Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday September 13, @04:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the crappy-job dept.

San Diego workers will power-wash streets with a bleach solution in an attempt to stop the spread of Hepatitis A:

At least 15 people have died in San Diego from an ongoing hepatitis A outbreak. In an effort to stop the spread of the viral liver disease, city officials have begun power-washing streets across the downtown area, according to NBC San Diego.

As of Monday, workers dressed in protective white gear and red hard hats were seen outside spraying the sidewalks with a bleach-based liquid in hopes of killing the virus that lives in human feces. "We're probably going to be doing them every other Monday, see how that works out at least for the time being," Jose Ysea, a city spokesman, told NBC San Diego.

The high-pressure power-washing system using bleach will hopefully remove "all feces, blood, bodily fluids or contaminated surfaces," according to a sanitation plan included in a letter delivered to San Diego city officials, the Associated Press reports. For now, just streets in San Diego are being washed, but in the near future hand-washing and street-sanitizing efforts will be implemented in other cities in the region, Dr. Wilma Wooten, the region's public health officer, told the AP.

Also at LA Times. San Diego outbreak page.

Previously: San Diego Declares Emergency Due to Outbreak of Hepatitis A


Original Submission

Related Stories

San Diego Declares Emergency Due to Outbreak of Hepatitis A 32 comments

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/03/548299633/san-diego-declares-health-emergency-amid-hepatitis-a-outbreak

San Diego's homeless population has been hit hardest by the highly contagious hepatitis A virus.

The outbreak, which began in November, has spread after vaccination and educational programs in the city failed to reduce the infection rate. The virus attacks the liver.

The public health declaration bolsters the county Health and Human Services Agency's ability to request state assistance to fund new sanitation measures. Areas with high concentrations of homeless people will receive dozens of portable hand-washing stations. Health workers will also use bleached-spiked water for power-washing contaminated surfaces.

Dr. Wilma Wooten, the San Diego Public Health Officer who signed the declaration into law on Friday, says the sanitation precautions are modeled after similar programs in other Southern California cities - including Los Angeles.

Also at Voice of San Diego, The San Diego Union-Tribune, and LA Times.


Original Submission

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Reply to Article

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @04:59PM (64 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @04:59PM (#567286)

    the virus that lives in human feces... blood, bodily fluids

    How about clearing out the riffraff? Homeless people are not just normal people on hard times; they are a menace to civil society—that's why "officials" have to fucking power wash the streets with bleach, for fuck sake.

    We cannot just ignore these indigents any longer; it helps no one to just let them be. They must be put, possibly forcibly, into a system that removes them from civil society until they are able to support themselves without smearing their blood and feces over the goddamn sidewalks that I am paying for.

    • (Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:04PM (59 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:04PM (#567289)

      How about we hand you a (cheap) gun and you personally get to shoot each and everyone of them?

      Your words ring like eery echoes of not-so-recent German history.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:14PM (55 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:14PM (#567297)

        I'm calling for real infrastructure, not ethereal hope.

        These people cannot be living on the streets, shitting and pissing and bleeding and ejaculating all over the place. Powerwashing the streets with bleach is the clean up that you do after the miscreants have been dealt through long-term infrastructure that is designed to handle them properly.

        Bleaching the streets is lipstick on the pig; the schwein pig is still there.

        You can't just cry "Hitler!" It's not an argument.

        • (Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 13, @05:33PM (32 children)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 13, @05:33PM (#567310) Journal

          I'm calling for real infrastructure, not ethereal hope.

          Yes, homeless concentration camps would definitely be classified as infrastructure.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:39PM (30 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:39PM (#567319)

            I'm going to have you rounded up and taken to a concentration camp known as "jail", and if you keep doing it, then another camp called "prison".

            I'm not even advocating jail or prison for homeless people, but there must be something well defined for handling these people. You cannot just let them shit on public property; that's not allowed!

            They cannot sleep on the streets, and do their drugs in the alleys. Remove these miscreants, so that the rest of us can get on with our clean lives, walking safely on the streets that we are paying to build and maintain.

            • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:43PM (15 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:43PM (#567324)

              Socialism is the answer, but somehow I doubt you would support such things. Also, do you propose violating people's freedom to exist by forcing them into such camps? How do you prevent them from leaving and living where they please?

              Honestly sounds like you haven't thought it through and simply want to remove "deplorables" from society. You should focus on improving their lives, not removing them from society. Yes a Hitler reference is quite applicable, it is a bad sign that you do not understand that.

              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:52PM (12 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:52PM (#567333)

                "Socialism" is such an incredibly nebulous term; it means virtually nothing—the only sentiment that you can derive from it is this: You want to take other people's resources at the point of a gun.

                Look at you, worrying about whether people want to leave a camp, and yet not giving a fuck about whether people want to pay for your silly "solutions". How can you not see the utter contradiction in your positions?

                In my world view, there is no contradiction: You don't know what the rules of interaction are until you negotiate them, cautiously, and then you stick to the rules of that game religously.

                Here. I'll start the negotiation: If you shit on my property, we're going to have a problem, and I'm going to make you wish that you didn't shit on my property.

                • (Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:11PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:11PM (#567393)

                  You are such an insightful shit lord! You're too stuck in your own narrow view to even argue properly, good luck not paying taxes. Perhaps your FB feed would be a better location to spew your circle jerk rhetoric.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:24PM (6 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:24PM (#567405)

                  > "Socialism" is such an incredibly nebulous term; it means virtually nothing—the only sentiment that you can derive from it is this: You want to take other people's resources at the point of a gun.

                  No, that's the only sentiment *you* can derive from it. Don't put *me* in your Randian basket.

                  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:33PM (5 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:33PM (#567410)

                    Exactly, civilization is a veneer plastered over the human animal through millenia of trial and error. It can be lost very quickly so we should be supportive of those in need lest we lose the buffer and we let our society devolve into barbarism. Treating a group of humans differently than the rest is the first step towards barbarity.

                    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:46PM (4 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:46PM (#567419)

                      Well, you've just agreed with OP, then.

                      You can't allow these people to do the things that most people are not allowed to do: Shit, sleep, and fuck in the streets. Society has descended into barbarity, because such barbarous activity is specially allowed by this one group of miscreants.

                      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Spook brat on Wednesday September 13, @07:51PM (3 children)

                        by Spook brat (775) on Wednesday September 13, @07:51PM (#567423)

                        In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.

                        — Anatole France

                        --
                        Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
                        • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday September 14, @04:18PM (2 children)

                          by linkdude64 (5482) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 14, @04:18PM (#567879)

                          What an ass-backward quote. You know why the law "Don't steal" exists? It's because poor people stole stuff from less-poor people before there was such a thing as law, and people banded together to create it. Don't pretend the system is the problem. Anatole France was a literal communist, and look at how their "equality" served (and fed, and clothed, and sheltered) their people in the fucking gulags.

                          • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Thursday September 14, @08:39PM (1 child)

                            by Spook brat (775) on Thursday September 14, @08:39PM (#568072)

                            It's ironic that you come to the defense of the OP, who is suggesting a gulag-like solution to homelessness, by pointing out how well gulags don't work.

                            Remember that the law also protects the poor from being robbed by the less-poor, or at least it's supposed to. Making homelessness a criminal offense is similar in concept to the idea of a debtor's prison, which the United States soundly rejected as an institution when we broke off from England. Laws that target activities that people would only engage in if they were homeless verge on being predatory, and are certainly discriminatory. Rich people pushing for such laws are engaging in abuse of power.

                            It's kind of like a joke I heard about ski slopes: young women go there looking for husbands, and husbands go there looking for young women; the situation isn't as equal as it appears at first glance.

                            --
                            Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
                            • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Friday September 15, @12:59AM

                              by linkdude64 (5482) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 15, @12:59AM (#568188)

                              I do think something societal needs to be addressed, as he is completely correct in that there is a difference between someone who is homeless, and someone who is temporarily without a home. Many homeless people are quite content being homeless. Free of responsibility, with churches willing to feed them whether they are drunk, high, or not (unlike those Salvation Army bastards who will give them a bed if they're sober.) It's not just lack of money. It's a psychological problem that is now physically endangering others - how is this less serious than the stress that generates school shooters if it generates even more deaths and hospitalizations? Oh, right, because this form of death isn't as easily molded to a politician's political agenda that you rapidly identify with.

                              Obviously gulags aren't the solution, obviously things being illegal doesn't prevent them from happening, it is simply the mindless "fuk da system"-tier rhetoric (as Communists/socialists usually spew) which I saw modded up that is causing a conflation between the compassionate and the incompetent to large swathes of people, myself included. "Everything should like, be free for everyone and there shouldn't be violence" is what it all begins to sound like. Feel the "bern" as the United States tears itself apart through taxation, and witness the rise of both Russia and China - you think the US takes advantage of people and abuses its citizens? Just you wait.

                • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Wednesday September 13, @08:28PM (3 children)

                  by unauthorized (3776) on Wednesday September 13, @08:28PM (#567444)

                  the only sentiment that you can derive from it is this: You want to take other people's resources at the point of a gun.

                  I can't believe people still repeat this stupid meme as if it made any sense.

                  Every single rule ultimately is enforced "at a gunpoint", be it by state or by your personal arsenal. Your right to bodily integrity and ownership are enforced in one way or another by the willingness of someone to use violence against anyone who wishes to infringe on these rights of yours.

                  Look at you, worrying about whether people want to leave a camp, and yet not giving a fuck about whether people want to pay for your silly "solutions".

                  Yes, there are some things that people should be forced to do and some things they shouldn't be forced to do. Unless you propose it's entirely okay to allow people to beat/rape/eat their children at their leisure, then you are just stating an opinion over which arbitrary threshold should be enforced. You cannot claim moral victory in an argument by just stating an opinion.

                  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @09:15PM (2 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @09:15PM (#567470)

                    If 2 parties agree to enforcement in advance, then that enforcement is by definition voluntary.

                    That is not what government offers. Government doesn't offer agreement in advance; government mandates.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @09:19PM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @09:19PM (#567472)

                      Ugh no point in trying to help this person, clueless is as clueless does. New born humans can't agree to the rules they're brought up in, your idea fails. It is infeasible to reproduce every aspect of society on a per-individual basis, your idea fails.

                      Get a freaking clue!

                      • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @11:53PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @11:53PM (#567535)

                        Fallacious thinkers are as fallacious thinkers do. Try again.

              • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday September 13, @08:06PM

                by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Wednesday September 13, @08:06PM (#567432) Homepage Journal

                They aren't deplorables, who I love. They are undesirables. The situation is very deplorable. While disabled veterans should be given every opportunity to earn a living, is it fair to do so to the detriment of the city as a whole or its tax paying citizens and businesses? Turning its finest and most luxurious shopping districts into an outdoor flea market, clogging and seriously downgrading the area? The image of San Diego will suffer. I hope you can stop this very deplorable situation before it is too late. 🇺🇸

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @01:41PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @01:41PM (#567787)

                Socialism is only the answer to one question: Why are you starving?

            • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:34PM (13 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:34PM (#567366)

              Shitting is a basic human right. You cannot say that the homeless have the right to shit, and not give them the facilities to do so! Who is at fault here? Middle class Americans who voted for Reagan. If you are old enough, you will remember we used not to have homeless living on the streets. Occasional bums/hoboes, but it was not until Proposition 13 and the California Rightwing Nutjob revolt against taxes that there arose of large enough of a class of the lumpen-proletariat to be able to pose civic health risks like this. So I say, arrest all Republicans, it is their fault. The Made it Happen, and now they want Law Enforcement to clean up what is in essence their shit? With my tax dollars?

              No, we demand flush toliets for all. What kind of country is this, anyway? I mean, this is not Canada!

              • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:51PM (11 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:51PM (#567383)

                I don't know about you, but I pay for my bathroom stops one way or another.

                I feel very bad about using other people's facilities without compensating them; if I can, I'll try to purchase something from an establishment, or I'll thank the person profusely. I do not take for granted any "right" to use someone's property for a place to shit.

                That is why I belong in civil society, and these animals do not.

                • (Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Wednesday September 13, @07:19PM (10 children)

                  by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 13, @07:19PM (#567400)

                  You do not belong in civil society when you throw around "animals" to describe people fallen on hard times. Consider yourself lucky you have not, be fucking grateful about it, and hope you don't become homeless yourself.

                  Otherwise some other fuck like you will be telling you that you are the animal not fit for civil society.

                  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:41PM (9 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:41PM (#567413)

                    You'll note in the top comment: "Homeless people are not just normal people on hard times".

                    There are complex issues that make people behave like animals—they are not just down on their luck; they are behaving like animals, and that needs to be recognized so that it can be dealt with rather than ignored.

                    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday September 13, @07:50PM (8 children)

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday September 13, @07:50PM (#567422)

                      So, question for you...those few weeks in fall 2010 when I was homeless, despite keeping myself well-behaved and never harming anyone, shitting/pissing outside etc...was I an "animal?" Am I STILL an "animal?"

                      You're going to reincarnate poor and end up homeless. It's clear reason, logic, and basic human decency have failed to convince you; the only thing left is for you is to experience it yourself. I hope you learn your lesson well.

                      • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @08:06PM (7 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @08:06PM (#567433)

                        The answer is inherent in all that I've written: No, you were not an animal; that's why you're no longer homeless—you weren't ever a homeless person, just merely a normal person on hard times.

                        That's not what we're talking about, and you know it!

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @09:53PM (4 children)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @09:53PM (#567493)

                          That is exactly what we're talking about. People who have fallen on hard times and are now homeless. Some people have better access to support such as friends and family. Some people are mentally ill and need help, but they should not have help forced upon them unless they demonstrate repeated violent behavior. There is no way to magically separate normal from mentally disturbed.

                          You are so clueless!!! Makes me think you're young, just presuming everyone shares your same word definitions and general view of reality. Or very old and your synapses are fused.

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @11:56PM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @11:56PM (#567536)

                            Let's see you counter that.

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @12:41AM (2 children)

                            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @12:41AM (#567544)

                            Well, if it isn't obvious when the troll redefines “homeless” to mean something other than “without housing,” I don't know how else our violently imposed troll can make it more clear that s/he's trolling.

                            I will say, though, to your credit, violently imposed troll, this is excellent trolling. You seem to have struck a nerve on this board. Quite a haul!

                            It's a tough job, but somebody's gotta do it. Otherwise the media will redefine the word troll to mean merely abusive or offensive.

                            I get tired of perfectly good words being redefined to mean things there are other perfectly good words for. The quality of this troll is so good, I'm even posting here!

                            • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @02:39AM (1 child)

                              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @02:39AM (#567592)

                              Violently imposed troll? You're obviously a fuckwit, a progressive, and probably a cocksucker too. Obviously, you have chosen to click the link, and chose to read the comments. No one came to your house, held a gun to your head, and forced you to read what is posted here. Why don't you just dox yourself, and we can send someone over to help you understand what "violently imposed" means.

                              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @03:39AM

                                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @03:39AM (#567613)

                                Oh don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be in this thread if I didn't find it hilarious how well you get this board riled up!

                        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday September 14, @03:29AM

                          by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 14, @03:29AM (#567608) Homepage Journal

                          The answer is inherent in all that I've written: No, you were not an animal; that's why you're no longer homeless—you weren't ever a homeless person, just merely a normal person on hard times.

                          That's not what we're talking about, and you know it!

                          And so because I was homeless for six months in 1986, sleeping in parks and pissing/shitting/fucking where I could, I'm an animal too?

                          You know what, it's damn near impossible to get/keep a job when you have no place to shower or keep clean clothes. And just to clarify, as you seem to be completely clueless about this sort of thing: No job == No money; No money == No way to pay rent/mortgage; No way to pay rent/mortgage == no home.

                          If it weren't for the kindness and decency of friends and even complete strangers, I would never have gotten off the street. Thank goodness most people aren't like you -- sociopathic scumbags

                          You're an entitled piece of shit. Go fuck yourself, and not in the fun, sexy way either!

                          --
                          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday September 14, @05:04AM

                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday September 14, @05:04AM (#567647)

                          Ah, I see...when you say "homeless," you don't actually mean homeless. You mean "a bunch of poors I want genocided because their very existence disgusts me and my excuse is that some of them are mentally ill and shit on the streets."

                          Gotcha. Yeah, they're gonna have a special spot in Hell for you.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @02:42AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @02:42AM (#567594)

                Just for your information, San Diego had hordes of homeless people long before Reagan happened. Other cities had homeless too, but San Diego had hordes of them. San Diego has always seemed to be a Mecca for homeless people.

          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday September 13, @05:47PM

            by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday September 13, @05:47PM (#567328)

            > homeless concentration camps would definitely be classified as infrastructure.

            There's a technical problem with that concept.
            Once you're in the camp, you're not homeless, so you shouldn't stay in the homeless camp. But if you are freed from the camp for not being homeless, since you were homeless before, you're now homeless again, so you have to return to the camp.
            For efficiency, I imagine the camp would just be one giant revolving door where you don't have to move as you go back in and out of the fences.

            Either that, or the technicality is ignored, and the Prison Industrial Complex will be happy to settle for the profit from locking up ever more Americans.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:36PM (11 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:36PM (#567316)

          When your words are not very far away from a Goebbels speech, crying "Hitler" is not an argument but an observation.

          Pray tell, what kind of "proper handling" did you have in mind for the "miscreants"?

          Are there any other kind of "miscreants" that should be removed from society, while we're at it?

          • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:45PM (10 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:45PM (#567325)

            ... by property rights. The enforcement of well-defined property rights how these things can be handled.

            Let's say you're a Catholic; go ahead and get together with your Church to create an homelessness institution to whom the state can transfer custodial control of the indigents, rather than locking them up with other kinds of criminals in the general prison system, etc. They just cannot be left milling about, sleeping, fucking, bleeding, and shitting on other people's property (including "public" property). There is no place for that in a civilized society; it must be dealt with.

            • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Spook brat on Wednesday September 13, @06:30PM (6 children)

              by Spook brat (775) on Wednesday September 13, @06:30PM (#567363)

              They just cannot be left milling about, sleeping, fucking, bleeding, and shitting on other people's property (including "public" property). There is no place for that in a civilized society; it must be dealt with.

              There needs to be a place for them, because many of them will not accept a white picket fence lifestyle. You are assuming that these people don't live in houses or apartments because they lack the resources to do so; in many cases they choose not to, preferring the transient lifestyle instead.

              A good fraction of the homeless in the United States are honorably discharged veterans of the U.S. armed forces. After the training they go through and the hardships of battle some fraction of them are no longer willing to return to the lifestyle you or I would consider normal. They deserve a better welcome home than a sign that says "get off my lawn" and a concentration camp. These are the people who stood in harm's way so that you can have the "civilized society" you cherish so much, and now we deem them unfit to return to it? We should be ashamed of ourselves as a nation.

              I'm all for finding the homeless help. We need to make sure the help we give is the help they need, not the help you would need; it is a very different set of needs. Free public toilets and easy access to clean water at public locations would be a much bigger help to the willful transients than forced housing would.

              --
              Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
              • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:35PM (4 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:35PM (#567367)

                Note the very top comment: "Homeless people are not just normal people on hard times".

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:59PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:59PM (#567429)

                  You sure are a master of circular logic.

                  PS: that isn't something to be proud of

                • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Spook brat on Wednesday September 13, @08:05PM (2 children)

                  by Spook brat (775) on Wednesday September 13, @08:05PM (#567431)

                  Note the very top comment: "Homeless people are not just normal people on hard times".

                  Agreed on the premise, disagreed on the conclusion.

                  You are advocating rejecting them from society, rather than helping society adjust to their presence. You have said repeatedly that they have no place in society, I say we need to make a place for them. Giving them a label that marks them as outsiders/"other" serves only to bring us closer to the atrocities committed in WWII-era Germany, it does not solve our problem.

                  These homeless are US, in some cases members of this very website community. Show the homeless among us the sympathy you'd hope for if you were in their place, please.

                  --
                  Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
                  • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @08:09PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @08:09PM (#567436)

                    ... I wouldn't be fucking around on SoylentNews, and I wouldn't be shitting in the streets.

                    • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Thursday September 14, @08:05PM

                      by Spook brat (775) on Thursday September 14, @08:05PM (#568057)

                      ... I wouldn't be fucking around on SoylentNews, and I wouldn't be shitting in the streets.

                      What would you be doing, then? Be specific, please. Given the situation that you are (a) homeless, (b) needing to defecate, (c) alone on the street after business hours, what action would you take?
                      Answer a second time, please, with the added assumption that you are now ill, and are suffering from diarrhea. Because people sometimes get ill when living on the street.

                      --
                      Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
              • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @08:58PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @08:58PM (#567458)

                As a veteran who was homeless briefly let me share something:

                1) Most homeless people are NOT veterans. There are many more fakers than actual veterans
                2) There are a lot of good programs to combat veteran homelessness but the people who need them most typically don't even know they exist
                3) Most of the people who are homeless do not want help they're either insane or want to use drugs
                4) Don't believe anything a homeless person tells you ever.
                5) Don't go near other homeless people if you're homeless. They are dangerous and stupid. Also they greatly increase your chance of getting arrested
                6) There are good places to be homeless but there are no drugs or other homeless people there.

                So there you go straight from the mouth of a homeless veteran. My opinions of the homeless were much better until I met actual homeless people.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @09:01PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @09:01PM (#567462)

              Welcome to the tragedy of the commons.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @11:02PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @11:02PM (#567520)

                Seems more like a tragedy of the lack of a commons.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @12:01AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @12:01AM (#567537)

                  You can't be serious, can you? Christ. We're doomed!

        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday September 13, @05:43PM (9 children)

          by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 13, @05:43PM (#567323)

          You can't just cry "Hitler!" It's not an argument.

          Actually, these days it is. Especially when we have White Nationalist fucks attempting to take over. Like the other poster said, your bullshit is eerily reminiscent of the hatred and ignorance of those times. I'm not old enough to remember WWII, and you probably aren't either. However, there are people old enough with serial numbers still tatooed on their arms. They are the ones telling the younger generations that the shit is getting to real, and WAY too much like the events leading up to WWII and the Holocaust. I'll certainly take the word of an old jew that emigrated to America and has seen all of our bullshit since 45' when we rescued him from a concentration camp versus your weak and pathetic statement that we can't cry Hitler which isn't what happened. The poster said you SOUNDED like the Nazis, and I can't disagree there.

          YOU should be shot. Making sweeping generalizations about homeless people. You know who really needs to be shot? The assholes and fucking bankers who exploited the Great Depression II: The Fuckening, scooped up huge amounts of houses, and now raise rents and lease them out through AirBnB. The executives shipping factory jobs overseas need to be shot and killed. Basically, the bulk of the 1% need yo be shot and killed because they are far more responsible for the homeless situation then people simply unable to find work, affordable housing, or help. Unemployment only lasts so long, and financial assistance can barely handle food costs at this point, and is wholly insufficient to find housing.

          Maybe, just maybe, businesses being pricks and not letting people go to bathroom is why there is so much shit on the street? What do you expect them to do? Hold it till they have a good job, holding it all the way through the interview? If you gotta go, you gotta go. The city should be putting port-a-potties in places if they don't want piss and shit on the street.

          If you weren't such a stupid fuck you would realize that not every homeless person got there through bad habits and poor character. Try jobs disappearing and what used to be a $750/mo apartment turning into $2500/mo. What are they to do? Put it all on credit till better times? That bubble is about to pop too.

          The only justice is that this country is going to crater and you will be on the streets as well. Let's see you sing the same tune then.

          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday September 13, @05:51PM (4 children)

            by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday September 13, @05:51PM (#567331)

            > The city should be putting port-a-potties in places if they don't want piss and shit on the street.

            "We can't do that, sir. That would encourage them to come. They would look bad, and then that brings fights, and insecurity, and diseases"
            "like Hep A"
            "Exactly. If we did put port-a-potties, there could be an Hep A outbreak"

            • (Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday September 13, @07:16PM (3 children)

              by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 13, @07:16PM (#567398)

              That's unreasonable. It's easy to become homeless these days, and you don't need mental illness, poor judgement, or bad character to have it happen to you. Just one hellbound executive fuckface saving enough money for their bonuses by letting you go, and giving the business to China, and BOOM, homeless when the average two weeks worth of savings run out. That's assuming it isn't now days worth of savings if that.

              What are we do? Forcefully put them on trains and ship them out in the middle of nowhere? Send them all to the Four Corners? What people are not accepting is that normal people with skills are becoming homeless unable to make artificially inflated rents or compete in the service industries for slave wages.

              We would spend more shipping them to homeless camps, keeping the camps up, and basically running refugee camps akin to the Syrians in the EU living out hell in limbo. Better put up fences too, otherwise homeless people being humans and all, will simply migrate back to a city or town where they can eek out a living off scraps and people with compassion and empathy. Again, those people ARE US just a few bad steps away.

              The answer isn't to not feed them, not clothe them, and to not provide any infrastructure or housing. Do that, and you have a bunch of humans on your hands that rather inconveniently for us, still possess the urge to live. I've heard that shit from grocery stores when I go in and ask if they would discount some food if a bought a lot of it and gave it to some of the homeless outside. "Oh no, we don't want to encourage them!". Uh huh. About 500 homeless people laying about in my small city living along the train tracks and back alleys near the grocery store. As if the people giving them food are encouraging them to be there. More likely that there isn't any other space for them to occupy since the underpasses are already full.

              Again, creating refugee camps isn't the answer. They will just continue to grow while the Middle Class falls into the Poor class, the Upper Classes consolidate wealth and power, and we eventually have some asshole fuckface yelling angrily to crowds that hate the homeless about his "Final Solution".

              Be careful. It's not a guarantee on which side you would end up on. If it were me, I would put out some fucking port-a-potties and start treating them like they're human beings. That, and put the fucking screws to the rich and 1% to start raising wages (which helps compassionate people provide help) and bring jobs back to America.

              Nah! It's much easier to just hate the homeless right?

              • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday September 13, @07:27PM (2 children)

                by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday September 13, @07:27PM (#567408)

                We agree.
                You either missed or ignored the point of my post, though.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:38PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:38PM (#567411)

                  Its a sensitive topic, people often respond before carefully considering whether the comment was sarcastic / joking.

                • (Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday September 13, @07:47PM

                  by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 13, @07:47PM (#567420)

                  You're right. I missed the quotes. My bad.

          • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:52PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:52PM (#567332)

            ^ public infrastructure has been steadily disappearing, it is a class war thing. Public restrooms defunded since they cost money. Public drinking fountains are now a rare occurrence. Phonebooths are gone.

            The US has gone really far down the privatized hole, if you can't afford rent you are truly screwed. Within a few months what little money you saved will be gone, and then you're chances of bouncing back are reduced to futility.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:09PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:09PM (#567351)

            ...Actually the economy is really turning around. Perhaps they can move to a location where the cost of living is lower and you can move to your socialist paradise where you will be 'enriched'. Might I recommend Germany?

          • (Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday September 13, @10:39PM

            by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 13, @10:39PM (#567515) Journal

            Like the other poster said, your bullshit is eerily reminiscent of the hatred and ignorance of those times. I'm not old enough to remember WWII, and you probably aren't either.

            Then how can it be eerily reminiscent, fool!!

            Germany, and the US had programs to keep homeless off the street in their own countries well before the war. You can walk around in the wilderness in the US and come upon hand built foot stone bridges over streams, camps (similar to army bases of the time), trails, man made fish weirs, entire roads. Half the National Park Service facilities were built this way. And you find their handiwork hundreds of mile from the nearest main camps.

            All built by the Civilian Conservation Corps. [wikipedia.org]

            My father's brother found the same things in Norway. The Germans had the Todt Organisation - (built the Autobahn 33 to 38). Todt became slave labor only after the war began.
            You never earned much in a CCC camp, it was considered a form of national service. But you did get some money to send home, 3 hots and a cot and learned an actual trade.

            Some of the US CCC headquarter camps were so big they were used as POW camps once the war started.
            The only thing that shut these down was the manpower demands of World War II.

            Now the very idea of a government organization getting anyone off the streets is met with shouts of Concentration Camps.

            Most of the AirBnBs you accuse the banks of setting up in abandoned homes (hint: its not happening) are actually houses the city ends up tearing down because nobody wants to live in them for ANY price, and squatters [buildium.com] move in and trash the place, turn them into a heroin shooting galleries, or set them on fire.

            So Cities make rules to bulldoze these properties. Half of Detroit has been dozed.

            You could turn this whole thing around if Banks could only hold repossessed homes for 3 years max after which they become property of the State (definitely not the City). Then the state would provide the house free to any true homeless who can pay next year's taxes, perhaps a tiny rent, and earn full title to the property after 5-10 years of maintaining it and paying taxes. Repossessed houses would suddenly drop to below market value and housing would become easily available again. There isn't a shortage of such properties.

            The laws just need to be changed in recognition of the fact that private property has to serve a public purpose. Each owner is merely a caretaker of earth's collective resources. We already have zoning laws. This isn't that far from that. I personally know landlords that are charging WAY WAY below market value simply because they like their renters and don't actually need to make more money unless the taxes get raised.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday September 14, @03:46AM

            by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 14, @03:46AM (#567618) Homepage Journal

            Back in the early 1980s, when there were an estimated 100,000 (a bit less than 10% of the population of San Diego) homeless people in NYC, Wayne Barrett wrote a feature piece in the Village Voice about the issues facing homeless people.

            He began the article by asking a pretty reasonable question: "What do homeless people want?"
            He answered his own question (correctly in my view) as follows: "Homes, mostly."

            We have the resources in the US to house all of the people who do not have shelter in a way that can allow them to rejoin society and the economy and have a positive impact on all of us.

            There are those with mental illness and/or substance abuse problems, yes. What shall we do with them, you might ask? One proposed solution (which sounds suspiciously like original AC's idea) would be to remove those folks from society [wikipedia.org].

            Original AC is showing us what he wants us to become.

            I'd much rather see us (*gasp*) house the homeless and treat the mentally ill and those with substance abuse issues (those groups overlap significantly). Not only would those steps get rid of most of the stuff original AC finds unpleasant, it would also allow us to re-integrate many people into our society and economy, making things better for everyone.

            Problem solved. I'm just waiting on various mayors, governors and Federal officials to call and ask me what they should do. But I won't hold my breath..

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:04PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:04PM (#567389)

        I'll shoot 30 per year, pre-captured and chained.

        Getting them all would be more than a full-time job, plus guns are noisy and smelly. I think 30 per year is more than enough to fulfill my duty to my country. Probably just 1 is more than enough.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @09:05PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @09:05PM (#567466)

          How much will you pay me each to capture and chain them?

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Sulla on Wednesday September 13, @08:11PM

        by Sulla (5173) on Wednesday September 13, @08:11PM (#567437) Journal

        I am wondering if you live in a place that is swarming with homeless. The modern era of homelessness is less of people without homes and more of transients who decided to do drugs and live on the streets in west coast cities. I live in such a city and my morning jaunt to work is a glorious mixture of the smell of vomit and shit.

        Cities are in denial because they are afraid of the political ramifications of dealing with the issue. My city complained that nobody is coming downtown anymore and held a townhall about it, the majorty response was there are too many transients. The city said that was incorrect and hired a firm from NY to research the issue for ~500k that told us it was transients, they city said money was wasted because the study was wrong.

        So far our city has spent tens of thousants on
        - downtown art people dont come downtown because not enough culture
        - piano in front of one of the govt buildings because not enough culture
        - made parking free because people must only not come downtown because they are cheap
        - banned dogs because dogs cause violence

        Surprise surprise, no improvement in business downtown because the city is afraid to fix the root issue.

        If people want to live on the street and do drugs, whatever man I don't care. But the cities/towns need to address the actual crime that is occuring (shiiting on the streets, heroin, theft, assault) instead of burying their heads in the ground.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:50PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:50PM (#567421)

      Listen to this entitled shit, what a pathetic excuse for a human being.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @08:12PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @08:12PM (#567439)

        I'm not the one smearing my shit and blood in the streets, without a care for other people.

    • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday September 14, @08:57AM

      by Wootery (2341) on Thursday September 14, @08:57AM (#567701)

      Oh come on, do troll better. You didn't make any sort of supporting case for Homeless people are not just normal people on hard times.

    • (Score: 2) by letssee on Thursday September 14, @10:45AM

      by letssee (2537) on Thursday September 14, @10:45AM (#567727)

      Why do you think there are so many homeless people compared to other western countries?

      Are Americans more stupid on average?

      Or is maybe the system to blame?

      Statistical anomaly?

      Maybe look for the *real* cause.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:00PM (45 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:00PM (#567287)

    What if all that money had previously been spent on free (as in beer) screenings plus treatment for all those who can least afford it?

    Yesyes, I know, this is the capitalist US of A, we don't do this christian "love thy neighbour" thing here ...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:10PM (40 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:10PM (#567292)

      Capitalism doesn't preclude charity. There's absolutely nothing about capitalism that says such an "altruistic" endeavor (it's not altruistic; you want clean streets) isn't correct.

      In fact, capitalism promotes such "altruism", as evidenced by your own personal desire to see such an endeavor funded.

      So, what's the problem?

      Well, there is a decidedly anti-capitalist element in our current society: Government. Is it not government's job to handle that sort of thing? Does not the government already take shitloads of my productivity so that it can, supposedly, take care of these people? Why should I pay double (once to the government, and once to some "private" organization) in order to implement the same thing?

      I you want more such preventative programs, then increase property rights, and diminish the role of government in society. Only then can we all have enough capital at our disposal to allocate a little more wisely, and to find what works through evolution by variation (supplier competition) and selection (consumer choice).

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:27PM (8 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:27PM (#567304)

        Only in the most technical sense. Capitalism is the same moral problem that slavery was in many ways. It results in the devaluation of humans for a profit. Which is one of the reasons why you see employees being treated more and more like slaves over time. It's something that we saw during the gilded era where employees were effectively slaves in many cases, forced to work for their entire lives to pay back debts to the company to cover the things necessary to do the job.

        This is the most profitable way of doing business and in the absence of any real regulation saying they can't do it, they'll push for that. To make matters worse, the politicians are increasingly on the take and are willing to roll back the regulations out of fear of angering the "job creators."

        Charities really only fund popular causes and not necessarily even effective methods of dealing with the problem. The proper way to deal with the homeless would be to just give them homes. Even if those homes are simply repurposed shipping containers with minor upgrades. Just having a fixed address, bathroom and roof over head makes a huge difference in terms of being able to get a job.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:31PM (7 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:31PM (#567309)

          To enslave somebody is to allocate his capital against his will; it's absolutely forbidden by capitalism.

          The closest modern equivalent to slavery is taxation.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:41PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:41PM (#567320)

            And yet, it happened routinely during the gilded age. I take it you're not familiar with the company store model of business. Miners would have to buy their supplies from the company at a markup that was high enough that they could never actually afford to pay back the debt.

            Referring to that as something other than slavery is a matter of semantics, those miners were unable to leave and were required to work, with the company getting to keep all of the proceeds. For all practical purposes that's slavery.

            These days it hasn't yet hit that point, but it's rapidly moving that direction as the wages being handed out for work are insufficient to pay the costs of living for a larger and larger number of people. In some cases, like with Uber, the cost of working can actually be larger than the amount of money being paid at times.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:58PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:58PM (#567340)

              Not much point arguing with libertarian ideologues. They have decided to not compromise their ideals and ignore the inevitable problems that would result from their policies. They ignore the importance of communal services, there really isn't much else to say to people so far removed from humanity.

              Libertarians - the end result of US capitalism + individualism. Some decent ideas wrapped around a core of insanity.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:01PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:01PM (#567344)

              Your example is completely irrelevant. Nobody had to do anything; people made choices.

              You're completely neglecting other aspects of society that lead to such dysfunction, including those modern dysfunctions.

              Why is it that TWO working people struggle to support themselves, let alone a single child, when it used to be common for a single man to support a family of 5 with money to spare?

              Please. Your government existed in the gilded age, and it exists today. It's your government that is a failure, and it's your government that keeps perpetuating the failure in ever more intricate ways.

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @06:19AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @06:19AM (#567667)

                Nope, it's capitalists. They will charge what the market will bare. Families have 2 incomes now, great lets charge them more, they can afford it now. That other family has only 1 kid, and X dollars to your 5 kids but the same X dollars. Guess which kid gets the best stuff. Did the government force everyone to have less kids? Or did the capitalist system make it too expensive to have more?

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:59PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:59PM (#567341)

            This is the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

            You don't get to define words and then make declarations based on your narrow definitions. You're rather like an SJW in that sense.
            "Racism = Power + Prejudice"
            "Gender and sex are different things"
            "Girlpenis"

            This is you except at the end of the day you don't even get to fuck a bunch of tatted up alt chicks with pink pubes.. you get to go your own way and retire into a studio full of piss bottles.

            --Creimer

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:40PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:40PM (#567373)

            To enslave somebody is to allocate his capital against his will; it's absolutely forbidden by capitalism.

            Which is why you have to enslave people with their consent! It is called "employment", and as long as we have the vast army of the unemployed, and even better, people without a pot to poop in, lots of people will willingly enslave themselves to a capitalist. They don't call it "wage slavery" for nothing!

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:54PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:54PM (#567384)

              You have capital (e.g., your labor) that you can choose to allocate to this or that, and you don't want people forcing you to make any particular allocation.

              Your anger is misdirected.

      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 13, @05:30PM (30 children)

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday September 13, @05:30PM (#567308) Journal

        Wrong again. The government is just another player. It is the people, pooling their resources to stake out a place and compete in the open market. And the people do have that right, and to exercise it with their vote.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:35PM (28 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:35PM (#567314)

          Wrong again.

          The government is not just another player; the government uses men with guns to forcibly take resources from people—this is nothing like people coming together to pool their resources voluntarily in order to provide some service in the open market.

          I mean... Christ! How can you not perceive the utter inanity of your position?

          • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:46PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @05:46PM (#567326)

            Taxes are voluntary. If you don't want to pay them you can either not make any money, move to a place with no taxes or you can deal with the consequences of not paying. But, in the US you can make a fair amount of money without paying any taxes on it. You just have to live somewhere like rural Oregon where the only taxes are income and property taxes and not own any property. It's difficult to do, but for those that are that adamant about not paying taxes it's possible to do legally with sufficient effort and planning.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:08PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:08PM (#567350)

              It would be considered perfectly natural for the State of Oregon to decide to start taxing people's income. That's imposition; it doesn't whether the majority of people voted to take other people's resources. The whole system is based around the cultural acceptance of this one particular organization ("government") being able to steal from people.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @06:26AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @06:26AM (#567670)

                And you think it's perfectly natural to be a leech on that system. Gaining all the useful benefits of such a system and society, but baring no responsibility for its functioning and upkeep. Without a government to protect you, you would be run out of town / the tribe, or just killed in your sleep.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @01:23PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @01:23PM (#567770)

                  You and your government are like that homeless bum who rushes up to people's clean cars without consent to "wash" their windshields with his dirty rag and bucket of filthy water.

                  "Hey, pal. You need to pay your fair share for enjoying the benefits of this cleaning service!"

          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 13, @05:46PM (18 children)

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday September 13, @05:46PM (#567327) Journal

            :-) You are an excitable one, aren't you? So tell me, exactly what is the government made of, if not people?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:10PM (17 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:10PM (#567354)

              See the subject line, and then try again.

              • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:26PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:26PM (#567407)

                Seek therapy, then try again.

              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 13, @09:14PM (15 children)

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday September 13, @09:14PM (#567469) Journal

                I'm sorry, I don't speak gibberish. Can you rephrase the question into something comprehensible?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @01:07AM (14 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @01:07AM (#567557)

                  Speaking of gibberish, you seem to imply that the resources consumed by government come only from government workers.

                  The question put to you was quite clear for those of us not smarmy gits: if "government consisting of people" excuses forcible theft by government according to you, explain how "mafia consisting of people" does not likewise excuse them. What magical power differentiates one from the other?

                  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday September 14, @03:38AM (13 children)

                    by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday September 14, @03:38AM (#567612) Journal

                    Sorry, your Randian voodoo has no effect on me. You get what you vote for...

                    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @04:01AM (12 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @04:01AM (#567627)

                      Plug your ears and scream "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" all you like. We see that you understand the question and also that you refuse - or cannot - answer it.

                      "Voting" being the limiting factor on government power produces nothing more than tyranny, something the creators of the USA were keen to avoid by eschewing a democracy for a constitutional republic. If you had any imagination at all, you might be able to muster the idea that a 95% tax on fustakrakichs might possibly seem like a bad idea to those at the business end of government guns.

                      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday September 14, @05:27AM (11 children)

                        by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday September 14, @05:27AM (#567656) Journal

                        :-) I'm sorry, what was the question?

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @02:55PM (10 children)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @02:55PM (#567825)

                          what was the question?

                          Explain the delegation chain of authority that somehow distinguishes one group of people with guns that force their will on others [soylentnews.org] (government) from another group of people with guns that force their will on others (mafia).

                          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday September 14, @03:40PM (9 children)

                            by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday September 14, @03:40PM (#567851) Journal

                            Silly goose... Government has the voters' consent. Mafia is private security for the businessman.

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @03:51PM (8 children)

                              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @03:51PM (#567858)

                              Interesting. Tell me more about this "consent". I heard that, for example, Hillary Clinton got more total votes than Donald Trump, indicating that this consent of yours doesn't need to be unanimous. There is obviously at least a small minority who consent, as government employees consent to using government force, just like Mafia employees consent to using Mafia force.

                              At what point does the magic happen and allow those who do want to use force against others to have this consent of their victims? One percent? Ten percent? Fifty percent plus one? Can this same magic be used against a recalcitrant hottie at my school who resists my romantic advances? If not, why not?

                              • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday September 14, @04:13PM (7 children)

                                by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday September 14, @04:13PM (#567873) Journal

                                The rules are well documented, your faux surprise with the results is just sour grapes. Win or lose, you consented to those results when you submitted your ballot. But you do have the right to remain silent. It would do you well to exercise that right, as of... now :-)

                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @04:27PM (4 children)

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @04:27PM (#567894)

                                  Win or lose, you consented to those results when you submitted your ballot

                                  I see. So, according to your reasoning, once consent is obtained, it is not revokable for at least for the immediate time period. So for you it's perfectly okay to take a date out for dinner and a show, back to the home for some sex, and as long as consent was obtained at some point in the prior proceedings, to consummate intercourse at least once, forcibly if necessary to complete the act over any newfound objections? If not, why not?

                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @07:35PM (1 child)

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @07:35PM (#568034)

                                  So, abstaining is the proper method of withdrawing consent? Admit it, there is no consent. There is compliance and non-compliance, and the consequences that follow from each.

                                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @08:48PM

                                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @08:48PM (#568074)

                                    Trying to get that blowhard to admit anything beyond empty platitudes is a bit of a challenge. fustakrakich can't even admit that rape [soylentnews.org] is wrong [soylentnews.org].

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:03PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:03PM (#567347)

            Really I don't need libertarian whining from the 47% of the country who doesn't even make enough to pay taxes. Please I... the rich one.. am happy to pay taxes.
            I have lots of money don't worry about me I'll be fine.

            I'm paying my taxes so I don't have to hear your broke ass crying about "taxation is theft" you probably get an earned income tax credit and obam^H^H^H^H the American Healthcare Act so please shut the fuck up.

            I pay the government who cuts you a check to shut the fuck up./

            --Creimer

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:15PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:15PM (#567356)

              Your reply is entirely too stupid to be from someone who is rich.

              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:18PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:18PM (#567399)

                Ah yes the poor man's view of a the rich man.

                I should be a hard working small business owning hyperintelligent ubermench decked out in louis vutton bags, rolexes and bmws. Like it or not I'm a top 1 or 2 percent earner and I fuckoff on the net most of the day and some of the stupidest fucking people on the planet are also rich.

                All the vapid pink haired SJWs you hate... all went to yale and harvard to study menstrual painting before moving on to be your new HR director or some other totally undeserved position that entails 3 hours of meetings 2 hours of actual work and lot of twitter and "work from home"

                The sooner you shed your misconceptions of the rich and who they are the sooner you can sink into depression and kill yourself. Reality is sad now get back to work you fucking wage slave scum.

                --Creimer

                _______________________________

                Why buy the new iphone for $1000 when you can get a talking dildo from Virgin Mobile for only 30 dollars a month!

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @08:23PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @08:23PM (#567442)

                Have you seen Hollywood, Sir?

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:26PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:26PM (#567406)

            If you weren't poor you wouldn't even miss the money. Now get back to work you worthless wage slave before I replace you with a machine.

            --Creimer

            _______________________________
            Sent from my iPhone. Ron Paul /b/

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:47PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @06:47PM (#567380)

          "We're coming for your capital gains, Chuck!" If you do not agree to this, the social contract is broken, and we can kill you on sight, because as Thomas Hobbes said, in the state of nature all means are permissible, both force and fraud, and you have made yourself an enemy of all. Perhaps you would rather move into this nice gated community that we, the remaining citizens of our state, have arranged for poor put upon property owners, such as yourself? Right this way!

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday September 13, @06:22PM (3 children)

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 13, @06:22PM (#567359) Journal

      What if all that money had previously been spent on free (as in beer) screenings plus treatment for all those who can least afford it?

      What makes you think that they want screening and treatment?

      Some cities have people running around offering "services" and shelters and not getting any takers.
      http://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-choose-the-streets-over-shelters [npr.org]

         

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, @07:22PM (#567404)

        Do you also have a number on how many people *did* accept the help offered?

        If not, please allow me to label your post as propaganda, somewhere between "willfully distractive" and "strawman argument".

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday September 14, @03:57AM

        by NotSanguine (285) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 14, @03:57AM (#567625) Homepage Journal

        What if all that money had previously been spent on free (as in beer) screenings plus treatment for all those who can least afford it?

        What makes you think that they want screening and treatment?

        Some cities have people running around offering "services" and shelters and not getting any takers.
        " rel="url2html-18367">http://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-choose-the-streets-over-shelters

        What makes you think that a homeless shelter (essentially a dormitory) is a home. Most homeless shelters are gritty, dangerous places for homeless people, especially women and children.

        They are absolutely not housing or a home, nor do they provide the stability for the homeless to get back up and rejoin society and the economy.

        You're talking out of your ass again, Frojack. And it smells that way too.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @04:48AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14, @04:48AM (#567642)

        From your link:

        ...you hear a lot of terrible things about shelters, that shelters are dangerous places, that they're full of drugs and drug dealers, that people will steal your shoes, and there's bedbugs and body lice.

        And yeah, unfortunately a lot of those things are true.

        ...there are a lot of big warehouses that are just places where we stick people at night and we really don't have any regard for how they live there.

(1) 2