🚀 go-pugleaf

Chip Flintknapper wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Chip Flintknapper wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> Chip Flintknapper wrote:
>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >From Robert Norse Tue Jan 9 00:31:27 2007
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Date:     Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:31:27 -0800
>>>>>>> Subject:  City Council Moves Today To Expand Police Power Against
>>>>>>> Poor
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> More Police Punishing the Poor in the Pogonip
>>>>>> This massive and massively incoherent load of SHIT perfectly
>>>>>> illustrates, again, the big myths of homelessness, mostly in its
>>>>>> lumping of all the homeless together as people "just like you and me"
>>>>>> who happen only to be poor.  It's crap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is dishonest to talk about "the homeless" as an undifferentiated
>>>>>> class of people.  Most homeless are seriously mentally ill, have major
>>>>>> subtance abuse problems, or both.  VERY FEW homeless people are "just
>>>>>> like you and me."
>>>>>>
>>>>> I see you are well caught up on your propaganda.
>>>> That would be you.  It is a myth - in other words, false - that many
>>>> homeless are just ordinary people who have either had uncommonly bad
>>>> luck or are "victims" of an eeeeeeeeeevil "system".  Most homeless are
>>>> substance abusers, seriously mentally ill, or both.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Santa Cruz is one of those places infected with a naive form of
>>>>>> liberalism that makes a mockery of true compassion.  The answer to the
>>>>>> plight of homeless people is not to try to keep them homeless, as this
>>>>>> idiot seems to think.
>>>>>>
>>>>> First of all, separate the homeless from the poor, and the homeless
>>>>> will
>>>>> stop getting blamed for the crimes that are usually committed by the
>>>>> poor, such as drug use and prostitution.
>>>> The homeless *are* poor, you idiot.
>>>>
>>> The homeless may be poor, but they are not "The Poor". They are two
>>> separate classes of people.
>> No, they are not.  There is no such things as "The Poor", and homeless
>> people are a subset of the poor.
>>
> 
> That statement is an absolute misnomer.

You misused 'misnomer' - utterly incorrect usage.

The statement is true:  "The Poor" is incorrect usage 
because it is not a proper noun, and the homeless *are* 
poor and thus a subset of "the poor".


> The poor and the homeless do not
> associate with one another. 

The homeless are among "the poor".



> Yes, there is such a thing as "The Poor".

False.  That usage is illiterate.


> They are usually racial minorities who are third or fourth generation
> welfare bums.

Nice stereotyping, stupid.


>>>>> Secondly, nothing much has changed about the homeless population since
>>>>> it's creation in 1981;
>>>> There was no such "creation", and Reagan had nothing to do with it.
>>>> That's another element of the myth of homelessness.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> it is a handy dumping ground, and a money-maker
>>>>> for many. That is, the politicians, the shelters, and the charities all
>>>>> have a stake in maintaining the homeless population just as it is.
>>>> Some sure do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The charities are especially bad about it, collecting money for the
>>>>> homeless, and then helping the poor instead.
>>>> You have no evidence of this, of course; it's just another whiny
>>>> malcontent's unsubstantiated allegation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Of course they keep 90% of
>>>>> it for themselves; they can't afford to risk the old Cadillac.
>>>> Of course you have no support for any of this shrill rant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> [snip remaining rabid foam]
>>> Rabid foam?
>> Yes.  Is English not your native tongue?
> 
> When you hear "rabid foam" from me, there will be no question about it.

And there was no question about it.