Two myths of homelessness

A lousy post.

A great post, and naturally, bwanson, you can't offer
anything to refute a word of it.

The homeless are *NOT* generally like most other
people. Most homeless adults are substance abusers
(about 70%), mentally ill, or both.

Branson Hunter

2007-01-03 03:19:01 UTC

A lousy post.

A great post, and naturally, bwanson, you can't offer
anything to refute a word of it.
The homeless are *NOT* generally like most other
people. Most homeless adults are substance abusers
(about 70%), mentally ill, or both.

Mr. Crowly has done such superior job of posting
his evidence, while you have done an outstanding
job of showing you're pure troll.

Branson

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-03 03:21:11 UTC

A lousy post.

A great post, and naturally, bwanson, you can't offer
anything to refute a word of it.
The homeless are *NOT* generally like most other
people. Most homeless adults are substance abusers
(about 70%), mentally ill, or both.

Mr. Crowly has done such superior job of posting
his evidence,

timmie/Marina has posted no evidence of anything, bwanson.

Branson Hunter

2007-01-03 03:29:28 UTC

Branson wrote:
Mr. Crowly has done such superior job of posting
his evidence, while you have done an outstanding
job of showing you're pure troll.

Post by Rudy Canoza
timmie/Marina has posted no evidence of anything, bwanson.

Fuck off. I haven't time to feed you today.

Branson

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-03 03:34:21 UTC

Post by Branson Hunter
Mr. Crowly has

little timmie/Marina Crowley has whiffed off, exactly
as you whiff off, bwanson. He hasn't supported any
thesis at all. I *have* supported one, very well.
Most homeless people are *NOT* "just like you and me",
unless you're admitting to being mentally ill, a
substance abuser, or both.

Stan de SD

2007-01-07 18:04:49 UTC

Post by Branson Hunter
Mr. Crowly has done such superior job of posting
his evidence, while you have done an outstanding
job of showing you're pure troll.

Post by Rudy Canoza
timmie/Marina has posted no evidence of anything, bwanson.

Fuck off. I haven't time to feed you today.

Funny how you haven't posted any proof either. Typical Branson Hunter -
blathers about how big it is but doesn't dare pull it out... :O|

Patriot Games

2007-01-03 15:34:46 UTC

A lousy post.

A great post, and naturally, bwanson, you can't offer
anything to refute a word of it.
The homeless are *NOT* generally like most other
people. Most homeless adults are substance abusers
(about 70%), mentally ill, or both.

Mr. Crowly has done such superior job of posting
his evidence, while you have done an outstanding
job of showing you're pure troll.

That would be Ms. Crowley.

And the only thing Marina did was PROVE that the Clinton Administration was
a total failure at working the problem of the homeless.

If you, or Rudy, wish to acquire data on the so-called homeless all you need
to do is reference Rudy G's work on the same problem in Times Square.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-04 15:44:26 UTC

A lousy post.

A great post, and naturally, bwanson, you can't offer
anything to refute a word of it.
The homeless are *NOT* generally like most other
people. Most homeless adults are substance abusers
(about 70%), mentally ill, or both.

Mr. Crowly has done such superior job

timmie/Marina didn't do anything except whine...a lot
like a little girl here named Bwanson Huntress.

Stan de SD

2007-01-07 18:03:41 UTC

A lousy post.

A great post, and naturally, bwanson, you can't offer
anything to refute a word of it.
The homeless are *NOT* generally like most other
people. Most homeless adults are substance abusers
(about 70%), mentally ill, or both.

Mr. Crowly has done such superior job of posting
his evidence,

ROTFLMAO!!!! You turning to comedy for the new year, Brannie-Poo?

ike milligan

2007-01-03 16:22:36 UTC

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

Many homeless people are mentally ill or substance abusers. However a
significant number are victims of child abuse and runaways, and some are
ordinary people who lost their homes due to an unforseen emrgency. Also,
where do you get off blaming homeless single women with children for some
kind of moral turpitude in your fevered dreams? In the next paragraph you
are concerned about the reputation of Ronald Reagan. ovbviously you are a
fascist with a dirty mind. Ever picked up a homeless kid for nefarious
gratification?

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

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-03 17:16:19 UTC

Many homeless people are mentally ill or substance abusers. However a
significant number are victims of child abuse and runaways,

"significant number" - what would that be? What's your
source for that? Or, is it just another bit of leftist
mythology?

Post by ike milligan
and some are
ordinary people who lost their homes due to an unforseen emrgency.

This is the group that the media and other liberal
liars like to pretend is "typical" of homeless people.
They are not typical, not by a long shot. There are
virtually ZERO intact two-parent families among the
homeless. The closest you get are single-mother
"families", in which the woman typically was never
married to the father, has low educational attainment
and weak or non-existent job skills, and is going to
have trouble her entire life. And even these are a
very small percentage of the total. These also are not
the ones you commonly encounter on the streets; women
with children are more apt to make use of shelters.

Post by ike milligan
Also,
where do you get off blaming homeless single women with children for some
kind of moral turpitude in your fevered dreams?

They made choices - bad ones that they had more than
enough information to recognize as bad at the time they
made them. I can certainly feel some sympathy for the
children, who had no say in the matter, but very little
for the mothers. Understand this: these are *not*
women who were doing well in a lower-middle or middle
class existence, then hit a totally unforeseeable patch
of bad luck.

The key thing to bear in mind is these women are *not*
"just like the rest of us." They are extraordinarily
ill equipped.

Post by ike milligan
In the next paragraph you
are concerned about the reputation of Ronald Reagan.

I'm not particularly concerned with the reputation of
Ronald Reagan, as his reputation seems securely
positive to me. What I'm concerned with is lying
leftists, like you, who want to blame someone for a
social problem he didn't create. You usually do it by
engaging in deliberate disinformation that mixes his
roles as governor of California and president of the U.S.

Post by ike milligan
ovbviously you are a
fascist with a dirty mind.

Obviously you are a lying liberal shitbag.

ike milligan

2007-01-03 20:44:02 UTC

Many homeless people are mentally ill or substance abusers. However a
significant number are victims of child abuse and runaways,

"significant number" - what would that be? What's your source for that?
Or, is it just another bit of leftist mythology?

When you define what you think I meant by significant number, maybe some
statisitics are in existence, although it is hard to count homeless people
and decide who most of them are. So you are asking for statisitics that
don't exist. And there are enough runaways to be aware of their existence,
so I would call that significant.

Post by ike milligan
and some are
ordinary people who lost their homes due to an unforseen emrgency.

So you asked me for my statistics. Where are yours? And even if they were
all singel mothers, how does that justify them being homeless. Even if they
were all crack-whores, which they aren't, but people trying to survive and
care for children. Most of them are capable of holding a useful job if jobs
were available. Instead of reacting with revulsion, if you were a decent
human being you would be thinking of trying to solve the problem. Instead
you are afraid of these people because having less than you, they are a
threat to you. Muy assessment of you as a dirty-mindied fascist pervert
based on what I am reading here, still stands.

The closest you get are single-mother

"families", in which the woman typically was never married to the father,
has low educational attainment and weak or non-existent job skills, and is
going to have trouble her entire life. And even these are a very small
percentage of the total. These also are not the ones you commonly
encounter on the streets; women with children are more apt to make use of
shelters.

Post by ike milligan
Also,
where do you get off blaming homeless single women with children for some
kind of moral turpitude in your fevered dreams?

They made choices - bad ones that they had more than enough information to
recognize as bad at the time they made them. I can certainly feel some
sympathy for the children, who had no say in the matter, but very little
for the mothers. Understand this: these are *not* women who were doing
well in a lower-middle or middle class existence, then hit a totally
unforeseeable patch of bad luck.
The key thing to bear in mind is these women are *not* "just like the rest
of us." They are extraordinarily ill equipped.

Post by ike milligan
In the next paragraph you
are concerned about the reputation of Ronald Reagan.

I'm not particularly concerned with the reputation of Ronald Reagan, as
his reputation seems securely positive to me. What I'm concerned with is
lying leftists, like you, who want to blame someone for a social problem
he didn't create. You usually do it by engaging in deliberate
disinformation that mixes his roles as governor of California and
president of the U.S.

When did I blame Ronald Reagan for homelessness?

Post by ike milligan
ovbviously you are a
fascist with a dirty mind.

Obviously you are a lying liberal shitbag.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-03 20:54:29 UTC

Many homeless people are mentally ill or substance abusers. However a
significant number are victims of child abuse and runaways,

"significant number" - what would that be? What's your source for that?
Or, is it just another bit of leftist mythology?

When you define what you think I meant by significant number,

Why would I try to define it? You used a vague term.
*You* should give it a more precise definition.

Post by ike milligan
maybe some
statisitics are in existence, although it is hard to count homeless people
and decide who most of them are. So you are asking for statisitics that
don't exist.

Then you really don't have any basis for declaring that
a "significant number" of homeless are victims of child
abuse or runaways. It sounds as if you are simply
repeating some self-serving propaganda issued by some
advocacy group.

The motive behind such propaganda is pretty obvious.

Post by ike milligan
And there are enough runaways to be aware of their existence,
so I would call that significant.

Post by ike milligan
and some are
ordinary people who lost their homes due to an unforseen emrgency.

So you asked me for my statistics. Where are yours?

In other posts on this topic in recent days, in these
same newsgroups, I have provided citations to suggest
that most studies of homelessness find that at least
30% of homeless are afflicted with some form of mental
illness, and at least 60% have serious substance abuse
problems; naturally, there is overlap between these two
groups, but the mentally ill are not all substance
abusers, so you probably have some 85% who have mental
illness, serious substance abuse history, or both.
That doesn't leave much for runaways, "ordinary
people", or other groups.

Post by ike milligan
And even if they were
all singel mothers, how does that justify them being homeless.

I didn't say it "justified" it. I said that it gives
the lie to the claim that they are "just like us",
except for being "victims" of an "unfair" society.

Post by ike milligan
Even if they
were all crack-whores, which they aren't, but people trying to survive and
care for children. Most of them are capable of holding a useful job if jobs
were available.

There is no evidence to suggest that homelessness is
caused by lack of availability of work. Unemployment
is at historic lows.

Post by ike milligan
Instead of reacting with revulsion, if you were a decent
human being you would be thinking of trying to solve the problem.

I am. A big part of solving the problem is in
correctly identifying what it is and what it isn't.
What it *ISN'T* is some systematic problem that throws
"ordinary people" onto the streets. That is, you're
not going to cure homelessness by providing low-cost
housing and more job training, because lack of housing
and lack of job training are *NOT* the reasons most
homeless people are homeless. The problem, in other
words, is not external to them, but something *internal*.

Post by ike milligan
Instead you are afraid of these people

Rubbish.

Post by ike milligan
because having less than you, they are a
threat to you.

They're no threat.

Post by ike milligan
Muy assessment of you as a dirty-mindied fascist pervert
based on what I am reading here, still stands.

Your assessment is based on ideology, not awareness.

The closest you get are single-mother
"families", in which the woman typically was never married to the father,
has low educational attainment and weak or non-existent job skills, and is
going to have trouble her entire life. And even these are a very small
percentage of the total. These also are not the ones you commonly
encounter on the streets; women with children are more apt to make use of
shelters.

Post by ike milligan
Also,
where do you get off blaming homeless single women with children for some
kind of moral turpitude in your fevered dreams?

They made choices - bad ones that they had more than enough information to
recognize as bad at the time they made them. I can certainly feel some
sympathy for the children, who had no say in the matter, but very little
for the mothers. Understand this: these are *not* women who were doing
well in a lower-middle or middle class existence, then hit a totally
unforeseeable patch of bad luck.
The key thing to bear in mind is these women are *not* "just like the rest
of us." They are extraordinarily ill equipped.

Post by ike milligan
In the next paragraph you
are concerned about the reputation of Ronald Reagan.

I'm not particularly concerned with the reputation of Ronald Reagan, as
his reputation seems securely positive to me. What I'm concerned with is
lying leftists, like you, who want to blame someone for a social problem
he didn't create. You usually do it by engaging in deliberate
disinformation that mixes his roles as governor of California and
president of the U.S.

When did I blame Ronald Reagan for homelessness?

Perhaps you personally didn't. Most leftists do.

Post by ike milligan
ovbviously you are a
fascist with a dirty mind.

Obviously you are a lying liberal shitbag.

Stan de SD

2007-01-07 18:09:03 UTC

Many homeless people are mentally ill or substance abusers. However a
significant number are victims of child abuse and runaways,

Percentages? Sources? Cites?

Post by ike milligan
and some are
ordinary people who lost their homes due to an unforseen emrgency.

VERY FEW. Again, where are your sources and cites?

Post by ike milligan
Also,
where do you get off blaming homeless single women with children for some
kind of moral turpitude in your fevered dreams?

Where do you get off insisting that irresponsible women have some right to
pump out kids and use them to hold the taxpayer's hostage? If they can't
take care of their kids, put them up for adoption so some responsible couple
can take care of them - but don't reward women with no sense of
responsibility or common sense.

Post by ike milligan
In the next paragraph you
are concerned about the reputation of Ronald Reagan. ovbviously you are a
fascist with a dirty mind. Ever picked up a homeless kid for nefarious
gratification?

Proof that Ikey here can't deal with facts or reason.

surf

2007-01-05 00:04:43 UTC

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

More vietnam vets commited suicide than died in the vietnam war. Thus
you could say that they must have been mentally ill based on your
argument. In fact many where also homeless. If that is a true statement
and if what you have said is true then one could argue from that that a
very large segment of the military are mentaly ill. If that iseems like
an erronous conclusion, then that would prove that your argument is
false or entirely incomplete. Many people may abuse drugs because they
are living with some kinhd of pain deep inside and the drugs are an
attempt to escape that pain which also have a very negative side effect
obviously.

J. D Rockefeller who was probably one of the richest men in the world
if not the richest became mentally ill or suffered a pyschosymatic
effect on his health due to extreme anxiety at the age of 53. His
doctors determined it was from working too hard.
He suffered a rare form of alle pecca, all his hair fell out and he had
to live off of human milk.
He was forced to retire from work or he would die. Thus if it can be
argued that a supposedly ultra succesfull human being based on such a
convential definition can literally "lose it" then if you believe that
circumstance has no role, then your argument simply falls appart from
looking at the lives of numerous succesfull human beings who have all
had great weaknesses in one way or another if you examine the facts
closely. There are countless examples like this, people just never pay
attention to them. Any such series of traumatic circumstances in ones
life could trigger any number of pychological neurosises or undesirable
effects on ones health or mental state. The fact that some people may
react differently may just mean that their particular weakness was not
brougth to the fore, just like some people can smoke cigarettes and
live to be 90, yet they may have some other weakness.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-05 00:09:50 UTC

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

More vietnam vets commited suicide than died in the vietnam war.

You have a citation to support that wild claim, right? No, of course
you don't; I was just pulling your easily-pulled leg.

Post by surf
J. D Rockefeller who was probably one of the richest men in the world
if not the richest became mentally ill or suffered a pyschosymatic
effect on his health due to extreme anxiety at the age of 53. His
doctors determined it was from working too hard.
He suffered a rare form of alle pecca, all his hair fell out and he had
to live off of human milk.
He was forced to retire from work or he would die. Thus if it can be
argued that a supposedly ultra succesfull human being based on such a
convential definition can literally "lose it" then if you believe that
circumstance has no role, then your argument simply falls appart from
looking at the lives of numerous succesfull human beings who have all
had great weaknesses in one way or another if you examine the facts
closely. There are countless examples like this, people just never pay
attention to them. Any such series of traumatic circumstances in ones
life could trigger any number of pychological neurosises or undesirable
effects on ones health or mental state. The fact that some people may
react differently may just mean that their particular weakness was not
brougth to the fore, just like some people can smoke cigarettes and
live to be 90, yet they may have some other weakness.

I wanted to snip this bizarre rant about Rockefeller, but I was
laughing so hard I decided not to do it.

Nothing you said about Vietnam vets or Rockefeller has any bearing on
the two myths of homelessness.

surf

2007-01-05 00:21:43 UTC

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

More vietnam vets commited suicide than died in the vietnam war.

You have a citation to support that wild claim, right? No, of course
you don't; I was just pulling your easily-pulled leg.

What ? It's a well known fact and probably could easily be backed up.
I would be happy to posts references,b ut I don't think that would
matter to you.

I wanted to snip this bizarre rant about Rockefeller, but I was
laughing so hard I decided not to do it.
Nothing you said about Vietnam vets or Rockefeller has any bearing on
the two myths of homelessness.

If you say so. That also is an easily verifable fact on Rockefeller
however.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-05 00:45:08 UTC

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

More vietnam vets commited suicide than died in the vietnam war.

You have a citation to support that wild claim, right? No, of course
you don't; I was just pulling your easily-pulled leg.

What ? It's a well known fact

No - you *allege* that it's a well-known fact.

Post by surf
and probably could easily be backed up.

Then do it.

Post by surf
I would be happy to posts references,b ut I don't think that would
matter to you.

Not if it's just another obviously unsupported claim from some website
or blog you happen to like. I found just one reference to it in my own
search, and some self-serving "Vietnam suicide wall" site that was
clearly a partisan activist site, *not* a site based on objective
research.

I wanted to snip this bizarre rant about Rockefeller, but I was
laughing so hard I decided not to do it.
Nothing you said about Vietnam vets or Rockefeller has any bearing on
the two myths of homelessness.

If you say so.

I do say so, and rereading the bizarre crapola you posted, I'm as
convinced as before that none of it had anything to do with the two
myths of homelessness.

Post by surf
That also is an easily verifable fact on Rockefeller however.

That's lovely. Irrelevant, but lovely.

surf

2007-01-05 01:18:19 UTC

Post by surf
More vietnam vets commited suicide than died in the vietnam war.

You have a citation to support that wild claim, right? No, of course
you don't; I was just pulling your easily-pulled leg.

What ? It's a well known fact

No - you *allege* that it's a well-known fact.

Post by surf
and probably could easily be backed up.

Then do it.

just google for "vietnam vets committed suicide" . I could probably
also find you the email of of a vietnam vet who killed 300 vietnamess
and struggled with near insanity much of his life as a result. I recall
he said the same thing in his book in regards to vietnam vets commiting
suicide. I had emailed him a few years ago. Maybe you should email him
and ask him about it ?

However, your argument goes like this: How do you know if you just
heard it on TV, saw it in a book, on numerous web sites ? how do you
know it's true ? Well how do you know that eskimos lived in igiloos if
you've never seen an igiloo, or that any number of rare snake species
really exists in the amazon ? How do you know that the jews where ever
sent to concentration camps ? What is the criteria you would have to
prove this ?

Post by surf
I would be happy to posts references,b ut I don't think that would
matter to you.

I wanted to snip this bizarre rant about Rockefeller, but I was
laughing so hard I decided not to do it.
Nothing you said about Vietnam vets or Rockefeller has any bearing on
the two myths of homelessness.

If you say so.

I do say so, and rereading the bizarre crapola you posted, I'm as
convinced as before that none of it had anything to do with the two
myths of homelessness.

Well, what causes homelessness then according to you ? Inferior humans
walking the earth that should never have been born ?

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-05 01:39:08 UTC

Post by surf
More vietnam vets commited suicide than died in the vietnam war.

You have a citation to support that wild claim, right? No, of course
you don't; I was just pulling your easily-pulled leg.

What ? It's a well known fact

No - you *allege* that it's a well-known fact.

Post by surf
and probably could easily be backed up.

Then do it.

just google for "vietnam vets committed suicide" .

I did, and nothing even remotely resembling sound research turned up;
nothing but advocacy pages.

Post by surf
However, your argument goes like this: How do you know if you just
heard it on TV, saw it in a book, on numerous web sites ? how do you
know it's true ?

That's exactly the problem, particularly concerning the web. There are
no standards; anyone can say anything, and bullshit said on the
internet comes to have a life of its own, endlessly repeated from one
site to another, *never* with a verifiable source for it. I have long
called it the Scheisskopf Phenomenon, from Heller's brilliant book
Catch-22:

[The scene is the "action board" hearing of Air Cadet
Clevinger, who has been hauled up on charges of
"breaking ranks while in formation, felonious assault,
indiscriminate behavior, mopery, high treason,
provoking, being a smart guy, listening to classical
music, and so on." The members of the action board are
the bloated colonel, the toady Major Metcalf, and Lt.
Scheisskopf. Scheisskopf is also the prosecutor. He
is also Cadet Clevinger's defense counsel.]

The bloated colonel: "Metcalf, you stinking son of a
bitch. Didn't I tell you to keep your stinking,
cowardly, stupid mouth shut?"

Major Metcalf: "Yes, sir. I'm sorry, sir."

The colonel: "Then suppose you do it."

Metcalf: "I was only trying to learn, sir. The only
way a person can learn is by trying."

The colonel: "Who says so?"

Metcalf: "Everybody says so, sir. Even Lieutenant
Scheisskopf says so."

The colonel: "Do you say so?"

"Yes, sir," said Lieutenant Scheisskopf. "But
everybody says so."

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

You see, "surf", "everybody says so" is not convincing.

surf

2007-01-05 01:54:12 UTC

Post by surf
More vietnam vets commited suicide than died in the vietnam war.

You have a citation to support that wild claim, right? No, of course
you don't; I was just pulling your easily-pulled leg.

What ? It's a well known fact

No - you *allege* that it's a well-known fact.

Post by surf
and probably could easily be backed up.

Then do it.

just google for "vietnam vets committed suicide" .

I did, and nothing even remotely resembling sound research turned up;
nothing but advocacy pages.

Well, someone who was antisemitic, or perhaps a muslim who was against
the existence of Israel could deny the holocaust by saying that those
claim the holocaust happened are doing so to merely justify or promote
the existence of Israel. In fact the holocaust was instrurmental in
bringing about the state of Israel, so there would appear to be some
connection betwween advocacy for Israel and the holocaust.

It's probably quite natural that advocacy for veterans would mention
suicides and so on.

Post by surf
However, your argument goes like this: How do you know if you just
heard it on TV, saw it in a book, on numerous web sites ? how do you
know it's true ?

That's exactly the problem, particularly concerning the web. There are
no standards; anyone can say anything, and bullshit said on the
internet comes to have a life of its own, endlessly repeated from one
site to another, *never* with a verifiable source for it. I have long
called it the Scheisskopf Phenomenon, from Heller's brilliant book
[The scene is the "action board" hearing of Air Cadet
Clevinger, who has been hauled up on charges of
"breaking ranks while in formation, felonious assault,
indiscriminate behavior, mopery, high treason,
provoking, being a smart guy, listening to classical
music, and so on." The members of the action board are
the bloated colonel, the toady Major Metcalf, and Lt.
Scheisskopf. Scheisskopf is also the prosecutor. He
is also Cadet Clevinger's defense counsel.]
The bloated colonel: "Metcalf, you stinking son of a
bitch. Didn't I tell you to keep your stinking,
cowardly, stupid mouth shut?"
Major Metcalf: "Yes, sir. I'm sorry, sir."
The colonel: "Then suppose you do it."
Metcalf: "I was only trying to learn, sir. The only
way a person can learn is by trying."
The colonel: "Who says so?"
Metcalf: "Everybody says so, sir. Even Lieutenant
Scheisskopf says so."
The colonel: "Do you say so?"
"Yes, sir," said Lieutenant Scheisskopf. "But
everybody says so."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You see, "surf", "everybody says so" is not convincing.

If I follow your example it seems to be based on authority. Authorites
and bosses and so on can deny truth and even ask you to do things that
are not possible to do. You are free to search for the truth and hold
it in your mind despite what any authority says, though you might
choose not voice what you think to them.

Stan de SD

2007-01-07 18:13:57 UTC

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

More vietnam vets commited suicide than died in the vietnam war.

Proof? Sources? Cites?

Post by surf
Thus
you could say that they must have been mentally ill based on your
argument. In fact many where also homeless.

How did they become mentally ill and subsequently homeless? Hint: 5 letters,
starts with a "D"....

Post by surf
If that is a true statement
and if what you have said is true then one could argue from that that a
very large segment of the military are mentaly ill.

A more intelligent person would compare the number with all veterans and
come to the conclusion that you are an idiot...

Post by surf
. Many people may abuse drugs because they

Are mindless, irresponsible, and looking for kicks...

robw

2007-01-07 22:12:02 UTC

No, sorry.

We work "Code Blue.

Not all these people got there because of drugs.

It's just not true.

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

More vietnam vets commited suicide than died in the vietnam war.

Proof? Sources? Cites?

Post by surf
Thus
you could say that they must have been mentally ill based on your
argument. In fact many where also homeless.

How did they become mentally ill and subsequently homeless? Hint: 5 letters,
starts with a "D"....

Post by surf
If that is a true statement
and if what you have said is true then one could argue from that that a
very large segment of the military are mentaly ill.

A more intelligent person would compare the number with all veterans and
come to the conclusion that you are an idiot...

Post by surf
. Many people may abuse drugs because they

Are mindless, irresponsible, and looking for kicks...

surf

2007-01-08 13:38:52 UTC

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

More vietnam vets commited suicide than died in the vietnam war.

Proof? Sources? Cites?

search the thread, we allready went through this with someone else.

Post by surf
Thus
you could say that they must have been mentally ill based on your
argument. In fact many where also homeless.

How did they become mentally ill and subsequently homeless? Hint: 5 letters,
starts with a "D"....

Post by surf
If that is a true statement
and if what you have said is true then one could argue from that that a
very large segment of the military are mentaly ill.

A more intelligent person would compare the number with all veterans and
come to the conclusion that you are an idiot...

Post by surf
. Many people may abuse drugs because they

Are mindless, irresponsible, and looking for kicks...

What I have said on these seems to be consitent with what many
pychologists have written in regards to self esteem and so on. Of
course pychology is not a hard science in the sense that other fields
are. However, it seems like living in society can be a very humdrum and
structured existence that treats people as if they are machines and
leaves many feeling empty and unable to tap their higher potential.
Such a condition probably contributes to drug use as does high
unemployment, lack of satisfaction in the work place, strees etc, This
leaves one with the old sense of victimization, and others like
yourselve probably claiming this is a pathetic view. However, I don't
see it as an absolute definition, it's just relative in the sense given
above. Similarly Rush Limbaugh claimed victimization in his use of
drugs. Probably in order to maintain his angry charade he needed some
sort of crutch. You can also see George Bush as a sort of victim. He
couldn't help it if he was born rich and did not have to work as hard
as other people and not get paid much for it. As a result he has a
jaded view of reality based on his life which is perhaps common to many
spoiled rich kids. He is probably not even the foremost thinker in his
administration. His policies are thought out by various other guys like
Cheney, Grover Norquist, and various Neocons. It may be that he is just
a puppet or figurehead for them and when the whole thing unravels it
will be his name that history remembers in a most negative way the most
even though these other guys deserve as much or more blame than him.
That view characterizes him as a victim and it helps one develop
compassion for him instead of rage and anger, but it in no way tries to
say he is blameless.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-08 16:26:00 UTC

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

More vietnam vets commited suicide than died in the vietnam war.

Proof? Sources? Cites?

search the thread, we allready went through this with someone else.

And you failed to support the claim then, too.

I don't think you can find any legitimate supporting
documentation, because I think it doesn't exist. All
you'll find are garbage advocacy web sites. I looked,
fairly diligently, and that's all I could find.

Post by surf
Thus you could say that they must have been mentally ill

based on your

Post by surf
argument. In fact many where also homeless.

How did they become mentally ill and subsequently homeless? Hint: 5 letters,
starts with a "D"....

Post by surf
If that is a true statement
and if what you have said is true then one could argue from that that a
very large segment of the military are mentaly ill.

A more intelligent person would compare the number with all veterans and
come to the conclusion that you are an idiot...

Post by surf
. Many people may abuse drugs because they

Are mindless, irresponsible, and looking for kicks...

What I have said on these seems to be consitent with what many
pychologists have written in regards to self esteem and so on. Of
[snip remaining rambling semi-coherence]

In essence, what you said is that "the system" causes
people to abuse drugs and alcohol, rather than their
own bad choices and/or addictive personalities. I
think that's a bullshit claim, but it really is
entirely beside the point.

The POINT, in the context of the two myths of
homelessness, is that substance abuse leading to
homelessness means that that component are *NOT* "just
like you and me", because MOST people do not abuse
substances, certainly not to the point of becoming
homeless. Are you following this, kid? I don't really
care what causes substance abusers to be that way; all
that matters is that a) they are that way, and b)
they're a distinctive group, UNLIKE me and (perhaps) you.

My point in starting the thread was to say that,
contrary to what bleeding heart liberal advocates for
the homeless like to claim, most homeless are *NOT*
normal people who either had a big patch of bad luck or
have been "victimized" by an evil, heartless "system".
No, most homeless are either seriously mentally ill,
or are substance abusers; and neither the mental
illness nor the substance abuse was "caused" by the
"system". The percentage of adult homeless people who
are neither mentally ill nor substance abusers is very
small.

You can entertain yourself all you want with your
fanciful notions of what causes mental illness and
substance abuse; they are entirely irrelevant. All
that matters is that we stop paying attention to
hand-wringing bleeding hearts who insist we've "got to
do something" because so many homeless are "just like
you and me." That "because" is demonstrably false.

surf

2007-01-09 01:26:55 UTC

Post by Rudy Canoza
In essence, what you said is that "the system" causes
people to abuse drugs and alcohol, rather than their
own bad choices and/or addictive personalities. I
think that's a bullshit claim, but it really is
entirely beside the point.
The POINT, in the context of the two myths of
homelessness, is that substance abuse leading to
homelessness means that that component are *NOT* "just
like you and me", because MOST people do not abuse
substances, certainly not to the point of becoming
homeless. Are you following this, kid? I don't really
care what causes substance abusers to be that way; all
that matters is that a) they are that way, and b)
they're a distinctive group, UNLIKE me and (perhaps) you.
My point in starting the thread was to say that,
contrary to what bleeding heart liberal advocates for
the homeless like to claim, most homeless are *NOT*
normal people who either had a big patch of bad luck or
have been "victimized" by an evil, heartless "system".
No, most homeless are either seriously mentally ill,
or are substance abusers; and neither the mental
illness nor the substance abuse was "caused" by the
"system". The percentage of adult homeless people who
are neither mentally ill nor substance abusers is very
small.
You can entertain yourself all you want with your
fanciful notions of what causes mental illness and
substance abuse; they are entirely irrelevant. All
that matters is that we stop paying attention to
hand-wringing bleeding hearts who insist we've "got to
do something" because so many homeless are "just like
you and me." That "because" is demonstrably false.

It's an interesting topic, however consider the following ...
The aftermath of the first World War left Germany in economic shambles
because the countries that won the war made Germany pay for the war.
This resulted in runaway inflation so that a loaf of bread cost some
outragous amount of money, hundreds of dollars. The German people
became outraged and Hitler used that anger to find someone to blame it
on, the jews. Thus large segments of the population supported Hitler.
Now one could ask, are the Germans much different than other people or
are they a special breeed of crazy people not found elsewhere ? It
seems apparent that there is a dark side to human nature which if
triggered in some set of unfortunate circumstances which may not
typicaly occur, leads to all sorts of potentially dark and demonic
behavoir.

Another sort of strange and interesting scenario, somewhat related is
that a large number of outstanding jazz musicians where drug users,
heroin in particular. Berklee college of music is a highly regarded
musical institution of higher learning. If you attend berklee many of
the harmony classes will study the works of john coltrane for instance,
who was a heroin user.
Many segments of society greatly values this sort of contemporary jazz
which was invented in large part by what appears to be users of hard
drugs.

I may have gotten a bit off topic, but I would characterize your
viewpoint as simply capitalistic because people who have this view not
only wish to ignore homeless people but virtually every social program
which could in any way be regarded as socialistic in even the mildest
sense. Yet I believe man is a socialist creature to some extent because
helping each other out in one way or another has existed for millenia
and is quite natural. Besides that, people like Ken Lay from Enron
cause greater harm to society than hundereds of homeless, and he is an
example of the dark side of capitalism. Both capitalism and socialism
are natural threads, and we need neither extreme.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-09 01:59:40 UTC

It's an interesting topic, however consider the following ...
[snip stuff that isn't as interesting as you claim and is entirely off topic]
I may have gotten a bit off topic,

Ya think?

Post by surf
but I would characterize your
viewpoint as simply capitalistic because people who have this view not
only wish to ignore homeless people

No, I don't wish to ignore them. I wish to consider the problem with
facts, not fancy, and not to fall for the usual liberal nostrum of
throwing money at people.

Virtually every activist site claims that homelessness is caused by a
"lack of affordable housing". This claim is repeated as if it's the
received wisdom, but there isn't a shred of evidence that lack of
affordable housing is the culprit. The bigger problem is that, because
their substance abuse and/or severe mental illness makes many homeless
people incapable of holding jobs that pay enough to afford housing,
almost no amount of housing subsidy will be enough to keep people like
that off the streets. And where does it stop? If the guy can't afford
housing, he quite likely can't afford food, clothing, medical care,
satellite TV, Lakers tickets, and all the other things that bleeding
hearts feel we should just shower on the downtrodden.

Once again, as in *EVERY* post you've made on the topic - and little of
your posts have remained on-topic - you miss the point. The *only*
point I'm trying to make in this thread is that the homeless, by and
large, are *not* "just like you and me", as a lot of hand-wringing
bleeding heart advocates falsely claim; they're very different. The
implication of the false claim made by hand-wringing bleeding heart
advocates is that, because the homeless are "normal", then all we need
to do is "give" them cheap housing (and food, and clothing, and...the
list is endless), and homelessness will disappear. It's just a
bullshit claim.

Solving homelessness for substance abusing and/or severely mentally ill
homeless people is going to require something very different than
merely making cheap housing available. For at least some of those
people, specifically those who haven't gone too far down the path to
utter destruction, treatment might enable them to regain some income
earning potential and they'll become able to furnish themselves with
housing at market prices.

surf

2007-01-09 03:00:48 UTC

Post by surf
but I would characterize your
viewpoint as simply capitalistic because people who have this view not
only wish to ignore homeless people

No, we are talking about basic needs, food and shelter. Industrial
society has also placed all kind of limits on people. You can not
simply live in a tent, hunt, fish and or beg for food legally in many
places. There are high property taxes, zoning, all sorts of rules. Many
people throughout the world lack these basic necessities.

Post by Rudy Canoza
Once again, as in *EVERY* post you've made on the topic - and little of
your posts have remained on-topic - you miss the point. The *only*
point I'm trying to make in this thread is that the homeless, by and
large, are *not* "just like you and me", as a lot of hand-wringing
bleeding heart advocates falsely claim; they're very different. The
implication of the false claim made by hand-wringing bleeding heart
advocates is that, because the homeless are "normal", then all we need
to do is "give" them cheap housing (and food, and clothing, and...the
list is endless), and homelessness will disappear. It's just a
bullshit claim.

I don't think it will solve every problem, however I see a connection
with people who don't care about the homeless to people who don't care
about a host of other problems such as issues surrounded the elderly,
workers rights, unemployment benifits, social security, OSHA
regulations, and any number of social issues connected with proctecting
the downtroden, the disadvantaged, and so on. Just like it says in the
bible, god was angry because the people neglected the poor, the
fatherless, and the widows.

Post by Rudy Canoza
Solving homelessness for substance abusing and/or severely mentally ill
homeless people is going to require something very different than
merely making cheap housing available. For at least some of those
people, specifically those who haven't gone too far down the path to
utter destruction, treatment might enable them to regain some income
earning potential and they'll become able to furnish themselves with
housing at market prices.

Possibly that would be good, but not sure how it could be done or the
best approach. It may not be a simple or easy problem.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-09 03:45:21 UTC

Post by surf
but I would characterize your
viewpoint as simply capitalistic because people who have this view not
only wish to ignore homeless people

No, we are talking about basic needs, food and shelter.

There is no such thing as "needs". People have "wants", some more
strongly felt than others.

Post by surf
Industrial society has also placed all kind of limits on people.

No, it hasn't.

Post by surf
You can not simply live in a tent, hunt, fish and or beg for food legally
in many places.

You can't live in a tent, hunt or fish on land that doesn't belong to
you, no. So what? There's nothing unfair about that.

Post by surf
There are high property taxes, zoning, all sorts of rules.

And yet, that doesn't deter the majority of people, does it? What do
they have that the defectives don't have?

You just *can't* avoid drifting far away from the point and the topic,
can you?

Possibly that would be good, but not sure how it could be done or the
best approach. It may not be a simple or easy problem.

No kidding!

surf

2007-01-10 06:15:06 UTC

Post by surf
but I would characterize your
viewpoint as simply capitalistic because people who have this view not
only wish to ignore homeless people

No, we are talking about basic needs, food and shelter.

There is no such thing as "needs". People have "wants", some more
strongly felt than others.

Right, someone may have a million dollars and thinks he needs another
million, while one may be dying of thirst and just want a drink of
water. Come to think of it, why should an ambulance have the right of
way just because someone is dying and might want to live while other
people want to get on their way and the ambulance is just slowing them
down.

Post by surf
You can not simply live in a tent, hunt, fish and or beg for food legally
in many places.

You can't live in a tent, hunt or fish on land that doesn't belong to
you, no. So what? There's nothing unfair about that.

Well if someone could get ownerwhip of all the land perhaps they could
force you off the land so that you had no place to go, put you on a
ship to drift out in the sea and die. Perhaps some of that happened to
the indians, after all it was their land, but propery rights are just
enforced by the police and laws. Someone might just as well argue that
if you could murder a man and not get caught by the police, then
there's nothing wrong with that. Liberals make similar arguments, a
woman's body belongs to her, she can have an abortion therefore, so it
seems the concept of ownership is a bit abstract. Man will come and go
and die, the land still remains. Who can own the sun, the air ? If I
pollute the river as it passes through my property and onto yours, is
that my right ?

Possibly that would be good, but not sure how it could be done or the
best approach. It may not be a simple or easy problem.

No kidding!

You seem to complain that there is some problem and you don't like the
solution, the same as many repubs, however the repubs don't care to
find a viable solution, study the problem or provide real answers. It's
easy to critisize others and find faults. It's easier to point out
flaws and problems than to find a solution.

Rudy Canoza

2007-01-10 06:30:21 UTC

surf continued to miss the point of the thread with

Post by surf
but I would characterize your
viewpoint as simply capitalistic because people who have this view not
only wish to ignore homeless people

No, we are talking about basic needs, food and shelter.

There is no such thing as "needs". People have "wants", some more
strongly felt than others.

Right, someone may have a million dollars and thinks he needs another
million, while one may be dying of thirst and just want a drink of
water.

You don't get it.

Post by surf
You can not simply live in a tent, hunt, fish and or beg for food legally
in many places.

You can't live in a tent, hunt or fish on land that doesn't belong to
you, no. So what? There's nothing unfair about that.

Well if someone could get ownerwhip of all the land [snip wheeze]

Goddamn, you are a windbag.

What did any of that crap have to do with the thesis of
the two myths of homelessness?

Possibly that would be good, but not sure how it could be done or the
best approach. It may not be a simple or easy problem.

No kidding!

You seem to complain that there is some problem and you don't like the
solution,

Don't like *what* solution? A nonsense solution to a
misstatement of the problem? You're right.

Understand this, little sophomore "surf": whiny
hand-wringing liberal bleeding hearts talk a bunch of
shit about homelessness. Their "analysis" consists of
two key bullshit points:

* a major percentage of the homeless, perhaps the
majority,
are "just like you and me
* they're in the dire straits in which they find
themselves
due to:

** an eeeeeevil, unjust system
** lack of affordable housing

Their entire analysis is bullshit, which is the point
of the thread:

* most homeless are *not* "just like you and me"; the
vast majority are seriously mentally ill,
substance abusers,
or both
* they are not in their current plight due to some
"unfair"
system
* cheap housing won't solve their homelessness

That's all, "surf". I'm not interested in your kumbaya
happy talk. You really do have a stand-out tendency to
wander far off topic in shambling, incoherent diatribes.

surf

2007-01-10 12:24:20 UTC

Post by surf
You can not simply live in a tent, hunt, fish and or beg for food legally
in many places.

You can't live in a tent, hunt or fish on land that doesn't belong to
you, no. So what? There's nothing unfair about that.

Well if someone could get ownerwhip of all the land [snip wheeze]

Goddamn, you are a windbag.
What did any of that crap have to do with the thesis of
the two myths of homelessness?

You introduced the topic of land because you implied a person who does
not own land has no right to be on that land.

Possibly that would be good, but not sure how it could be done or the
best approach. It may not be a simple or easy problem.

No kidding!

You seem to complain that there is some problem and you don't like the
solution,

Don't like *what* solution? A nonsense solution to a
misstatement of the problem? You're right.

You're not even interested in any solution. If homeless people starved
or froze to death that would be fine it seems.

Post by Rudy Canoza
* a major percentage of the homeless, perhaps the
majority,
are "just like you and me
* they're in the dire straits in which they find
themselves
** an eeeeeevil, unjust system
** lack of affordable housing

Did homelessness increase during the great depression and if so why
was that ?
If you can't answer questions such as those, I don't see how you can
understand any such issue completely.

Post by Rudy Canoza
* most homeless are *not* "just like you and me"; the
vast majority are seriously mentally ill,
substance abusers,

What percentage are mentally ill ? What causes mental illness and how
many kinds of mental illnesses are there ? What about the rest who are
not mentaly ill ?

Topaz

2007-01-09 12:22:17 UTC

Hitler was against the Jews mainly because the Jews controlled the
media and because the Jews were behind Communism. Here are some quotes
from Mein Kampf:

"In my eyes the charge against Judaism became a grave one the
moment I discovered the Jewish activities in the Press, in art, in
literature and the theatre. All unctuous protests were now more or
less futile. One needed only to look at the posters announcing the
hideous productions of the cinema and theatre, and study the names of
the authors who were highly lauded there in order to become
permanently adamant on Jewish questions. Here was a pestilence, a
moral pestilence, with which the public was being infected. It was
worse that the Black Plague of long ago. And in what mighty doses
this poison was manufactured and distributed. Naturally, the
lower the moral and intellectual level of such an author of artistic
products the more inexhaustible his fecundity. Sometimes it went so
far that one of these fellows, acting like a sewage pump, would shoot
his filth directly in the face of other members of the human race. In
this connection
we must remember there is no limit to the number of such people. One
ought to realize that for one Goethe, Nature may bring into existence
ten thousand such despoilers who act as the worst kind of
germ-carriers in poisoning human souls. It was a terrible thought,
and yet it could not be
avoided, that the greater number of the Jews seemed specially
destined by Nature to play this shameful part.

"And is it for this reason that they can be called the chosen
people? "I began then to investigate carefully the names of all the
fabricators of these unclean products in public cultural life. The
result of that inquiry was still more disfavourable to the attitude
which I had hitherto held in regard to the Jews. Though my feelings
might rebel a thousand times, reason now had to draw its own
conclusions. "The fact that nine-tenths of all the smutty literature,
artistic tripe and theatrical banalities, had to be charged to the
account of people who formed scarcely one per cent of the nation-
that fact could not be gainsaid. It was there, and had to be
admitted. Then I began to examine my favorite 'World Press', with
that fact before my mind. "The deeper my soundings went the lesser
grew my respect for that Press which I formerly admired. Its style
became still more repellant and I was forced to reject its ideas as
entirely shallow and superficial. To claim that in the presentation
of facts and views its attitude was impartial seemed to me to contain
more falsehood than truth. The writers were- Jews.

"Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed
to me now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand
things which I had formerly looked at in a different light."

"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried
to read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but
in doing so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about
learning something of the people who wrote and published this
mischievous stuff. From the publisher downwards, all of them were
Jews. I recalled to mind the names of the public leaders of Marxism,
and then I realized that most of them belonged to the Chosen Race-
the Social Democratic representatives in the Imperial Cabinet as well
as the secretaries if the Trades Unions and the street agitators.
Everywhere the same sinister picture presented itself. I shall never
forget the row of names- Austerlitz, David, Adler, Ellonbogen, and
others. One fact became quite evident to me. It was that this alien
race held in its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic Party
with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for months
past."

http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html http://www.nsm88.com/

surf

2007-01-05 01:03:45 UTC