the New York Times that mental
illness and
substance abuse among the homeless are rarely raised
in public
because television news programs ``always
want white,
middle-class people to interview. They want someone
who will be
sympathetic to middle America.''
Thus, the homeless story is becoming the 1980s
counterpart of
the 1960s civil-rights story -- a stark moral issue
that calls
for journalists to awaken the national conscience
and force
public action. The difficulty is that this advocacy
approach can
skew the depiction of the actual problem. And
misperceptions
born of good intentions are not the most promising
basis for
choosing the best ways to help the homeless.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 19:47:06 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza
http://www.fortfreedom.org/n22.htm
[From The Wall Street Journal, 14 December 1989, p.
A22:3]

I have more pitty

Pity, timmie/Marina; not "pitty".

Nice whiff-off, timmie/Marina, but thanks for showing
your ideological colors.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 19:53:16 UTC

timmie/Marina lied:

[snip bullshit]

What's really funny, timmie/Marina, is that you now are
fully acknowledging that I was right about your implied
claim. You *DO* believe that "the homeless" are "just
like us", only victimized by an "unfair" system.

You dope.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-03 01:46:26 UTC

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/39/12/9

It may come as no surprise that substance abuse is
common among the homeless population. A 1997 study
conducted in Alameda County, Calif., found that such
abuse was eight times more prevalent among homeless
people than among the general population.

Yet even if substance abuse is widespread among
homeless individuals, much less is known about the
relationship between homelessness and substance abuse.
So Thomas O'Toole, M.D., of the Johns Hopkins
University School of Medicine, and colleagues conducted
a study to explore this relationship.

One of the interesting pieces of information they
uncovered—and one that surprised them—is that substance
abuse may not necessarily increase after people become
homeless; in fact, it may even decrease.

O'Toole and his coworkers surveyed more than 500
homeless adults at 91 sites in Pittsburgh and
Philadelphia, and in such diverse settings as emergency
shelters, congregated eating facilities, abandoned
cars, and park benches. After completing the interview,
each participant in the survey received $5 in cash or
the equivalent in bus tokens and a listing of area
health and social service providers. To create a more
comfortable environment for respondents to answer
questions truthfully, formerly homeless research
assistants conducted the interviews.

The researchers used a version of the National
Technical Center Telephone Substance Dependence Needs
Assessment Questionnaire, modified for face-to-face
interviews and with questions specific to homelessness
added. The questionnaire included questions about
demographic characteristics, past and current alcohol
and drug use, medical and mental health comorbidities,
prior substance abuse–related treatments, means of
acquiring drugs, interactions with the criminal justice
system, and an assessment of current health and social
services needs.

Some 78 percent of the survey respondents, the
researchers reported in the May American Journal of
Public Health, met DSM-III-R criteria for substance
abuse, dependence on alcohol or drugs, or a combination
of both. Alcohol, cocaine, and heroin were the most
commonly reported substances of abuse, with alcohol
being the most commonly misused substance both
individually and in combination with other substances.

--------------------------------------------------------

Ooooooh, timmie/Marina - seventy-fucking-eight percent!
That's bad for you and your falling-apart myth,
timmie/Marina.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-03 01:53:26 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza
Ooooooh, timmie/Marina

Hint, timmie/Marina: you are done. You're not even
attempting to support your bullshit ideological point
of view. You're just flaming now, you little cunt.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-03 02:02:38 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza
Ooooooh, timmie/Marina

Hint, timmie/Marina: you are done. You're not even
attempting to support your bullshit ideological point
of view. You're just flaming now, you little cunt.

hint: i never made a point of view.

You're lying, angry little leftist timmie/Marina. You
subscribe to the discredited myth that many or most
homeless are "just like you and me". Maybe like you -
I wouldn't doubt you're a substance abuser - but not
like most people, little lying ideologue timmie/Marina.
Not by a damned sight.

I've provided you with numerous citations to support my
claim: most homeless are substance abusers, mentally
ill, or both. They are *not* like ordinary people.
You snip and run, because you're an ideologically
motivated LIAR, timmie/Marina. You're also a filthy cunt.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-03 01:55:42 UTC

http://www.agrm.org/welfare/drugs.html

There are nearly 1 million homeless men, women and
children in America. (1) The rates of alcohol and drug
abuse among homeless adults is estimated at 65-80
percent. (2)

------------------------------------------------------------

Read it and weep, little lying ideologue/cunt timmie
(Marina).

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-03 02:03:16 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza
little lying ideologue/cunt timmie
(Marina).

yawn.

Uh-huh. You're furious, little timmie/Marina; we can
all see it.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-01 19:59:25 UTC

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~cmhsr/history.html

After World War II, the federal government expanded its
role in mental health care by creating the National
Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), and later
implemented: the Great Society programs; community
mental health centers (CMHCs); amendments to the Social
Security Act; and the passage of Medicare and Medicaid.
***The 1963 federal Community Mental Health Centers
Act*** was an attempt by NIMH and community mental
health advocates to create a system that would
emphasize preventive, community-based, outpatient care
as an alternative to institutionalization in state
mental hospitals.

However, thousands of mentally ill persons, as a
consequence of deinstitutionalization, were transferred
to communities that lacked local service systems of
care. Urbanized states, which had previously spent the
most on institutional care, quickly adopted
deinstitutionalization as a means to reduce hospital
expenditures (Elpers, 1989b). However, the task of
developing community support services for these
individuals proved to be challenging. Original federal
CMHC grants were for construction and start-up staffing
(Scott and Lammer, 1985). However, states failed to
develop the community services which CMHCs tried to
initiate. Though CMHCs established an alternative model
for care, they did not replace state hospital systems
or serve the needs of chronically ill mental patients
released into the communities (Goldman, Foley and
Sharfstein, 1983).

========================================================

Nanny-state leftists erroneously blame Reagan for
"emptying out" the mental hospitals. He didn't do it.
First of all, the process began well before he was
governor of California. Secondly, the process had
begun *and essentially ended* nationwide long before he
became president.

The lunatic left simply can't let go of their
convenient scapegoats. This is just one of many
hate-based myths the left won't let go.

Rudy Canoza

2006-12-30 17:38:46 UTC

Post by Stan de SD
Only an idiot liberal such as yourself sees subtance-abusing derelicts who
place an expensive burden on social services as "benefitting the economy".

Only an idiot conservative such as yourself sees all the
underclass as homeless, substance-abusing derelicts.

What fraction do you think are in each group, given
that there is a lot of overlap between groups 1 and 2?

I think the third group - economically displaced
persons - is very small, less than 10%. Substance
abusers who are not or were not otherwise mentally ill
at the onset of homelessness are the largest group by
far, probably 60% or more, with mentally ill people
comprising 25% to 30%.

The really key point is that so-called ordinary people
are not the typical face of homelessness, not by a
damned site, but bleeding-heart self-styled "advocates"
for "the homeless" always pretend that they are.

Post by Merlin Dorfman
And why do you "blame" Kennedy for the de-institutional-
ization? It was started by Reagan when he was governor
of California, and then moved to national policy.

That's an absolute falsehood, and it is THE MOST widely
repeated falsehood about homelessness. It did *NOT*
start under Reagan as governor of California, and
Reagan as president had nothing whatever to do with it.

In the United States, a modern increase in community
mental health care delivery began in the 1960s when
President John F. Kennedy signed the 1963 Community
Mental Health Centers (CMHC) Act (Public Law
#88-164). Growing community mental health capacities
were intended to complement and mirror trends
toward fewer hospital stays and shorter visits for
mental illness (see Deinstitutionalization). This
restructuring of mental health service delivery has
occurred in the context of evolving fiscal
responsibilities, however. The goals and practices
of community mental health have been complicated and
revised by economic and political changes.

http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Community-mental-health.html

The changes in policy began under Kennedy, and began to
be implemented in California BEFORE Reagan was
governor. You need to understand that moving patients
out of state hospitals into community treatment centers
was seen as enlightened policy at the time it occurred.

Post by Merlin Dorfman
The idea originated with the development of anti-psychotic
medications, which made it possible to control the
chronically mentally ill without physical confinement.

And it started to happen under Kennedy; see above.

Please find a source to support your claim that Reagan
started any of this.

Post by Merlin Dorfman
The original plan was that storefront locations would be
widely available so that they could get their medications
conveniently, but once they were out of hospitals it was
easy to forget about the plan, and few neighborhood
treatment centers were ever built. Hence getting the
medication became somewhat difficult and of course many
who needed it didn't go through the difficulties. Thus we
have, as I understand it, about 30% of the homeless who are
mentally ill, might be "helped" by medication, and are not
getting it.
As for the others, note that there are millions of
people who are one paycheck away from homelessness.

But for the vast majority of those millions, it never
happens. And even for a lot of people who do lose
their homes due to economic difficulty, most don't
become homeless; they move in with relatives or friends.

Post by Merlin Dorfman
Just as
the great majority of bankruptcies are not due to spending
sprees but to medical bills, unemployment, divorce or other
family crisis,

You don't have any support whatever for that claim. It
may or may not be true, but *YOU* don't have any
support for it; you're just repeating a belief you hold.

Post by Merlin Dorfman
or some combination of the above, so there are
many homeless for these reasons, though a good number are
able to recover sufficiently in the short term to get off
the streets.
It is certainly true that most of the homeless are there
due to "bad choices." The proof is the number of people who
grow up in the worst of circumstances but are able to pull
themselves up by their bootstraps, work hard, get the
training or education they need, and really make a life for
themselves. I have endless admiration for such people.
However the reality is that the majority can't or won't.

No, that's false. The majority of people at the bottom
*DO*. They may not vault way above their parents'
socio-economic status, but the vast majority of people
who grow up poor and somewhat deprived do not become
homeless.

Post by Merlin Dorfman
Left to their own devices they will not make the right choices
and/or work hard enough.

That's simply false, and it's an exceptionally
pernicious belief by liberals. It's the basis for the
ideology of the nanny state: people generally are
incompetent to make their own choices, and need
enlightened cadres to choose for them. It's the
foundation for totalitarianism.

Post by Merlin Dorfman
Some of this number are hopeless--
you can shower them with money and opportunity and all they
will do is squander it. But many--the greatest number, in my
opinion--can be helped. Given a little financial relief,
some support for education and/or training, they can be
productive citizens and pay back the investment many times
over. My concern is that we just pass these people off as
having made bad choices and unworthy of help. Many can be
helped and as a society we benefit by providing them the
second and even third chances. Separating them from the truly
hopeless is a challenge.
---------------------------------------

Merlin Dorfman

2006-12-31 05:16:53 UTC

...

Post by Merlin Dorfman
And why do you "blame" Kennedy for the de-institutional-
ization? It was started by Reagan when he was governor
of California, and then moved to national policy.

If you want to go back to the very beginnings, it was in the
1950s:
http://www.sfhsn.org/downloads/documents/issues/hsn_iss_oth_tolve_08-15-01.pdf
"The push for non-profit integration into social services began
in earnest with the mental health privatization movement of the
1950s. While nongovernmental organizations like the University of
California at San Francisco (UCSF) had long provided services in
conjunction with the City, demand for non-profit services rose
markedly after a watershed piece of Californian legislation: the
Short-Doyle Act of 1957. Designed to inject a greater level of
humanity into the treatment of mentally ill patients and to
increase competition between local government and private
organizations, the Short-Doyle Act ended the policy of
incarcerating mentally ill patients and demanded a greater
utilization of CBOs. The Short-Doyle Act stipulated that each
county should utilize available private and non-profit mental
health resources and facilities in the county prior to developing
new county-operated services."
Kennedy did indeed sign a Federal law that spoke in this same
vein, based presumably on his observations of how his sister was
treated in mental institutions:

http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/collections/drilm/resources/timeline.html

"1963

* President Kennedy, in an address to Congress, calls for a reduction,
'over a number of years, and by hundreds of thousands, [in the number] of
persons confined' to residential institutions, and he asks that methods be
found 'to retain in and return to the community the mentally ill and
mentally retarded, and there to restore and revitalize their lives through
better health programs and strengthened educational and rehabilitation
services.' Though not labeled such at the time, this is a call for
deinstitutionalization and increased community services.
* Congress passes the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Health
Centers Construction Act, authorizing federal grants for the construction of
public and private non-profit community mental health centers."
But as far as I can tell, nothing really came of this in terms
of concrete appropriation of funds, implementing laws, etc. It was
just an expression of a viewpoiont.
The first real implementation was in California under Reagan.
I'm not guessing, I lived in California then (as now), and I
remember this, and that it did not follow on federal inititiatives
or programs in other states:

http://www.psychlaws.org/generalResources/article45.htm

"How did it get to be this way?

The short answer is 'deinstitutionalization.' During the 1960s,
many people began accusing the state mental hospitals of
violating the civil rights of patients. Some families did, of
course, commit incorrigible teenagers or eccentric relatives to
years of involuntary confinement and unspeakable treatment.
Nurse Ratched, the sadistic nurse famously portrayed in the book
and film 'One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest,' became a symbol of
institutional indifference to the mentally ill.

By the late 1960s, the idea that the mentally ill were not so
different from the rest of us, or perhaps were even a little bit
more sane, became trendy. Reformers dreamed of taking the
mentally ill out of the large institutions and housing them in
smaller, community-based residences where they could live more
productive and fulfilling lives.

In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act
(LPS), which went into effect in 1969 and quickly became a
national model. Among other things, it prohibited forced
medication or extended hospital stays without a judicial hearing.

...

The LPS Act emptied out the state's mental hospitals but resulted
in an explosion of homelessness. Legislators never provided enough
money for community-based programs to provide treatment and
shelter. Even the most modest programs encountered local
resistance.

'No neighborhood wanted the mentally ill living among them,'
recalled former state Sen. Tom Bates.

Lanterman later expressed regret at the way the law was carried out.
'I wanted the law to help the mentally ill,' he said. 'I never meant
for it to prevent those who need care from receiving it.'

But that's exactly what happened for three decades."

...

Post by Merlin Dorfman
Just as
the great majority of bankruptcies are not due to spending
sprees but to medical bills, unemployment, divorce or other
family crisis,

You don't have any support whatever for that claim. It
may or may not be true, but *YOU* don't have any
support for it; you're just repeating a belief you hold.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

"Medical Bills Leading Cause of Bankruptcy, Harvard Study Finds

February 3, 2005
Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal
bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal
Health Affairs.

The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2
million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents,
including about 700,000 children.

Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health
insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the
bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least
temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.

Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent
owned a home and the same number had attended college. In many cases,
illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing
income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed
it most.

Families in bankruptcy suffered many privations -- 30 percent had a
utility cut off and 61 percent went without needed medical care.

The research, carried out jointly by researchers at Harvard Law School
and Harvard Medical School, is the first in-depth study of medical
causes of bankruptcy. With the cooperation of bankruptcy judges in five
Federal districts (in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and
Texas) they administered questionnaires to bankruptcy filers and
reviewed their court records.

Dr. David Himmelstein, the lead author of the study and an Associate
Professor of Medicine at Harvard commented: 'Unless you're Bill Gates
you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy. Most of the
medically bankrupt were average Americans who happened to get sick.'

Today's health insurance policies -- with high deductibles, co-pays,
and many exclusions -- offer little protection during a serious
illness. Uncovered medical bills averaged $13,460 for those with
private insurance at the start of their illness. People with cancer
had average medical debts of $35,878."

This study shows a correlation between bankruptcy and divorce,
but stops short of a cause-and-effect conclusion:

http://www.usdoj.gov/ust/eo/public_affairs/articles/docs/abi01sepnumbers.html

"This is why studies about the causes of bankruptcy provide ambiguous
or insufficient guidance for answering bankruptcy policy questions.
The data always require interpretations that include a set of
assumptions that go beyond the numbers themselves. Given different
assumptions, the numbers will be interpreted differently. If we assume
that there is less shame in society than there used to be, we are
likely to interpret statistics regarding debt, divorce and bankruptcy
differently than if we assume otherwise, but the current data don't
prove the assumption either way. Our attitudes about debtors and about
appropriate legal changes are, nevertheless, guided by our assumptions
as well as our interpretations of the data."

And here's the American Bankers Association, crowing about the
atrocious bankruptcy "reform" of 2005:

http://www.aba.com/Press+Room/100306bankruptcyreformeffects.htm

"Divorce, job loss and illness - the most common causes of bankruptcy -
will continue to drive bankruptcy filings."

A bankruptcy lawyer is hardly the best source of unbiased
information, but on the other hand they do see a lot of bankrupt
people, so they probably know the truth (whether they choose to
tell it or not). Note the sequence of "leading causes:"

http://www.ifyouneedhelp.com/causes.html

"Causes of Bankruptcy

We believe it is important for our clients to understand the reasons
for their financial difficulties. Although bankruptcy will give you
relief from your debt, if you have not solved the underlying cause
of your financial problems, you are likely to run into trouble again
and again.

Although not scientific by any means, from our experience in the
bankruptcy courts and with our clients, we have determined these are
the main reasons why people file bankruptcy:

1) Job loss or income reduction is by the far the leading cause of
bankruptcy. Most New Mexicans are working paycheck to paycheck, with
little or no reserve in the event they are laid off or their hours
are reduced...

2) Illness and divorce are probably the second leading causes of
bankruptcy. Both usually take people by surprise and cause economic
upheavals.

3) Predatory lending practices are common in New Mexico and bankruptcy
often is the only way out for people. Among the abuses caused by
creditors are mortgage loans established in a manner that prevents the
principal balance from ever being reduced no matter how long payments
are made. Payday loans and title loans, with interest rates of 400 to
1000% per annum also make it almost impossible for most people to pay
back the loans. Bankruptcy becomes inevitable.

4) A large number of New Mexico bankruptcies have to do with obsessive-
compulsive behaviors. This disorder manifests as addictions to
prescription and illegal drugs, gambling, pornography and dancers,
prostitution, shopping, and alcohol. The common thread of each form of
the disorder is it produces mood-altering states and the victim of the
disorder remains in strong denial and refuses treatment. The disorder
tends to be chronic, escalating, and produces withdrawal symptoms when
the behavior is suddenly stopped. Victims of this disorder continue
with their destructive behaviors even after suffering negative
consequences. In fact, the negative consequences of their addiction
often trigger more destructive behavior and the victim spirals downward.
Needless to say, if you do not get help with the underlying disorder,
bankruptcy will only offer a short-term solution to your problems."

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-01 09:11:49 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza
I think the third group - economically displaced
persons - is very small, less than 10%. Substance
abusers who are not or were not otherwise mentally ill
at the onset of homelessness are the largest group by
far, probably 60% or more, with mentally ill people
comprising 25% to 30%.

Once you find some proof for your "i think" stuff, then you can talk.

YOU can't find any support for your whiny stupid
liberal belief that economically displaced persons
comprise any appreciable part of the homeless
population at all. It's just unsupported myth.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 17:41:39 UTC

Once you find some proof for your "i think" stuff, then you can talk.

YOU can't find any support for your whiny stupid
liberal belief that economically displaced persons
comprise any appreciable part of the homeless
population at all. It's just unsupported myth.

Hey, of you can't back up your claims,

I backed it up.

YOU can't back up your hand-wringing bleeding heart
myth that a substantial percentage of homeless are
simply the victims of bad luck. You won't even try;
clinging to the hate-filled myth is much easier for you.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 17:56:12 UTC

Once you find some proof for your "i think" stuff, then you can talk.

YOU can't find any support for your whiny stupid
liberal belief that economically displaced persons
comprise any appreciable part of the homeless
population at all. It's just unsupported myth.

Barry Schier

2007-01-02 21:26:34 UTC

Once you find some proof for your "i think" stuff, then you can talk.

YOU can't find any support for your whiny stupid
liberal belief that economically displaced persons
comprise any appreciable part of the homeless
population at all. It's just unsupported myth.

And an "unsupported myth" supported by just about by one or another
reporter / columnist in every media in this country (INCLUDING in the
Los Angeles Daily News article which initiated this discussion thread),
academic institution, etc.; the very government headquartered in
Washington DC (for which the gusanos serve as such servile apologists,
with Canoza is the hear-no-evil see-no-evil speak-no-evil variant of
same) estimates that 10% of the homeless are EMPLOYED, and (with some
overlap for the irregularly employed) a similar percentage economically
displaced. How many people "lose their minds" as a result of being
unable to handle the pressures of loss / lack of income is a related
matter.

--- Barry Schier

krp

2007-01-02 21:55:28 UTC

Post by Barry Schier

Post by Rudy Canoza
YOU can't find any support for your whiny stupid
liberal belief that economically displaced persons
comprise any appreciable part of the homeless
population at all. It's just unsupported myth.

The trouble is that these "reporters" see only what they want to see and are
largely unqualified to see the real problem. That is that the majority of
the homeless suffer from mental illness. It has been the LEFT (represented
by the media and ACLU) that has insisted that these people be turned out on
the streets to fend for themselves when they can't, instead of being safe
and well cared for in institutions. The insane rarely want to be locked in
rubber rooms, that isn't the point, the point is that is where they are
usually safest and best cared for.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 17:56:17 UTC

Once you find some proof for your "i think" stuff, then you can talk.

YOU can't find any support for your whiny stupid
liberal belief that economically displaced persons
comprise any appreciable part of the homeless
population at all. It's just unsupported myth.

Hey, of you can't back up your claims,

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 17:56:31 UTC

Once you find some proof for your "i think" stuff, then you can talk.

YOU can't find any support for your whiny stupid
liberal belief that economically displaced persons
comprise any appreciable part of the homeless
population at all. It's just unsupported myth.

Hey, of you can't back up your claims,

I backed it up.

Why lie?

I didn't.

Post by Rudy Canoza
YOU can't back up your hand-wringing bleeding heart
myth that a substantial percentage of homeless are
simply the victims of bad luck. You won't even try;
clinging to the hate-filled myth is much easier for you.

I haven't made any claims.

Yes, you have. You have implicitly accepted the
bullshit myth that "the homeless" are mostly ordinary
people who have been hard done by an "unfair" system.
There is no support for that belief.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 18:59:53 UTC

Once you find some proof for your "i think" stuff, then you can talk.

YOU can't find any support for your whiny stupid
liberal belief that economically displaced persons
comprise any appreciable part of the homeless
population at all. It's just unsupported myth.

Hey, of you can't back up your claims,

I backed it up.

Why lie?

I didn't.

You did not back up your claims, you lied when you said you did.

I haven't made any claims.

Yes, you have.

No.

Yes.

I asked you to back up your claims.

I did.

Post by Rudy Canoza
You have implicitly accepted the
bullshit myth that "the homeless" are mostly ordinary
people who have been hard done by an "unfair" system.

Can you find a post where I said that???

It's implied in your belligerent refusal to accept the
information I have posted.

I don't "imply" anything. I will tell you to your face like a proud man

You mean like a bitter, angry ideologue...

that you are full of shit.

No, timmie, you are full of shit. You *do* believe
that "the homeless" are noble yet ordinary people who
have been cheated by a corrupt system. You believe all
kinds of fantasy about them. And you believe all of it
without any evidence whatever; you believe it based
solely on your hand-wringing, bleeding-heart fucked up
"liberalism" (that is illiberal through and through.)

You're "out", timmie.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 19:00:38 UTC

Once you find some proof for your "i think" stuff, then you can talk.

YOU can't find any support for your whiny stupid
liberal belief that economically displaced persons
comprise any appreciable part of the homeless
population at all. It's just unsupported myth.

Hey, of you can't back up your claims,

I backed it up.

Why lie?

I didn't.

You did not back up your claims, you lied when you said you did.

I haven't made any claims.

Yes, you have.

No.

Yes.

I asked you to back up your claims.

I did.

Post by Rudy Canoza
You have implicitly accepted the
bullshit myth that "the homeless" are mostly ordinary
people who have been hard done by an "unfair" system.

Can you find a post where I said that???

It's implied in your belligerent refusal to accept the
information I have posted.

I don't "imply" anything. I will tell you to your face like a proud man

You mean like a bitter, angry ideologue...

that you are full of shit.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 19:02:27 UTC

Once you find some proof for your "i think" stuff, then you can talk.

YOU can't find any support for your whiny stupid
liberal belief that economically displaced persons
comprise any appreciable part of the homeless
population at all. It's just unsupported myth.

Hey, of you can't back up your claims,

I backed it up.

Why lie?

I didn't.

You did not back up your claims, you lied when you said you did.

I haven't made any claims.

Yes, you have.

No.

Yes.

I asked you to back up your claims.

I did.

Post by Rudy Canoza
You have implicitly accepted the
bullshit myth that "the homeless" are mostly ordinary
people who have been hard done by an "unfair" system.

Can you find a post where I said that???

It's implied in your belligerent refusal to accept the
information I have posted.

I don't "imply" anything. I will tell you to your face like a proud man

You mean like a bitter, angry ideologue...

I am so sorry the truth

The claim that ordinary people comprise the bulk or
even a major part of "the homeless" is, poor timmie,
*NOT* the truth. Sorry (actually, I'm not, timmie; I
was just trying to be polite; pearls before swine, you
might say.)

that you are full of shit.

No, timmie, you are full of shit.

No, actually

Actually, timmie, you are completely full of shit.

Post by Rudy Canoza
You *do* believe
that "the homeless" are noble yet ordinary people who
have been cheated by a corrupt system.

I do?

Yes, timmie, absolutely you do.

Do you think YOU get to tell ME what I believe?

You believe it, timmie - cut the shit.

Post by Rudy Canoza
You believe all
kinds of fantasy about them. And you believe all of it
without any evidence whatever; you believe it based
solely on your hand-wringing, bleeding-heart fucked up
"liberalism" (that is illiberal through and through.)

You have lost your fucking mind. I don't believe any such thing.

Stop lying, timmie. Your belief in that myth was the
only reason you challenged me for "cites".

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 19:02:57 UTC

Once you find some proof for your "i think" stuff, then you can talk.

YOU can't find any support for your whiny stupid
liberal belief that economically displaced persons
comprise any appreciable part of the homeless
population at all. It's just unsupported myth.

Hey, of you can't back up your claims,

I backed it up.

Why lie?

I didn't.

You did not back up your claims, you lied when you said you did.

I haven't made any claims.

Yes, you have.

No.

Yes.

I asked you to back up your claims.

I did.

Post by Rudy Canoza
You have implicitly accepted the
bullshit myth that "the homeless" are mostly ordinary
people who have been hard done by an "unfair" system.

Can you find a post where I said that???

It's implied in your belligerent refusal to accept the
information I have posted.

Post by Rudy Canoza
There is no support for that belief.

It's so sad

It's very sad when lying ideologues like you are
exposed, stark naked in your angry bigotry.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 19:04:18 UTC

Once you find some proof for your "i think" stuff, then you can talk.

YOU can't find any support for your whiny stupid
liberal belief that economically displaced persons
comprise any appreciable part of the homeless
population at all. It's just unsupported myth.

Hey, of you can't back up your claims,

I backed it up.

Why lie?

I didn't.

You did not back up your claims, you lied when you said you did.

I haven't made any claims.

Yes, you have.

No.

Yes.

I asked you to back up your claims.

I did.

Post by Rudy Canoza
You have implicitly accepted the
bullshit myth that "the homeless" are mostly ordinary
people who have been hard done by an "unfair" system.

Can you find a post where I said that???

It's implied in your belligerent refusal to accept the
information I have posted.

I don't "imply" anything. I will tell you to your face like a proud man

You mean like a bitter, angry ideologue...

I am so sorry the truth

that you are full of shit.

No, timmie, you are full of shit.

No, actually

Actually, timmie, you are completely full of shit.

Post by Rudy Canoza
You *do* believe
that "the homeless" are noble yet ordinary people who
have been cheated by a corrupt system.

I do?

Yes, timmie, absolutely you do.

Do you think YOU get to tell ME what I believe?

You believe it, timmie - cut the shit.

You have lost your fucking mind. I don't believe any such thing.

Stop lying, timmie. Your belief in that myth was the
only reason you challenged me for "cites".

Damn,

Damn, you are one pathetic lying shitbag, timmie. I
have nailed you to the floor, and you're too fucking
gutless to defend your pathetic beliefs.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 19:09:03 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza
Damn, you are one pathetic lying shitbag, timmie. I
have nailed you to the floor, and you're too fucking
gutless to defend your pathetic beliefs.

My God, and still you lie. I made none of the claims

timmie: cut the shit. You *ooze* solicitude for poor,
put-upon, "ordinary" people who have been hard done by
"the system".

Come on, timmie. Cut the shit, and defend your
hand-wringing leftwing bleeding heart position. Don't
lie about holding it; defend it (and suffer the
consequences.)

Merlin Dorfman

2006-12-28 22:24:51 UTC

Post by Merlin Dorfman
Only an idiot conservative such as yourself sees all the
underclass as homeless, substance-abusing derelicts.

Most are.

Got proof?

^^^
(I wonder if that should be "at all.")

The correct position is to admit the differences
among the homeless while strenuously working to help
them all. If conservatives need to care more,
liberals need to see more.

Interesting points. This is in the current Newsweek:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16242488/

Health: Nora Volkow
A passionate advocate for addicts of all kinds, she's determined to
find a cure.

By Pat Wingert
Newsweek

Dec. 25, 2006 - Jan. 1, 2007 issue - Only the weak become addicted. If
that's what you think, Dr. Nora Volkow is determined to change your mind.
The director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA, part of the
National Institutes of Health) and one of the country's leading addiction
researchers, Volkow says brain science is proving that we all have the
potential to become addicted to something: drugs, alcohol, tobacco, sex,
gambling, even food. And while we may think that being addicted to food
is not as bad as being addicted to heroin, researchers are learning that
all addictions are more alike than was previously thought. Becoming an
addict is more a matter of chance than we ever realized; mix the right
combination of genetics and life experience, and anyone could find
himself addicted to something.

...

Volkow, the great-granddaughter of Leon Trotsky, grew up in Mexico, in the
home where the Russian revolutionary was assassinated in 1940. As a young
scientist, she became intrigued with the loss of free will that
characterizes addictions, including the alcoholism that bedeviled her uncle.
"We all think we can control our actions," she said. "But why does one
person have such intense cravings that they experience a loss of control,
while another person can overpower those desires? I wanted to understand the
brain mechanism that makes people lose control."

...

Much of the research into addiction revolves around dopamine, the
neurotransmitter associated with pleasure. New research by Volkow and others
indicates that high levels of dopamine receptors (which are like docking
stations in the brain for dopamine) seem to protect against addiction, while
low levels increase vulnerability. High levels of dopamine receptors also
seem to protect against obesity and drug abuse.

"High levels of dopamine receptors seem to make us more sensitive to natural
reinforcers," such as our codes of moral, social or personal behavior, says
Volkow. That means it's easier for us to balance our desire for pleasure with
our desire to achieve social closeness, career success or other positive life
goals. Low levels throw off that balance. And some substances, including many
illegal drugs, actually change the brain over time by strengthening some
connections and weakening others, until taking drugs becomes the most
imperative need in an addict's life. "Drugs are a more powerful reinforcer
than anything else, even sex," says Volkow. "That's why people will even steal
to get the money they need for drugs. That's one of the unfortunate
consequences of a pathology in the brain that makes us lose our judgment, our
values."

One of the main challenges going forward, she said, it to figure out how
to increase dopamine receptors in those with low receptor levels. It
appears that levels are affected by both genetics and experience; for
example, animal research indicates that receptors decrease when the
subject experiences high levels of stress, and go up when the stress is
relieved. Whether that will hold true in humans, and whether some people
are more sensitive to this reaction under stress, is as yet unknown.

But Volkow says that may explain why some can drink or use a drug for
years and not get addicted, but "then something tragic happens, and they
become vulnerable. Some people are born with a great vulnerability; for
others, it takes years and years, until their environment and genetics
collide in an adverse way," she says.

Volkow hopes that as we learn more about addiction, curing it will become a
higher priority. "I've never met anyone who thought they would become
addicted," she says. "They always say that this is the last thing they
thought would happen to them, because they have such a strong will. But this
disease robs you of free will. The challenge is to find a cure."
(C) 2006 Newsweek, Inc.

Rudy Canoza

2006-12-29 01:41:16 UTC

Post by Merlin Dorfman
Only an idiot conservative such as yourself sees all the
underclass as homeless, substance-abusing derelicts.

Most are.

Got proof?

Hard numbers? No; neither do you for your undoubted
loony-left bleeding heart beliefs about the homeless.

But you can read this,
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n2_v22/ai_8876077,
and if you aren't too lazy to make it to the end
(p. 14), you can read:

Traditional liberals don't want to admit such
differences--and that's wrong--because they want us
to help all the homeless--that's right.

Neoconservatives admit the differences (right)
because they don't want to help them all (wrong).
The correct position is to admit the differences
among the homeless while strenuously working to help
them all. If conservatives need to care more,
liberals need to see more.

Just below it you can also read:

It's interesting to compare my description of the
homeless population based on my own experience with
what you can find in print elsewhere. Most respected
policy studies and surveys are now saying that
about a third of the homeless are mentally ill, a
third are substance abusers, and a third are
"other." That is, they find less substance abuse
than I did, about the same amount of mental illness,
and tend to leave the rest of the population an
undifferentiated mystery while I think some of that
remainder is in the grip of X-factor thinking.

We can address the rest of your sillyness

Nope. You can get rid of your fatuous bleeding-heart
notions of homelessness right now, sport.

groups trimmed

Groups restored. Fuck off, asshole.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-01 09:05:49 UTC

Post by Merlin Dorfman
Only an idiot conservative such as yourself sees all the
underclass as homeless, substance-abusing derelicts.

Most are.

Got proof?

Hard numbers? No; neither do you for your undoubted
loony-left bleeding heart beliefs about the homeless.
But you can read this,
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n2_v22/ai_8876077,
and if you aren't too lazy to make it to the end
Traditional liberals don't want to admit such
differences--and that's wrong--because they want us
to help all the homeless--that's right.
Neoconservatives admit the differences (right)
because they don't want to help them all (wrong).
The correct position is to admit the differences
among the homeless while strenuously working to help
them all. If conservatives need to care more,
liberals need to see more.
It's interesting to compare my description of the
homeless population based on my own experience with
what you can find in print elsewhere. Most respected
policy studies and surveys are now saying that
about a third of the homeless are mentally ill, a
third are substance abusers, and a third are
"other." That is, they find less substance abuse
than I did, about the same amount of mental illness,
and tend to leave the rest of the population an
undifferentiated mystery while I think some of that
remainder is in the grip of X-factor thinking.

We can address the rest of your sillyness

Nope. You can get rid of your fatuous bleeding-heart
notions of homelessness right now, sport.

Rudy, it would have been easier

...but false...

to just admit that you can't back up
your claim with fact.

I backed it up.

groups trimmed

Groups restored. Fuck off, asshole.

Groups trimmed again,

Groups restored again, cunt, because you don't get to
choose where I post.

Stan de SD

2006-12-30 10:30:17 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza
substance-abusers who render themselves homeless by
choice; seriously mentally ill people who have no care;
and ordinary people who slipped on the proverbial and
figurative banana peel.
Bleeding heart liberals pretend that this third group
is the largest one, and that an unfair capitalist
system with an inadequate safety net is at fault.
That's bullshit. The third group is the *smallest*
one, and while an inadequate safety net may be
implicated to some extent, it's far from the whole
story. There are virtually *zero* intact two-parent
families in which the couple are legally married
contained in this group. You do get some number of
single women with children, but we're not talking
professional women with degrees who suddenly are laid
off from a six-figure salaried job and can't find work;
rather, they consist of never-married women who had
children out of wedlock, have little education and
almost no skills. These women made choices, and they
were bad ones. But don't lose sight of the fact that
his group is the smallest one among all homeless.
The first and second groups have a considerable
overlap, because long term substance abuse which may
have started out as a choice can lead to mental illness
and a lifelong inability to be self-sustaining.
It isn't clear what to do about truly insane people.
At one time a lot of them were involuntarily
hospitalized in state hospitals. The Kennedy
administration undertook initiatives to get people out
of state hospitals (Reagan is usually wrongly blamed
for this), where they were in essence imprisoned, and
return them to communities to be treated on an
outpatient basis. Funding for these programs waxes and
wanes, but the outcome is that crazy people who
formerly would have been confined are out and about,
and because we're a free society we don't compel them
to participate in programs if they don't want to
participate.
Finally, there is the first group, of more or less able
people who disable themselves through chronic and acute
substance abuse. It isn't as if resources aren't
available to them to deal with their substance abuse.
If they won't avail themselves of these programs and
CLEAN THEMSELVES UP, and stay clean and fend for
themselves, why should society have some obligation to
feed and house them? Answer: we don't.

Glad to see someone's trying to deal with the facts.

Rudy Canoza

2006-12-30 17:21:19 UTC

Glad to see someone's trying to deal with the facts.

I always do that. You, uh, frequently don't.

Stan de SD

2006-12-31 21:07:16 UTC

Glad to see someone's trying to deal with the facts.

I always do that. You, uh, frequently don't.

Show me where I don't...

History

2006-12-31 03:56:57 UTC

That third group becomes the second group over time because a mental illness
occurs when a person goes 3 or 4 days straight without sleep and with poor
nutrition. All mental illnesses are temporary and are resolved when the
person rests up and stops ignoring the physical ailments that need to be
addressed. Often a person in this condition is dwelling on a personal
problem too much, while at the same time ignoring and neglecting a real
physical problem (flu, serious stomach viruses, extreme exhaustion,
malnutrition, nerve damage due to a prior car crash thats causing extreme
pain or discomfort, or any physical; illness, ailment or injury.

Various psychology terms have no meaning because they have been tossed
around so much for so little reason.

The Catholic Church has long taught people to ignore the psychology field
along with its confusing, complicated terms. Some people try to turn the
psychology field into their "religion" while most people stick with their
own religion and culture.

d while an inadequate safety net may be

Post by Rudy Canoza
implicated to some extent, it's far from the whole
story. There are virtually *zero* intact two-parent
families in which the couple are legally married
contained in this group. You do get some number of
single women with children, but we're not talking
professional women with degrees who suddenly are laid
off from a six-figure salaried job and can't find work;
rather, they consist of never-married women who had
children out of wedlock, have little education and
almost no skills. These women made choices, and they
were bad ones. But don't lose sight of the fact that
his group is the smallest one among all homeless.
The first and second groups have a considerable
overlap, because long term substance abuse which may
have started out as a choice can lead to mental illness
and a lifelong inability to be self-sustaining.
It isn't clear what to do about truly insane people.
At one time a lot of them were involuntarily
hospitalized in state hospitals. The Kennedy
administration undertook initiatives to get people out
of state hospitals (Reagan is usually wrongly blamed
for this), where they were in essence imprisoned, and
return them to communities to be treated on an
outpatient basis. Funding for these programs waxes and
wanes, but the outcome is that crazy people who
formerly would have been confined are out and about,
and because we're a free society we don't compel them
to participate in programs if they don't want to
participate.
Finally, there is the first group, of more or less able
people who disable themselves through chronic and acute
substance abuse. It isn't as if resources aren't
available to them to deal with their substance abuse.
If they won't avail themselves of these programs and
CLEAN THEMSELVES UP, and stay clean and fend for
themselves, why should society have some obligation to
feed and house them? Answer: we don't.

Glad to see someone's trying to deal with the facts.

Merlin Dorfman

2006-12-31 04:33:29 UTC

That's a pretty strong statement. Under any reasonable
definition of mental illness, it's simply wrong. There are
persistent mental illnesses that are not due to, nor "cured" by
resolution of, physical problems.

Post by History
Often a person in this condition is dwelling on a personal
problem too much, while at the same time ignoring and neglecting a real
physical problem (flu, serious stomach viruses, extreme exhaustion,
malnutrition, nerve damage due to a prior car crash thats causing extreme
pain or discomfort, or any physical; illness, ailment or injury.
Various psychology terms have no meaning because they have been tossed
around so much for so little reason.

True...and I'm not sure you're helping the situation :-)

Post by History
The Catholic Church has long taught people to ignore the psychology field
along with its confusing, complicated terms.

Cite? I wonder what the many prominent Catholic psychologists
and psychiatrists would say about this.
However, Scientologists do indeed take this position.

Post by History
Some people try to turn the
psychology field into their "religion" while most people stick with their
own religion and culture.

Are you a Scientologist?

Stan de SD

2006-12-31 07:03:21 UTC

That third group becomes the second group over time because a mental illness
occurs when a person goes 3 or 4 days straight without sleep and with poor
nutrition. All mental illnesses are temporary

You clearly know nothing about mental illness.

Merlin Dorfman

2007-01-01 02:08:24 UTC

...

Post by History
That third group becomes the second group over time because a mental

illness

Post by History
occurs when a person goes 3 or 4 days straight without sleep and with poor
nutrition. All mental illnesses are temporary

You clearly know nothing about mental illness.

Although I have heard it said that the average neurosis will
clear up by itself in two years, or, if helped by psychiatric
treatment, in four years :-)

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-01 09:13:31 UTC

That third group becomes the second group over time

No, they don't.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 17:56:39 UTC

That third group becomes the second group over time

No, they don't.

Got proof?

The burden of proof is on you and other uncritical
believers in the myth.

No, child. YOU made a claim.

No, impotent little boy. The claim that "ordinary"
people who are "victims" of an "unfair" system, and who
are a major part of "the homeless", is the claim that
requires support. To date, no support has been given
to that claim, and there is substantial evidence to the
contrary.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 18:57:04 UTC

Either try to support your claim, little timmie, or
shut your fucking yap.

You are severely retarded.

No. You believe in a bit of mythoglogy, though, which
is a form of self-retardation.

No, I believe in using facts.

No, you don't, timmie.

Actually, retard. I do believe in using facts.

Actually, lying ideologue/polemicist, you don't believe
in using facts; you believe in character assassination
and comfortable political myth.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 19:06:50 UTC

<stuff that timmie the lying ideologue can't handle>
yawn.

Close your yap, timmie.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 19:15:33 UTC

<stuff that timmie the lying ideologue can't handle>
yawn.

Close your yap, timmie.

Poor little

Poor little lying leftist ideologue/polemicist timmie:
exposed again.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 20:04:02 UTC

"Approximately 200,000 individuals with schizophrenia
or manic-depressive illness are homeless, constituting
one-third of the approximately 600,000 homeless
population (total homeless population statistic based
on data from Department of Health and Human Services)."

"The New York Times recently reported that in Berkeley,
California, 'on any given night there are 1,000 to
1,200 people sleeping on the streets. Half of them are
deinstitutionalized mentally ill people. It’s like a
mental ward on the streets.'"

http://www.psychlaws.org/generalResources/fact11.htm

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-03 01:22:40 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza
"Approximately 200,000 individuals with schizophrenia
or manic-depressive illness are homeless, constituting
one-third of the approximately 600,000 homeless
population (total homeless population statistic based
on data from Department of Health and Human Services)."
"The New York Times recently reported that in Berkeley,
California, 'on any given night there are 1,000 to
1,200 people sleeping on the streets. Half of them are
deinstitutionalized mentally ill people. It's like a
mental ward on the streets.'"
http://www.psychlaws.org/generalResources/fact11.htm

Poor little

Poor little impotent ideologue timmie - the facts are
against him and keep rolling in, and he just wallows in
ad hominem.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-03 01:52:11 UTC

Poor little

Poor little impotent ideologue timmie - the facts are
against him and keep rolling in, and he just wallows in
ad hominem.

ah, the old

Ah, the gutless FACT-ALLERGIC timmie/Marina comes back
with yet another non sequitur.

Hey, timmie/Marina - you like how I am restoring the
correct news groups EVERY TIME now? I like it, and I
hope you like it too.

Time to throw in the towel, timmie/Marina. Your myth
is in shreds at your feet. I've fully supported my
claim: most homeless are mentally ill, substance
abusers or both. Very few homeless are "ordinary
people" who are "just like you and me", and NONE are
"victims" of a "system".

You're done, timmie/Marina.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-03 01:56:45 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza
Ah, the gutless FACT-ALLERGIC timmie/Marina comes back
with yet another non sequitur.

It's all you will ever get from me,

It's all we ever DID get from you, cunt. You're a joke.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 20:06:37 UTC

Oh, really? So timmie isn't what he/she/it purports to
be, eh?

Got proof??

No, but I bet that other guy has.

Nice whiff-off, little timmie/Marina. Why don't you
spend your time trying to support your view of the
homelessness problem, instead of throwing a hissy-fit?

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-03 01:23:23 UTC

Oh, really? So timmie isn't what he/she/it purports to
be, eh?

Got proof??

No, but I bet that other guy has.

snicker.

Go ahead and giggle, timmie/Marina.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 19:08:33 UTC

Once you find some proof for your "i think" stuff, then you can talk.

YOU can't find any support for your whiny stupid
liberal belief that economically displaced persons
comprise any appreciable part of the homeless
population at all. It's just unsupported myth.

Hey, of you can't back up your claims,

I backed it up.

Why lie?

I didn't.

You did not back up your claims, you lied when you said you did.

I haven't made any claims.

Yes, you have.

No.

Yes.

I asked you to back up your claims.

I did.

Post by Rudy Canoza
You have implicitly accepted the
bullshit myth that "the homeless" are mostly ordinary
people who have been hard done by an "unfair" system.

Can you find a post where I said that???

It's implied in your belligerent refusal to accept the
information I have posted.

I don't "imply" anything. I will tell you to your face like a proud man

You mean like a bitter, angry ideologue...

I am so sorry the truth

that you are full of shit.

No, timmie, you are full of shit.

No, actually

Actually, timmie, you are completely full of shit.

Post by Rudy Canoza
You *do* believe
that "the homeless" are noble yet ordinary people who
have been cheated by a corrupt system.

I do?

Yes, timmie, absolutely you do.

Do you think YOU get to tell ME what I believe?

You believe it, timmie - cut the shit.

You have lost your fucking mind. I don't believe any such thing.

Stop lying, timmie. Your belief in that myth was the
only reason you challenged me for "cites".

Dating back to the era when Ronald Reagan was the governor of
California, circa 1970's, when he signed into law the
deinstitutionalization of the California mental hospital system, the
problems accelerated the problem

Cut the shit. You wrote unsupported crap.

Reagan did not begin the movement that put mentally ill
people out of hospitals into the street. It's a myth
believed by deluded pseudo-"liberals".

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 19:09:55 UTC

Once you find some proof for your "i think" stuff, then you can talk.

YOU can't find any support for your whiny stupid
liberal belief that economically displaced persons
comprise any appreciable part of the homeless
population at all. It's just unsupported myth.

Hey, of you can't back up your claims,

I backed it up.

Why lie?

I didn't.

You did not back up your claims, you lied when you said you did.

I haven't made any claims.

Yes, you have.

No.

Yes.

I asked you to back up your claims.

I did.

Post by Rudy Canoza
You have implicitly accepted the
bullshit myth that "the homeless" are mostly ordinary
people who have been hard done by an "unfair" system.

Can you find a post where I said that???

It's implied in your belligerent refusal to accept the
information I have posted.

I don't "imply" anything. I will tell you to your face like a proud man

You mean like a bitter, angry ideologue...

I am so sorry the truth

that you are full of shit.

No, timmie, you are full of shit.

No, actually

Actually, timmie, you are completely full of shit.

Post by Rudy Canoza
You *do* believe
that "the homeless" are noble yet ordinary people who
have been cheated by a corrupt system.

I do?

Yes, timmie, absolutely you do.

Do you think YOU get to tell ME what I believe?

You believe it, timmie - cut the shit.

You have lost your fucking mind. I don't believe any such thing.

Stop lying, timmie. Your belief in that myth was the
only reason you challenged me for "cites".

Cut the shit. You wrote unsupported crap.
Reagan did not begin the movement that put mentally ill
people out of hospitals into the street. It's a myth
believed by deluded pseudo-"liberals".

Sorry but yo're wrong.

I'm right. Reagan didn't close the hospitals.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 19:10:16 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza
Damn, you are one pathetic lying shitbag, timmie. I
have nailed you to the floor, and you're too fucking
gutless to defend your pathetic beliefs.

My God, and still you lie. I made none of the claims

timmie: cut the shit. You *ooze* solicitude for poor,
put-upon, "ordinary" people who have been hard done by
"the system".
Come on, timmie. Cut the shit, and defend your
hand-wringing leftwing bleeding heart position. Don't
lie about holding it; defend it (and suffer the
consequences.)

snicker. You are

I'm kicking your ass, little liberal weenie.

Come on, timmie - cut the shit, and start defending
your beliefs...if you can <snicker>

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 19:10:46 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza
I'm kicking your ass, little liberal weenie.

WOW!!! What

I'm kicking your ass, little liberal weenie timmie.
You're reduced to pissing and moaning about "debate
skills".

Timmie: you *do* believe in this stupid, unsupported
liberal myth about "homelessness". You can't support
it. Either try to support it, or shut your fucking yap.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 19:11:09 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza
I'm kicking your ass, little liberal weenie.

WOW!!! What

I'm kicking your ass, little liberal weenie timmie.

Are you

Yes.

Post by Rudy Canoza
You're reduced to pissing and moaning about "debate
skills".

No, pissing. No moaning.

Nothing *but* pissing and moaning, little timmie.

Post by Merlin Dorfman
Just pointing out

...just lying and pissing and moaning...

Post by Merlin Dorfman
that you made claims you
can't support.

I supported them: "ordinary people" do not comprise a
large percentage of homeless people. Most homeless
people are substance abusers, mentally ill, or both.

Post by Rudy Canoza
Timmie: you *do* believe in this stupid, unsupported
liberal myth about "homelessness". You can't support
it. Either try to support it, or shut your fucking yap

Either try to support your claim, little timmie, or
shut your fucking yap.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 19:12:01 UTC

Either try to support your claim, little timmie, or
shut your fucking yap.

You are severely retarded.

No. You believe in a bit of mythoglogy, though, which
is a form of self-retardation.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-02 19:12:22 UTC