The Insane Rationalizations, Bigotry And Out Right Hypocrisy Of The Left

[Steven P Allen]

8 hours ago, NickM said:

Cokie? Did this "expert" write a book?

Too long ago for me to remember such details.  I paid no attention to the person until he advocated murdering me.

[Rick]

Some interesting comments from the far left about Governor Newson .

 https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143429057

 

And why the fail the "working class."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220196678#post19

Edited April 3, 2025 by Rick

[JWB]

https://x.com/WesternLensman/status/1907902248933535951

1996: Chuck Schumer explains “the number one reason" illegals come to the US is so they can defraud programs like Social Security — and wants to stop it.

[rmgill]

You gotta love democrats and their southern strategies. 

[Ivanhoe]

Hard to believe The Onion is returning to humor;
 

 

[Murph]

Yeah, saw a photo of her, and she has put on something like 150+ lbs.  Not flattering at all.  Plus she is a sexual offender by her own admission.  

[17thfabn]

1 hour ago, Murph said:

Yeah, saw a photo of her, and she has put on something like 150+ lbs.  Not flattering at all.  Plus she is a sexual offender by her own admission.  

She was always heavy, another 150 pounds wouldn't help.

[Murph]

Matt Taibbi is suing a CongressCritter for absolutely slanderous and libelous accusations.  I hope he wins! The time these lawless Democraps can say stuff like this about American citizens needs to end!

https://hotair.com/headlines/2025/04/04/journalist-matt-taibbi-files-10-million-libel-lawsuit-against-democratic-congress-member-n3801458

Twitter files journalist Matt Taibbi filed a $10 million libel lawsuit against Democratic California Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove on Thursday after she accused him of being a “serial sexual harasser.”

Kamlager-Dove made the accusations Tuesday during a House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee hearing and later amplified them on social media. The congresswoman’s claims are “demonstrably false and were made with actual malice,” Taibbi’s lawsuit states.

“There is not much a person like me can say to a member of Congress hiding behind the protections of the Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution,” Taibbi wrote in a Substack post.

[Rick]

 Consumers in Los Angeles County now have a new quarter-percent higher sales tax, to raise funds for services for the homeless, went into effect following a referendum in November. L.A. voters passed Measure A, which replaced and increased an earlier county-wide sales tax for the homeless. That tax, passed a decade ago, failed to stem the growth of the homeless population and may even have encouraged it.
The sales tax went up from 9.5% to 9.75% to increase funding to prevent homelessness. The increase was approved by voters Two cities in the county, Lancaster and Palmdale, are now paying a sales tax of 11.25% — the highest in the U.S.
Separately, another tax supposedly for the benefit of the homeless, Measure ULA, is impeding the rebuilding effort in Los Angeles after the recent, devastating wildfires. The so-called “mansion tax” has depressed real estate transactions. L.A. residents recently learned that $2.3 billion spent on homeless services in Los Angeles had been unaccounted for — and the money had come from the same sales taxes that referendums like Measure A had been designed to fund. 

Typical Democrat, create a problem, throw tax-payer money at it, blame someone else.

[Skywalkre]

12 hours ago, Rick said:

 Consumers in Los Angeles County now have a new quarter-percent higher sales tax, to raise funds for services for the homeless, went into effect following a referendum in November. L.A. voters passed Measure A, which replaced and increased an earlier county-wide sales tax for the homeless. That tax, passed a decade ago, failed to stem the growth of the homeless population and may even have encouraged it.
The sales tax went up from 9.5% to 9.75% to increase funding to prevent homelessness. The increase was approved by voters Two cities in the county, Lancaster and Palmdale, are now paying a sales tax of 11.25% — the highest in the U.S.
Separately, another tax supposedly for the benefit of the homeless, Measure ULA, is impeding the rebuilding effort in Los Angeles after the recent, devastating wildfires. The so-called “mansion tax” has depressed real estate transactions. L.A. residents recently learned that $2.3 billion spent on homeless services in Los Angeles had been unaccounted for — and the money had come from the same sales taxes that referendums like Measure A had been designed to fund. 

Typical Democrat, create a problem, throw tax-payer money at it, blame someone else.

Umm... the homeless are everywhere.  Their numbers have been rising in recent years, as well.  Whatever you're quoting only said previous measures to help might have made things worse.

Honestly, I think you have to give the people of LA some credit.  Even with the high cost of living out there they voted to try and help those in their community that are struggling.  What they're doing is far better than simply criminalizing homelessness which many jurisdictions are doing after SCOTUS made that easier last year.

[Ivanhoe]

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2025/04/portland-man-arrested-after-police-say-he-pointed-laser-at-tesla-employees-inside-dealership.html
 

Quote

 

Police arrested a Portland man Saturday on allegations he pointed a laser inside a Tesla dealership during a protest hurting the eyes of employees inside.

Davis Nafshun, 27, is accused of two counts of unlawful use of a weapon, two counts of attempting to commit a felony and misdemeanor charges of menacing and reckless endangerment. He was released on his own recognizance from jail the same day of his arrest.

 

The best thing for the US would be to wall in Portland, simply turn it into a mass penal colony. Likewise Seattle.

 

[Murph]

47 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2025/04/portland-man-arrested-after-police-say-he-pointed-laser-at-tesla-employees-inside-dealership.html
 

The best thing for the US would be to wall in Portland, simply turn it into a mass penal colony. Likewise Seattle.

 

I like that idea.  I also want the illegals, and other criminals made to stay at these judges homes with them.

[Stargrunt6]

I messed with disc golf for a minute. Lotsa diehard lefties.

https://x.com/JenniferSey/status/1908653584557744422

 

[Murph]

These women are heroes.  

[Steven P Allen]

On 4/7/2025 at 9:10 AM, Ivanhoe said:

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2025/04/portland-man-arrested-after-police-say-he-pointed-laser-at-tesla-employees-inside-dealership.html
 

The best thing for the US would be to wall in Portland, simply turn it into a mass penal colony. Likewise Seattle.

 

I saw the movie, gets messy if Air Force One happens to crash inside the walls.  Love the soundtrack, however.

[nitflegal]

On 4/6/2025 at 6:26 PM, Skywalkre said:

Umm... the homeless are everywhere.  Their numbers have been rising in recent years, as well.  Whatever you're quoting only said previous measures to help might have made things worse.

Honestly, I think you have to give the people of LA some credit.  Even with the high cost of living out there they voted to try and help those in their community that are struggling.  What they're doing is far better than simply criminalizing homelessness which many jurisdictions are doing after SCOTUS made that easier last year.

Honest question; how is what they are doing better?  Instead of targeting the money at the fairly small proportion of people who are homeless because of temporary circumstances (bad financial decision, abuse, employment problems, etc) they are providing far less to that population (which would allow them to do job training, safe temp housing, child care to allow a parent to work, etc) and instead evenly spreading it over them and the significant majority who are homeless either because they actively want to be or have addictions or mental disorders which make them incapable of having any kind of a stable life.  

I worked with the homeless for years in both NE and Michigan and went from gun-ho to cynical over several years.  For every one person that you can assist get out of it (and roughly 20% of those don't make the same bad decisions they had before and end up homeless again and usually then become part of the majority homeless population)  you have 15-20 who simply can't function.  Put them in temp housing they do drugs, steal the appliances and fixtures to sell, bring in their abusive SO or pimp, rob the other tenants (which hurts that one out of 15-20 who is actually reachable and instead of being safe are nor housed with a population of 95% who go after them because they have money and appliances in their apartment) or simply disappear for weeks at a time back to the streets if they don't just leave altogether.

How is it virtuous to spend money so that you can feel virtuous when the money you spend demonstrably and over decades actually makes the problem worse?  If I told you I was a good person because I went into famine stricken areas with unlimited diet soda and ozempic injections you wouldn't applaud me for "doing something"; you'd think me an utter idiot because I went in and made the problem worse through actions which were measurably counter-productive.

Because we as a society can't bring ourselves to admit that many of the homeless can't be saved short of outright incarceration (and our prisons utterly fail at being safe anyways) we waste the vast majority of our spending on them instead of being clear-eyed and focusing those resources on the few that can be helped out of that situation.  General rule of thumb in the social services and charity world is that, if they've been homeless for more than 18 months, they won't be pulled out of homelessness.  If, in periods of below 5% unemployment, they have not had some sort of non-charity or government income in 6 months than they are unsalvageable.  We let the ones who are actually f**ked and could come around be sacrificed so we can say we helped everyone.

Put it this way, you want to hear judgemental condemnation for the homeless?  Talk to s former homeless person who took advantage of help to pull themselves out of it.  

[Rick]

7 hours ago, nitflegal said:

Honest question; how is what they are doing better?  Instead of targeting the money at the fairly small proportion of people who are homeless because of temporary circumstances (bad financial decision, abuse, employment problems, etc) they are providing far less to that population (which would allow them to do job training, safe temp housing, child care to allow a parent to work, etc) and instead evenly spreading it over them and the significant majority who are homeless either because they actively want to be or have addictions or mental disorders which make them incapable of having any kind of a stable life.  

I worked with the homeless for years in both NE and Michigan and went from gun-ho to cynical over several years.  For every one person that you can assist get out of it (and roughly 20% of those don't make the same bad decisions they had before and end up homeless again and usually then become part of the majority homeless population)  you have 15-20 who simply can't function.  Put them in temp housing they do drugs, steal the appliances and fixtures to sell, bring in their abusive SO or pimp, rob the other tenants (which hurts that one out of 15-20 who is actually reachable and instead of being safe are nor housed with a population of 95% who go after them because they have money and appliances in their apartment) or simply disappear for weeks at a time back to the streets if they don't just leave altogether.

How is it virtuous to spend money so that you can feel virtuous when the money you spend demonstrably and over decades actually makes the problem worse?  If I told you I was a good person because I went into famine stricken areas with unlimited diet soda and ozempic injections you wouldn't applaud me for "doing something"; you'd think me an utter idiot because I went in and made the problem worse through actions which were measurably counter-productive.

Because we as a society can't bring ourselves to admit that many of the homeless can't be saved short of outright incarceration (and our prisons utterly fail at being safe anyways) we waste the vast majority of our spending on them instead of being clear-eyed and focusing those resources on the few that can be helped out of that situation.  General rule of thumb in the social services and charity world is that, if they've been homeless for more than 18 months, they won't be pulled out of homelessness.  If, in periods of below 5% unemployment, they have not had some sort of non-charity or government income in 6 months than they are unsalvageable.  We let the ones who are actually f**ked and could come around be sacrificed so we can say we helped everyone.

Put it this way, you want to hear judgemental condemnation for the homeless?  Talk to s former homeless person who took advantage of help to pull themselves out of it.  

+1

[Stargrunt6]

10 hours ago, nitflegal said:

Honest question; how is what they are doing better?  Instead of targeting the money at the fairly small proportion of people who are homeless because of temporary circumstances (bad financial decision, abuse, employment problems, etc) they are providing far less to that population (which would allow them to do job training, safe temp housing, child care to allow a parent to work, etc) and instead evenly spreading it over them and the significant majority who are homeless either because they actively want to be or have addictions or mental disorders which make them incapable of having any kind of a stable life.  

I worked with the homeless for years in both NE and Michigan and went from gun-ho to cynical over several years.  For every one person that you can assist get out of it (and roughly 20% of those don't make the same bad decisions they had before and end up homeless again and usually then become part of the majority homeless population)  you have 15-20 who simply can't function.  Put them in temp housing they do drugs, steal the appliances and fixtures to sell, bring in their abusive SO or pimp, rob the other tenants (which hurts that one out of 15-20 who is actually reachable and instead of being safe are nor housed with a population of 95% who go after them because they have money and appliances in their apartment) or simply disappear for weeks at a time back to the streets if they don't just leave altogether.

How is it virtuous to spend money so that you can feel virtuous when the money you spend demonstrably and over decades actually makes the problem worse?  If I told you I was a good person because I went into famine stricken areas with unlimited diet soda and ozempic injections you wouldn't applaud me for "doing something"; you'd think me an utter idiot because I went in and made the problem worse through actions which were measurably counter-productive.

Because we as a society can't bring ourselves to admit that many of the homeless can't be saved short of outright incarceration (and our prisons utterly fail at being safe anyways) we waste the vast majority of our spending on them instead of being clear-eyed and focusing those resources on the few that can be helped out of that situation.  General rule of thumb in the social services and charity world is that, if they've been homeless for more than 18 months, they won't be pulled out of homelessness.  If, in periods of below 5% unemployment, they have not had some sort of non-charity or government income in 6 months than they are unsalvageable.  We let the ones who are actually f**ked and could come around be sacrificed so we can say we helped everyone.

Put it this way, you want to hear judgemental condemnation for the homeless?  Talk to s former homeless person who took advantage of help to pull themselves out of it.  

Can confirm, I worked with the homeless via my church.

They can be as entitled as the worst in the middle class suburb I grew up in.

[Tim the Tank Nut]

some time ago a couple came in asking for money to buy a car battery.  They lived in the car.  I offered to buy a car battery for them.  They were very upset that I didn't just give them the money.  They were able to drive away, maybe they left the car running or maybe they didn't need a battery at all.

[Steven P Allen]

My experience tallies as well, both working through church and working with some who got into college in order to gobble up FinAid as rapidly as possible without actually accomplishing anything.  Even some of those who appear to be working at improving their situation are simply taking advantage of another teat.

[Stargrunt6]

 

 

[Ivanhoe]

43 minutes ago, Stargrunt6 said:

 

 

They simply couldn't handle his incredible masculinity.

[Skywalkre]

17 hours ago, nitflegal said:

Honest question; how is what they are doing better?  Instead of targeting the money at the fairly small proportion of people who are homeless because of temporary circumstances (bad financial decision, abuse, employment problems, etc) they are providing far less to that population (which would allow them to do job training, safe temp housing, child care to allow a parent to work, etc) and instead evenly spreading it over them and the significant majority who are homeless either because they actively want to be or have addictions or mental disorders which make them incapable of having any kind of a stable life.  

I worked with the homeless for years in both NE and Michigan and went from gun-ho to cynical over several years.  For every one person that you can assist get out of it (and roughly 20% of those don't make the same bad decisions they had before and end up homeless again and usually then become part of the majority homeless population)  you have 15-20 who simply can't function.  Put them in temp housing they do drugs, steal the appliances and fixtures to sell, bring in their abusive SO or pimp, rob the other tenants (which hurts that one out of 15-20 who is actually reachable and instead of being safe are nor housed with a population of 95% who go after them because they have money and appliances in their apartment) or simply disappear for weeks at a time back to the streets if they don't just leave altogether.

How is it virtuous to spend money so that you can feel virtuous when the money you spend demonstrably and over decades actually makes the problem worse?  If I told you I was a good person because I went into famine stricken areas with unlimited diet soda and ozempic injections you wouldn't applaud me for "doing something"; you'd think me an utter idiot because I went in and made the problem worse through actions which were measurably counter-productive.

Because we as a society can't bring ourselves to admit that many of the homeless can't be saved short of outright incarceration (and our prisons utterly fail at being safe anyways) we waste the vast majority of our spending on them instead of being clear-eyed and focusing those resources on the few that can be helped out of that situation.  General rule of thumb in the social services and charity world is that, if they've been homeless for more than 18 months, they won't be pulled out of homelessness.  If, in periods of below 5% unemployment, they have not had some sort of non-charity or government income in 6 months than they are unsalvageable.  We let the ones who are actually f**ked and could come around be sacrificed so we can say we helped everyone.

Put it this way, you want to hear judgemental condemnation for the homeless?  Talk to s former homeless person who took advantage of help to pull themselves out of it.  

There was a report at the end of last year highlighting that 2024 saw the largest rise in the number of homeless since the Feds started tracking it (an almost 20% jump).  One of the biggest explanations why was the lack of affordable housing.  Listening to the experts discuss this report this wasn't just an increased number of the same type of folks who are homeless... many of these people had jobs and families and simply couldn't afford the post-COVID skyrocketing housing costs.

Let's remember we have an un-sourced quote from Rick which claims the previous tax in the area might have made things worse.  In trying to follow up on that all I found were some op-ed pieces before the election arguing LA county authorities couldn't track all the money (which before folks put words into my mouth I would agree is unacceptable), homelessness went up, thus the tax made things worse.  You of all people should understand how that's a boneheaded conclusion to come to from such a limited reading of the issue.

So you're criticizing how so much of this money is probably going to lost causes... ok.  Are you arguing the voters should have just voted down this measure and let these funds run out in two years?  If we're talking about virtuous I'd absolutely defend a measure that is inefficient but helps some of the people that need it (reading up on this measure a fair chunk is aimed at addressing affordable housing) than just giving up and letting those good folks fall through the cracks.  How the hell does that make anything better?

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

There was a report at the end of last year highlighting that 2024 saw the largest rise in the number of homeless since the Feds started tracking it (an almost 20% jump).  One of the biggest explanations why was the lack of affordable housing. 

How did the Biden admin flying immigrants in help this? 

Did the mass importation of Millions of "asylum seekers" help or hurt the housing shortage? 
 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

Listening to the experts discuss this report this wasn't just an increased number of the same type of folks who are homeless... many of these people had jobs and families and simply couldn't afford the post-COVID skyrocketing housing costs.

Yes. Amazing what happens when you clamp down on the economy and increase cost of things. 
 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

Let's remember we have an un-sourced quote from Rick which claims the previous tax in the area might have made things worse.  In trying to follow up on that all I found were some op-ed pieces before the election arguing LA county authorities couldn't track all the money (which before folks put words into my mouth I would agree is unacceptable), homelessness went up, thus the tax made things worse.  You of all people should understand how that's a boneheaded conclusion to come to from such a limited reading of the issue.

How do you measure the success of a homeless resource center? The amount of homeless they help? If the number goes up and up and up, are they really helping? 

Do you track the repeat people who are assisted? Is there a way to do that? Does an ever increasing number of homeless people using the same services indicate a strong fix to the problem? 

What I think you're ignoring or blind to is that the situation in California or other places where they fire LOTS of money out of the money cannon at the homeless problem is that you get people who position to do that full time and of course make more and more money doing so. 

1 hour ago, Skywalkre said:

So you're criticizing how so much of this money is probably going to lost causes... ok.  Are you arguing the voters should have just voted down this measure and let these funds run out in two years?  If we're talking about virtuous I'd absolutely defend a measure that is inefficient but helps some of the people that need it (reading up on this measure a fair chunk is aimed at addressing affordable housing) than just giving up and letting those good folks fall through the cracks.  How the hell does that make anything better?

Is it a safety net or a hammock? 

For those that need affordable housing that's one thing. What about the ones who have a hard time being responsible due to drug and/or mental illness? 

 

Edited April 10, 2025 by rmgill

[Murph]

This and true: