🚀 go-pugleaf

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.


> 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]