Media Bias

[CF DolFan]

I'll be the first to address the elephant in the room. If Kavanough did do what she says in high school do you really think that disqualifies him for anything?  I mean .... she isn't even saying he did rape her. She is saying he forced himself on her for small period of time. He groped her, gave up and left. I can't speak for for the younger crowd but I know the older crowd has experienced similar situations and moved on. I really don't see it as a big deal as it was teenagers doing stupid stuff as that what's teenagers do. It was a minor who has proven does not have this tendency as an adult ... according to his former girlfriends and lovers.  I also didn't think it was anyone's business but Bill and Hillary when he got busted for doing Monica. We are all sinners and have done some bad things if we are being honest. As long as we have grown or it's not part of the job I don't know how these moral issues matter.

[Dolphster]

how many fires have you fought?
how many murderers have you caught or prosecuted?
how many people have you driven in your ambulance to the hospital?

don't ask stupid qauestions

The hilarity of "stupid qauestions"  aside, I have served my entire country in the military, and currently serve my entire country in a federal law enforcement agency. So all in all, I have contributed substantially to society for over 30 years.  Thanks for giving me the opportunity to brag while answering your question.  

 And for a person to accuse someone of "stupid qauestions" when your initial response to solving the homeless crisis was to buy them all homes is pretty classic.   So you think it is a pretty good idea that people who work for a living have to pay a mortgage, pay for homeowner's insurance, pay property tax, etc., but homeless people should have all those things given to them is astoundingly short sighted and unrealistic.  By the way, nothing personal, I'm just arguing with you.  

[Fau Teixeira]

I guess if we're going to harp on typos, then this discussion is style over substance.

It would be less expensive for tax-payers to subsidize basic housing for the homeless than to cover the associated costs of their homelessness. It would also allow them to get and keep employment.

Here's an example of a cost analysis of homelessness:
http://homelesshub.ca/about-homelessness/homelessness-101/cost-analysis-homelessness
Granted it's Canadian, therefore take the medical costs and increase them for the US, since the homeless won't have insurance and will use primarily emergency rooms.

here's a link from a US organization with similar conclusions:
https://endhomelessness.org/study-data-show-that-housing-chronically-homeless-people-saves-money-lives/
there's an interactive map with regional studies.

So to answer your question, i think it's a very good idea to provide homes for the homeless, it's much less expensive to taxpayers than having them be homeless.

[pondwater]

I guess if we're going to harp on typos, then this discussion is style over substance.

It would be less expensive for tax-payers to subsidize basic housing for the homeless than to cover the associated costs of their homelessness. It would also allow them to get and keep employment.

Here's an example of a cost analysis of homelessness:
http://homelesshub.ca/about-homelessness/homelessness-101/cost-analysis-homelessness
Granted it's Canadian, therefore take the medical costs and increase them for the US, since the homeless won't have insurance and will use primarily emergency rooms.

here's a link from a US organization with similar conclusions:
https://endhomelessness.org/study-data-show-that-housing-chronically-homeless-people-saves-money-lives/
there's an interactive map with regional studies.

So to answer your question, i think it's a very good idea to provide homes for the homeless, it's much less expensive to taxpayers than having them be homeless.

You could give them a nice house and they wouldn't even take care of it. Go take a look at section 8 and HUD houses and apartments. Looks like a 3rd world country in the majority of the cases. The majority of them don't give a flying fuck.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I'll be the first to address the elephant in the room. If Kavanough did do what she says in high school do you really think that disqualifies him for anything?  I mean .... she isn't even saying he did rape her. She is saying he forced himself on her for small period of time. He groped her, gave up and left. I can't speak for for the younger crowd but I know the older crowd has experienced similar situations and moved on. I really don't see it as a big deal as it was teenagers doing stupid stuff as that what's teenagers do. It was a minor who has proven does not have this tendency as an adult ... according to his former girlfriends and lovers.  I also didn't think it was anyone's business but Bill and Hillary when he got busted for doing Monica. We are all sinners and have done some bad things if we are being honest. As long as we have grown or it's not part of the job I don't know how these moral issues matter.

yes it disqualifies him.  Adultry and consenual sex between adults doesn’t bother me so I don’t care about Monica.  otoh, what Paula Jones alleged is troubling.  Likewise I dont care about Stormy.  She consented.    or if a russian whored peed on him.  I do care that Trump would walk into the Miss America dressing rooms to spy on naked women and bragged that he assaulted women (grab them by the pussy).

[pondwater]

I'll be the first to address the elephant in the room. If Kavanough did do what she says in high school do you really think that disqualifies him for anything? 

I wouldn't even entertain that shit. He'll be confirmed shortly................

[Spider-Dan]

If Kavanough did do what she says in high school do you really think that disqualifies him for anything?

If perjury for consensual sex acts between adults is disqualifying, perjury for sexual assault is definitely so.

But I guess it's good to get stuff like this on the record.  He tried to rape her but he was interrupted and didn't succeed, so no harm no foul!

[Spider-Dan]

(I want to help everyone, but I don't want to pay for it)

LOL ... I think this is most people but many people don't want to admit it.

I think you are drastically underestimating the number of people who don't want others to get help even if it doesn't personally cost them a dime.  For example, if I said that your taxes wouldn't be raised a dime, but we were going to finance a (deficit-neutral) program of building new homeless shelters across the nation via larger taxes on the top 0.5%, I'm pretty sure you would immediately object.

For some, the important part is not whether or not it personally costs them any money, but whether the wrong kind of people are being helped.

---

To get back on topic, I do find it rather interesting that the correlation between people who love to say "facts don't care about your feelings" and the people who love to complain about "biased media being unfair" is almost 1:1.

snowflakes everywhere!

[pondwater]

If perjury for consensual sex acts between adults is disqualifying, perjury for sexual assault is definitely so.

But I guess it's good to get stuff like this on the record.  He tried to rape her but he was interrupted and didn't succeed, so no harm no foul!

Do you have proof of that? Does anyone? 35 years? Haha, good luck. He'll be confirmed shortly. Spider, I worry about you. I can't say we're friends, but I'm kind of worried about you. Your thought process is not based in reality. You guys have 110% more chance of the TX cop getting the chair than blocking the SCOTUS nominee. Your best bet is the other thread at this point, LMFAO.

But I could be wrong........

[Spider-Dan]

Do you have proof of that? Does anyone?

CF's point was that even if he did it, it doesn't matter, which is what I was responding to: the total abdication of morality from the party of family values.

If responding to a given premise makes you doubt my grip on reality, I recommend you stay away from televisions and movie theaters... you may find them terrifying.

[Dolphster]

I guess if we're going to harp on typos, then this discussion is style over substance.

It would be less expensive for tax-payers to subsidize basic housing for the homeless than to cover the associated costs of their homelessness. It would also allow them to get and keep employment.

Here's an example of a cost analysis of homelessness:
http://homelesshub.ca/about-homelessness/homelessness-101/cost-analysis-homelessness
Granted it's Canadian, therefore take the medical costs and increase them for the US, since the homeless won't have insurance and will use primarily emergency rooms.

here's a link from a US organization with similar conclusions:
https://endhomelessness.org/study-data-show-that-housing-chronically-homeless-people-saves-money-lives/
there's an interactive map with regional studies.

So to answer your question, i think it's a very good idea to provide homes for the homeless, it's much less expensive to taxpayers than having them be homeless.

FAU, being a Libertarian myself, I can definitely appreciate your concept of limiting the impact to taxpayers.  I am going to reserve judgment on the validity of the web sites that you are citing because statistics are obviously manipulated by whoever is paying for the "study".    The fact that the two websites you referenced are called "endhomelessness.org" and "homelesshub.ca" make me a little suspicious of the statistical validity of their numbers.  Also, given the fact that a high percentage of the homeless population suffer from significant mental illness, I'm not sure about their ability to get and maintain employment.  I definitely agree that something needs to be done about homelessness, I just don't think that giving them homes is the answer.  The same lack of life skills (or mental illness as is often the case) that led to them being homeless in the first place would not be fixed with a free home.  As someone else on here pointed out, a look at Section 8 housing is pretty illustrative that giving something away doesn't make the recipients suddenly responsible adults. 

[CF DolFan]

yes it disqualifies him.  Adultry and consenual sex between adults doesn’t bother me so I don’t care about Monica.  otoh, what Paula Jones alleged is troubling.  Likewise I dont care about Stormy.  She consented.    or if a russian whored peed on him.  I do care that Trump would walk into the Miss America dressing rooms to spy on naked women and bragged that he assaulted women (grab them by the pussy).

Why do you not care about Cory Booker, Keith Ellison, Ted Kennedy and many others? Bill Clinton has women claiming actual rape and then some for groping yet he is the belle of the ball for Democrats.

As well ... I dare say most young men have grabbed a butt, touched a boob or tried to kiss a girl who didn't want it. Especially 30-40 years ago when it wasn't even thought of as nothing more than being yelled at. Sexual assault in 1980 is not the same as it is today. It's kind of like trying a man today for owning slaves in 1850 (assuming he were still alive)

[Fau Teixeira]

"whatabout"

[Cathal]

Why do you not care about Cory Booker, Keith Ellison, Ted Kennedy and many others? Bill Clinton has women claiming actual rape and then some for groping yet he is the belle of the ball for Democrats.

As well ... I dare say most young men have grabbed a butt, touched a boob or tried to kiss a girl who didn't want it. Especially 30-40 years ago when it wasn't even thought of as nothing more than being yelled at. Sexual assault in 1980 is not the same as it is today. It's kind of like trying a man today for owning slaves in 1850 (assuming he were still alive)

The main problem with this guy is he's being appointed to the Supreme Court. He will actually be ruling on things kinda important to women. Women have a lot riding on him NOT getting the job.

[Spider-Dan]

CF, you have convinced me: the Democrats should not nominate Keith Ellison or Cory Booker for the Supreme Court.  (President would still be OK though, based on the current occupant.)

Not sure why you are reaching back to the 20th century for guys who are retired or dead, though.  "Democrats claim to be against racism but they supported Woodrow Wilson!"