PDA

View Full Version : STATISTS: Let no good deed go unpunished!



LWW
06-06-2011, 02:43 AM
Comrades, these bubbas have been shown their places.

How dare they attempt to do what the omnipotent and omnipresent state has failed so miserably at doing!

How dare they show human compassion enough to help the proletariat without the cold steel bayonet of the state at their back to force it upon them!

Why can't these bubbas learn that the regime cannot continue to exist without warehousing poor and uneducated voters who cannot exist without the benevolent care of the state!

What possesses such insolence that one would offer another hope and a way out of dependence upon dear leader's welfare needle!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Members of Orlando Food Not Bombs were arrested Wednesday when police said they violated a city ordinance by feeding the homeless in Lake Eola Park.

Jessica Cross, 24, Benjamin Markeson, 49, and Jonathan "Keith" McHenry, 54, were arrested at 6:10 p.m. on a charge of violating the ordinance restricting group feedings in public parks. McHenry is a co-founder of the international Food Not Bombs movement, which began in the early 1980s.

The group lost a court battle in April, clearing the way for the city to enforce the ordinance. It requires groups to obtain a permit and limits each group to two permits per year for each park within a 2-mile radius of City Hall.

Arrest papers state that Cross, Markeson and McHenry helped feed 40 people Wednesday night. The ordinance applies to feedings of more than 25 people.

"They intentionally violated the statute," said Lt. Barbara Jones, an Orlando police spokeswoman.

Sign up for HotDealsOrlando.com and be entered to win an iPad 2

Police waited until everyone was served to make the arrests, said Douglas Coleman, speaking for Orlando Food Not Bombs.

"They basically carted them off to jail for feeding hungry people," said Coleman, who was not present. "For them to regulate a time and place for free speech and to share food, that is unacceptable."

Orlando Food Not Bombs has been feeding the homeless breakfast on Mondays for several years and dinner on Wednesdays for five years.

Police had not enforced the ordinance while the court battle continued. The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta ruled that city rules regulating how often large groups of people can be fed in a park do not violate the Constitution.

The penalty for violating Orlando's ordinance is 60 days in jail, a $500 fine or both.

Arrest documents state that Orlando Food Not Bombs received permits and fed more than 25 homeless people at Lake Eola Park on May 18 and 23. Coleman said the group rejected the permits.

On May 25, Orlando Food Not Bombs illegally fed a large group of homeless people, the police report states. The group on its website called for members to show up that day and defy the city ordinance, according to the report.

Officers said they found a press release on Markeson when they arrested him stating that group members planned to defy the ordinance Wednesday.

Bail was set at $250 for each person arrested. Cross and Markeson were released from jail early

Thursday. McHenry wants to stay in jail and let the legal process take its course, Coleman said. </div></div>

Jail these enemies of the people! (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/crime/os-homeless-feedings-arrests-20110601,0,7226362.story)

Sev
06-06-2011, 05:38 AM
Better to let them starve I guess rather than to risk a good meal.

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 06:37 AM
And somehow, I suspect if we get any response from our statists friends, they will try to make this sound like a perfectly acceptable thing.

Steve

Soflasnapper
06-06-2011, 10:18 AM
Your take is disturbingly daft.

Gatherings of people needing a permit is commonplace across the country, and this group had their day in court to argue their case. They lost, and the court said the city had every right to insist on this everyday procedural requirement.

This kind of rule is designed to protect public safety and provide good civil order, and does not represent some heavy hand of the state (well, city). Probably every sizable city has a comparable policy.

A group doesn't like it, and goes through our system through the courts to try to get it changed, and fails. Yawn!

Why do you hate the rule of law, and our American system of justice?

Gayle in MD
06-06-2011, 10:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your take is disturbingly daft.

Gatherings of people needing a permit is commonplace across the country, and this group had their day in court to argue their case. They lost, and the court said the city had every right to insist on this everyday procedural requirement.

This kind of rule is designed to protect public safety and provide good civil order, and does not represent some heavy hand of the state (well, city). Probably every sizable city has a comparable policy.

A group doesn't like it, and goes through our system through the courts to try to get it changed, and fails. Yawn!

Why do you hate the rule of law, and our American system of justice? </div></div>

All fascists do.

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 10:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And somehow, I suspect if we get any response from our statists friends, they will try to make this sound like a perfectly acceptable thing.

Steve </div></div>

Well, I was right.
Our leftist friends think it's perfectly acceptable to make feeding the homeless a crime! Such compassion! Such caring for their fellow human beings!

Obviously, only the state is capable of giving a sandwich to a homeless, hungry person!

Steve

eg8r
06-06-2011, 12:38 PM
I disagree, that is not what happened. It was a law that a permit needed to be pulled. They did not follow the law and were punished accordingly.

If we are going to require lefties abide by the law we must at least at a minimum expect righties to do the same.

eg8r

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 02:20 PM
Ed, the law allows the group to get 2 permits per year for each park. I would think that reasonable people would be willing to grant a waiver to a group that is actually trying to help the homeless, rather than arrest them. This is the kind of government insanity that seems to be everywhere. There are all kinds of crazy laws on the books that don't get enforced. We've seen them in numerous e-mails over the years. Do they not have bigger problems than a group of volunteers handing out sandwiches to homeless people??

Steve

LWW
06-06-2011, 04:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I disagree, that is not what happened. It was a law that a permit needed to be pulled. They did not follow the law and were punished accordingly.

If we are going to require lefties abide by the law we must at least at a minimum expect righties to do the same.

eg8r </div></div>

The real underlying point is that the left simply cannot comprehend that there are people who would help their fellow man without the cold bayonet of the state at their back to force their actions.

Such compassion threatens the very existence of the statists.

eg8r
06-06-2011, 05:36 PM
What does a few people acting illegally have to do with your "underlying" point? Don't you think it would make more sense to show examples of people giving to the needy in a legal way without the "cold bayonet of the state at their back to force their actions?"

eg8r

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 06:33 PM
I'm still trying to understand why it is illegal for someone to help the needy. And certainly, I can't comprehend why it deserves being arrested.

We seem to have very little common sense any more when it comes to government. I hope the local media gets ahold of this and creates a nice media campaign to encourage a policy change in the community.

Steve

Soflasnapper
06-06-2011, 08:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And somehow, I suspect if we get any response from our statists friends, they will try to make this sound like a perfectly acceptable thing.

Steve </div></div>

Well, I was right.
Our leftist friends think it's perfectly acceptable to make feeding the homeless a crime! Such compassion! Such caring for their fellow human beings!

Obviously, only the state is capable of giving a sandwich to a homeless, hungry person!

Steve </div></div>

I support about 5 charities that feed the hungry, including the homeless. They are in the private sector, not government agencies of any kind. Somehow, they manage to do that without breaking any laws so far as I've heard.

Clearly, it was not the feeding that was the problem, it was the venue where a permit was required.

You know what, we don't allow the homeless to set up tent cities in the parks either. Do you think we should?

These parks are public places where citizens can go with their children. There are safety, sanitation, and usage concerns. Frankly, if I showed up with children to the park and a hoard of homeless were there, I would turn around and go home.

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 08:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Frankly, if I showed up with children to the park and a hoard of homeless were there, I would turn around and go home. </div></div>

And a more compassionate person might be moved to perhaps offer the homeless people some help. It is a fact that a very large percentage of homeless in this country are actually vets who at one time stood on that wall to protect your liberty. Too bad you would feel the thing to do is turn your back on them.

Steve

LWW
06-07-2011, 02:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What does a few people acting illegally have to do with your "underlying" point? Don't you think it would make more sense to show examples of people giving to the needy in a legal way without the "cold bayonet of the state at their back to force their actions?"

eg8r </div></div>

Why should giving to the needy in any manner be illegal?

Further ... if you can't see the hypocrisy in a group believing that a man taking $925K under the table from political contributors to keep his mistress silent isn't illegal, while feeding the poor is illegal then I get I can't get through to you at all.

LWW
06-07-2011, 02:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You know what, we don't allow the homeless to set up tent cities in the parks either. Do you think we should?

These parks are public places where citizens can go with their children. There are safety, sanitation, and usage concerns. Frankly, if I showed up with children to the park and a hoard of homeless were there, I would turn around and go home. </div></div>

What planet do you actually live on:

Tent cities everywhere: (http://newsblog.projo.com/2011/05/ri-supreme-court-hears-homeles.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">PROVIDENCE, RI -- Tent cities that have sprung up around the country have become a symbol of the problem of homelessness. Sometimes shelters become too crowded to accommodate everyone in need. Sometimes the homeless decide that shelters are unsafe and that they'd do better to band together outdoors. </div></div>

Leftists pimping tent city residents: (http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2505/Homeless-tent-cities-Seattlersquos-decadelong-nightmare-coming-to-Honolulu.aspx)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Calling it a “Safe Zone”, State Rep Tom Brower (D-Waikiki) wants to bring a Seattle-style homeless tent city to Kakaako. Rep. Rida Cabanilla, and Rep. John Mizuno agree.

Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann yesterday endorsed the idea of homeless camps--as along as they were run by a private contractor such as a non-profit.

HNN burbles: “Tent cities do exist on the mainland. One in Sacramento had to be closed down because of drugs and unrest, but Seattle has four successful homeless camps.”

Now we know where this “tent city” idea came from. But what is the real track record of Seattle’s “four successful homeless camps”?

Hawai’i Free Press found some answers and they aren’t pretty. Seattle’s tent cities are organizing bases for self-appointed activists who use the homeless to extract money and other benefits from various government agencies. The residents consist predominantly of methamphetamines addicts. They have also become a factional tool in Seattle politics used on behalf of Seattle politicians who give the organizers money and against those politicians who don’t. The camps are moved from one district to another to embarrass and extort politicians. Hannemann's requirement that such camps be run by private contractors could create the same situation in Hawaii. </div></div>

LWW
06-07-2011, 02:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Frankly, if I showed up with children to the park and a hoard of homeless were there, I would turn around and go home. </div></div>

And a more compassionate person might be moved to perhaps offer the homeless people some help. It is a fact that a very large percentage of homeless in this country are actually vets who at one time stood on that wall to protect your liberty. Too bad you would feel the thing to do is turn your back on them.

Steve </div></div>

And notice the attitude was to throw a few dollars at the problem and have someone keep these people ... viewed from the post as less than a citizen since the park is for citizens ... and never to actually reach out a helping hand.

eg8r
06-07-2011, 07:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why should giving to the needy in any manner be illegal?
</div></div>So in one thread we ask why Corporations are allowed to charge US citizens for the corporations self induced catastrophe and your response is because it is the law. However, when we jump to this thread we see that law isn't that important to you anymore.

eg8r

eg8r
06-07-2011, 07:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm still trying to understand why it is illegal for someone to help the needy.</div></div>Take all the time you need but at least spend it contemplating the right issue. The people were not arrested for feeding the needy. You making this claim is the same thing as the lefties saying Clinton was impeached because of his affair with Lewinsky.

The law is the law. You must abide by it or accept the consequences, plain and simple. Yes, I disagree with this specific law but I respect the fact that it is on the books and I will not willingly and knowingly break it on purpose thinking that I will get some leniency because I am doing something nice to help a fellow citizen who is down on their luck.

Yours and lww anger of the police doing their jobs seems quite insensible considering how quick you are to point out the law when a lefty is doing something wrong.

eg8r

LWW
06-07-2011, 08:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why should giving to the needy in any manner be illegal?
</div></div>So in one thread we ask why Corporations are allowed to charge US citizens for the corporations self induced catastrophe and your response is because it is the law. However, when we jump to this thread we see that law isn't that important to you anymore.

eg8r </div></div>

Why are you ducking the question.

I'm not arguing that the law exists, I'm arguing that the law is stupid ... and furthermore that it most likely is not being used in the spirit in which it was passed.

We aren't talking about an advertised festival with food vendors charging, we are talking about feeding the hungry through charity.

pooltchr
06-07-2011, 08:19 AM
Ed, I have the same outrage when I read about a 3rd grader getting busted at school for having an asprin, or a plastic butter knife in their lunch bag. Yes, we have laws in place, and then we have the unintended consequences of those laws.

Just as I would suggest the school officials ignore the 8 year old with a tab of Bayer in their pocket, I would prefer they not be arresting people who are out trying to help other people.

Steve

eg8r
06-07-2011, 08:20 AM
I am ducking your question because it is a strawman argument and has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

The point of this thread was not (at least initally) that the law was stupid but rather that it was stupid to enforce it. The people broke the law plain and simple and you ducking that fact shows quite a bit of hypocrisy. Trying to defend the actions based on the intent of the action is weak.

eg8r

eg8r
06-07-2011, 08:28 AM
Fair enough. Now how did this get political? Has anyone actually read the actual law and looked into why it was put in place? What else does this law prevent which we actually think is a good result of the law?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Police waited until everyone was served to make the arrests, said Douglas Coleman, speaking for Orlando Food Not Bombs.
</div></div>Why didn't you guys stress this part of the story and go in a different direction. The entire thread could have made so much more sense if you guys had taken the opportunity to praise the officers for doing their job but making sure no one that was hungry was turned away. At that point you could talk about how we have laws in place that need to be reviewed and possibly removed. How could anyone argue with that? But no, lww stated the thread in an attacking style and you followed suit. All this showed us is that when statist's (lww term) uphold the law you get pissed yet you want to toss their butts in jail when they break the law.

eg8r

pooltchr
06-07-2011, 09:19 AM
My issue has been from the beginning, that 1) the volunteers were arrested, as this seems a bit extreme to me, and 2) that no effort was made to grant some kind of waiver, considering the nature of what the group was accomplishing.

Our federal government can pass laws (HCR) and then start granting waivers of compliance to certain groups. Seems like a local community could do the same thing.

I think there were mistakes made on both sides. But arresting people who are doing nothing worse than handing out sandwiches to hungry people in a city park seems a bit radical. I am not familiar with this particular community, but I would be willing to bet that the police could probably be better utilized a few blocks away where I suspect there are probably some people distributing illegal drugs to their customers.

I'm just saying...there are much worse things people do than feeding homeless people. Arrest them? Foolish! Find a way to work with them to allow them to continue? A positive move.

I wonder how much it costs to arrest, process, incarcerate, and move through the legal system, these volunteers. Was it really a good use of resources?

Steve

LWW
06-07-2011, 09:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am ducking your question because it is a strawman argument and has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

The point of this thread was not (at least initally) that the law was stupid but rather that it was stupid to enforce it. The people broke the law plain and simple and you ducking that fact shows quite a bit of hypocrisy. Trying to defend the actions based on the intent of the action is weak.

eg8r </div></div>

So I'm arguing that it's a stupid law and that it is stupid for the state to enforce a stupid law and you are arguing that if the state has a stupid law we should just accept it like sheep?

LWW
06-07-2011, 09:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fair enough. Now how did this get political? Has anyone actually read the actual law and looked into why it was put in place? What else does this law prevent which we actually think is a good result of the law?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Police waited until everyone was served to make the arrests, said Douglas Coleman, speaking for Orlando Food Not Bombs.
</div></div>Why didn't you guys stress this part of the story and go in a different direction.

eg8r </div></div>

Thanks for pointing the LEO's recognized this as a stupid law.

Now, isn't it illegal for the LEO's to allow a crime to continue in their presence?

By your logic we should have the LEO's punished as well.

By my logic, they were being forced to do something stupid by the heavy hand of the gubmint.

LWW
06-07-2011, 09:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wonder how much it costs to arrest, process, incarcerate, and move through the legal system, these volunteers. Was it really a good use of resources?

Steve </div></div>

If the good of the people is your goal, no.

If putting non Kool Ade drinking bubbas in their place is your goal, yes.

eg8r
06-07-2011, 12:05 PM
What is a LEO?

As far as allowing a crime to continue, sure, let's see if they get in trouble. If they do then fine it was their fault for acting compassionately. Your response though shows us that compassion was not part of your vocabulary when defending the guys breaking the law.

eg8r

eg8r
06-07-2011, 12:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Our federal government can pass laws (HCR) and then start granting waivers of compliance to certain groups. Seems like a local community could do the same thing.
</div></div>I am sure they could have but in this instance chose not to. Maybe it was to make a point or maybe they like the added paperwork of an arrest.

Making the statement about their utilization could go on and on and never get anywhere. These guys were doing their jobs and showed compassion by allowing the even to finish before hauling anyone away. Do I think arresting them is overboard, sure it probably was.

As far as the costs surrounding this event, has anyone bothered to see if the arrests went anywhere? Did they go to jail, post bond and are awaiting a trial? I don't know because I blew over the story.

Has anyone yet read the actual law that they broke?

eg8r

pooltchr
06-07-2011, 01:29 PM
If they were arrested, they would have to be processed, and either go to jail, post bond, or have a judge throw it out.

Steve

pooltchr
06-07-2011, 01:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is a LEO?



eg8r </div></div>

Law Enforcement Officer

Steve

eg8r
06-07-2011, 03:00 PM
Like sheep no, how about like a law abiding citizen. If you want the law changed or removed then go about it the correct way, not the criminal way. Jeesh, it is these simple things that cause you stumble over and over again.

eg8r

LWW
06-07-2011, 04:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is a LEO?

As far as allowing a crime to continue, sure, let's see if they get in trouble. If they do then fine it was their fault for acting compassionately. Your response though shows us that compassion was not part of your vocabulary when defending the guys breaking the law.

eg8r </div></div>

Law Enforcement Officer.

And, don't assume you have a clue what I feel.

Soflasnapper
06-07-2011, 04:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Like sheep no, how about like a law abiding citizen. If you want the law changed or removed then go about it the correct way, not the criminal way. Jeesh, it is these simple things that cause you stumble over and over again.

eg8r </div></div>

Good points here and throughout the thread! Nicely done.

There is also this to consider: if this group wanted to engage in civil disobedience to bring attention to this law, and help engage the citizenry to get it changed, they NEEDED to and WANTED to be arrested.

That is the nature of civil disobedience. You peacefully surrender and take your arrest, and try to demonstrate by your good character and comportment the justice in your position, in order to sway others.

Nobody should complain when those engaged in civil disobedience are peacefully arrested. Now, if they had the sh!t kicked out of them, then that would be an outrage (although more effective still in getting the public to your side).

LWW
06-07-2011, 04:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Like sheep no, how about like a law abiding citizen. If you want the law changed or removed then go about it the correct way, not the criminal way. Jeesh, it is these simple things that cause you stumble over and over again.

eg8r </div></div>

First off ... the law would never withstand a constitutional test.

Under what legal authority does the gubmint have authority to tell a private citizen or citizens how many people they may feed at their own expense?

Mind you, we aren't talking about a commercial operation.

Soflasnapper
06-07-2011, 05:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Frankly, if I showed up with children to the park and a hoard of homeless were there, I would turn around and go home. </div></div>

And a more compassionate person might be moved to perhaps offer the homeless people some help. It is a fact that a very large percentage of homeless in this country are actually vets who at one time stood on that wall to protect your liberty. Too bad you would feel the thing to do is turn your back on them.

Steve </div></div>

That's a cheap shot. I also support veterans' groups.

The point was I referenced having children with me. As much as I am a trusting person with all, that is not a responsible position to take when entrusted with the care and safety of a child, which must take priority.

Unfortunately, it is common to find some active drug addicts among any group of the homeless. That isn't the kind of risk one should take with children, and I doubt you would.

Soflasnapper
06-07-2011, 05:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You know what, we don't allow the homeless to set up tent cities in the parks either. Do you think we should?

These parks are public places where citizens can go with their children. There are safety, sanitation, and usage concerns. Frankly, if I showed up with children to the park and a hoard of homeless were there, I would turn around and go home. </div></div>

What planet do you actually live on:

Tent cities everywhere: (http://newsblog.projo.com/2011/05/ri-supreme-court-hears-homeles.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">PROVIDENCE, RI -- Tent cities that have sprung up around the country have become a symbol of the problem of homelessness. Sometimes shelters become too crowded to accommodate everyone in need. Sometimes the homeless decide that shelters are unsafe and that they'd do better to band together outdoors. </div></div>

Leftists pimping tent city residents: (http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2505/Homeless-tent-cities-Seattlersquos-decadelong-nightmare-coming-to-Honolulu.aspx)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Calling it a “Safe Zone”, State Rep Tom Brower (D-Waikiki) wants to bring a Seattle-style homeless tent city to Kakaako. Rep. Rida Cabanilla, and Rep. John Mizuno agree.

Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann yesterday endorsed the idea of homeless camps--as along as they were run by a private contractor such as a non-profit.

HNN burbles: “Tent cities do exist on the mainland. One in Sacramento had to be closed down because of drugs and unrest, but Seattle has four successful homeless camps.”

Now we know where this “tent city” idea came from. But what is the real track record of Seattle’s “four successful homeless camps”?

Hawai’i Free Press found some answers and they aren’t pretty. Seattle’s tent cities are organizing bases for self-appointed activists who use the homeless to extract money and other benefits from various government agencies. The residents consist predominantly of methamphetamines addicts. They have also become a factional tool in Seattle politics used on behalf of Seattle politicians who give the organizers money and against those politicians who don’t. The camps are moved from one district to another to embarrass and extort politicians. Hannemann's requirement that such camps be run by private contractors could create the same situation in Hawaii. </div></div>
</div></div>

These citations don't work for your position.

The first one goes to a situation where a homeless tent city in a park has been kicked out by the city, and the courts are in process of sorting out how they can do it.

The second has nothing to do with tent cities in parks (they are on church grounds), and the article cites the extreme increase in various crimes associated with such tent cities.

You are a funny guy, so sloppy with facts, which makes your version of the story always so much better (than reality).

LWW
06-08-2011, 02:43 AM
And the standard leftist fall back position ... BLAH BLAH BLAH JIST BECAUSE IT'S TRUE DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE BLAH BLAH BLAH

eg8r
06-08-2011, 07:30 AM
Not interested in the strawman argument. Acting out against the law doesn't seem very Constitutional either. If you don't like the law have it changed or removed lawfully not like a criminal.

eg8r

eg8r
06-08-2011, 07:32 AM
LOL, I haven't assumed a thing. Your posts say it all.

eg8r