shining example of Liberal policies on humanitarianism

King of 32DDD said:
LOLZ at Bfrghvifsnvrivub assuming that Beefy is a christian conservative. Major LOLZ. Gawd how stupid leftists are!!!
Click to expand...

I am not assuming nor do I care what Beefy's beliefs are. I am only concerned with my beliefs. I surmise many on this board would assume because I am a liberal, that I cannot be a Christian. But I am.

BTW, maybe you need to go back to school to learn how to spell; Bfgrn is not that difficult for adults.
 
Yurt said:
why do liberals constantly quote and often misquote jesus in debates as some kind of counter? how fucking stupid can you be. not all cons are christians, and they scream bloody murder when cons want to introduce christian ideals into politics, yet they turn around and demand cons answer political issues with

WWJD
Click to expand...

This is not a political matter. It is a human matter. It is sad you can't see the difference. But it does explain a lot about you.
 
cawacko said:
As I figured you misread or purposefully misinterpreted what I wrote. Homelessness has long been a problem in SF. Homeless people aren't dumb, SF gives the most generous benefits so the homeless come from all over the Bay Area to camp here.

However the real genesis for sit and lie rule (as I wrote) was on Haight St. Yes the Haight St of Haight/Ashburry of the Grateful Dead. This is hippy central in SF. Punk kids from the City and from outside the City would come in during the day and start harassing people on Haight St. They would harass shoppers and home owners. They would try and take over sidewalks and peoples front doorsteps. Finally even people in good ole liberal SF got fed up with these kids behavior.

So this is not about punishing the homeless. If that was the case a bill like this would have been passed years ago. It is about going after (non homeless) punk teenagers that were threatening a lot of people.

So sorry but you are way off my friend.
Click to expand...

OK...HERE is what you wrote:

cawacko said:
This has been a huge controversy locally. It was passed by voters during the past election. We have a huge homeless problem and this law was really focused on Haight St (aka hippie central) where a bunch of punk kids would hang out on the streets and harass shoppers and home owners. No matter how liberal one might be when they pay $800k for a home and a bunch of punk kids are sitting on their front doorsteps harassing people, including them, they turn more conservative real quickly.
Click to expand...

You introduced the 'homeless' into the conversation.
 
The human principles that matter, when discussing American government, are the principles of American government. They are a little different than your average, garden variety politics of lesser nations, Bfgrhfduibfierb.
 
Bfgrn said:
OK...HERE is what you wrote:



You introduced the 'homeless' into the conversation.
Click to expand...

Well no shit but what does the rest of my freaking sentence say? It says why they passed this law which was not the homeless. Fuck an A man. Basic fucking English.
 
How come whenever a conservative quotes scripture in a political discussion, they are accused of "imposing morality" on others; yet when a liberal quotes scripture, they're being a humanitarian? Seems awfully convenient...
 
King of 32DDD said:
Because its alright for non-believers to quote scripture as it becomes purely academic.
Click to expand...

And yet Bfgrn has stated that he is a believer. Since I know nothing about his life, I must take that at face value.

Apparently, it is acceptable to impose morality on others so far as it pertains to generosity/helping others, but unacceptable when dealing with sex or abortion (the only two issues so-called "civil libertarians" seem to care about).

In other words, they oppose laws that violate the sovereignty of the individual over his or her body, while supporting policies that violate the sovereignty of the individual over the fruit of their labor.

It's really quite hypocritical.
 
Voltaire said:
And yet Bfgrn has stated that he is a believer. Since I know nothing about his life, I must take that at face value.

Apparently, it is acceptable to impose morality on others so far as it pertains to generosity/helping others, but unacceptable when dealing with sex or abortion (the only two issues so-called "civil libertarians" seem to care about).

In other words, they oppose laws that violate the sovereignty of the individual over his or her body, while supporting policies that violate the sovereignty of the individual over the fruit of their labor.

It's really quite hypocritical.
Click to expand...

That's what it sounds like.
 
cawacko said:
Well no shit but what does the rest of my freaking sentence say? It says why they passed this law which was not the homeless. Fuck an A man. Basic fucking English.
Click to expand...

No response you fucking lying fucking Evil Empire supporter?
 
Voltaire said:
And yet Bfgrn has stated that he is a believer. Since I know nothing about his life, I must take that at face value.

Apparently, it is acceptable to impose morality on others so far as it pertains to generosity/helping others, but unacceptable when dealing with sex or abortion (the only two issues so-called "civil libertarians" seem to care about).

In other words, they oppose laws that violate the sovereignty of the individual over his or her body, while supporting policies that violate the sovereignty of the individual over the fruit of their labor.

It's really quite hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Your statement is a mishmash of contradictions.
 
cawacko said:
No response you fucking lying fucking Evil Empire supporter?
Click to expand...

Your statement where you introduced homelessness into the conversation is misleading. I don't live there and I am not aware of who these 'punks' are. Are they homeless 'punks', poor, middle class, rich 'punks'?
 
Bfgrn said:
Your statement where you introduced homelessness into the conversation is misleading. I don't live there and I am not aware of who these 'punks' are. Are they homeless 'punks', poor, middle class, rich 'punks'?
Click to expand...

Homelessness has been a big issue/problem here for quite awhile. A good portion of our local economy is tourism and we have very aggressive panhandlers that literally scare many tourists away. The amount of urination/defication on the streets is an issue as well. So my point in bringing that up is to show the trouble that is homelessness here yet we never passed a sit/lie law based on them.

The punks on Haight St are mostly teenage (non homeless) kids that either live in the City or worse, come in from outside the City to cause trouble. They hang out on the sidewalks and ask for money (again these are non homeless kids) and harass people. It's been going on for awhile with the merchants and people who live there complaining. It finally culminated in this sit/lie ballot measure which passed.

It's definitely a controversial measure but ultimately the devil is in the details in terms of how it is enforced. So far there have been no complaints of cops going after the homeless. It is still so new that we haven't seen (or at least I haven't seen) what effect, if any, it has had on Haight St.

My comment about liberal people turning conservative was directed at the non homeless teenage punks that sit on people's doorsteps harassing passer by's as well as the homeowners. No matter how liberal you claim to be I would have a hard time imaging you thinking its ok for a group of four or five teenage kids harassing you and threatening to take you money/groceries/whatever at your doorstep.
 
Bfgrn said:
Your statement is a mishmash of contradictions.
Click to expand...

Try to keep up with me here...

1. You are opposed to the government legislating morality as it pertains to sex and abortion.

2. You support government legislating morality as it pertains to charity/generosity.

3. In other words, you hypocritically believe it is acceptable to impose your morality on others.

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top