It's a peripheral problem, at best. I'm sure high housing costs cause *some* increases in homelessness, but it doesn't make sense that Seattle would bear the brunt of that (the displacement would logically flow to neighboring cities with lower COL), and it certainly doesn't account for the massive numbers of homelessness Seattle is seeing.
The problem has and remains a fun mixture of mental health issues and drug addiction. Seattle itself isn't going to fix that problem on its own, and it's a wide-scale zero sum game that needs to be addressed at the federal and state levels. But the city seems determined to shoot itself in the foot and become a beacon of tolerance for every troubled soul who can get themself a bus ticket. Which is ironic, because the more Seattle decides to become the haven for the country's homeless, the less of a problem it is in other municipalities and the less incentive other places have to contribute to a larger solution.
There's like two homeless people in N. Idaho. Why? Because Spokane has a better package for their lazy, drug-addicted asses.
The assumption that the homeless are gravitating to urban rather than rural areas because they want to remain in the homelessness business forever is amusing.
Can you think of any other reasons a poor person might want to go to a larger ECONOMY?
Yeah, junkies and drunks and bums come to San Francisco because secretly they are really look for work.
It's a peripheral problem, at best. I'm sure high housing costs cause *some* increases in homelessness, but it doesn't make sense that Seattle would bear the brunt of that (the displacement would logically flow to neighboring cities with lower COL), and it certainly doesn't account for the massive numbers of homelessness Seattle is seeing.
The problem has and remains a fun mixture of mental health issues and drug addiction. Seattle itself isn't going to fix that problem on its own, and it's a wide-scale zero sum game that needs to be addressed at the federal and state levels. But the city seems determined to shoot itself in the foot and become a beacon of tolerance for every troubled soul who can get themself a bus ticket. Which is ironic, because the more Seattle decides to become the haven for the country's homeless, the less of a problem it is in other municipalities and the less incentive other places have to contribute to a larger solution.
There's like two homeless people in N. Idaho. Why? Because Spokane has a better package for their lazy, drug-addicted asses.
The assumption that the homeless are gravitating to urban rather than rural areas because they want to remain in the homelessness business forever is amusing.
Can you think of any other reasons a poor person might want to go to a larger ECONOMY?
Yeah, junkies and drunks and bums come to San Francisco because secretly they are really look for work.
Isn't that why you went?
White flag.
So you believe the homeless are a monolithic bloc who simply wish to remain homeless and move to where the freebies are best.
It's a peripheral problem, at best. I'm sure high housing costs cause *some* increases in homelessness, but it doesn't make sense that Seattle would bear the brunt of that (the displacement would logically flow to neighboring cities with lower COL), and it certainly doesn't account for the massive numbers of homelessness Seattle is seeing.
The problem has and remains a fun mixture of mental health issues and drug addiction. Seattle itself isn't going to fix that problem on its own, and it's a wide-scale zero sum game that needs to be addressed at the federal and state levels. But the city seems determined to shoot itself in the foot and become a beacon of tolerance for every troubled soul who can get themself a bus ticket. Which is ironic, because the more Seattle decides to become the haven for the country's homeless, the less of a problem it is in other municipalities and the less incentive other places have to contribute to a larger solution.
There's like two homeless people in N. Idaho. Why? Because Spokane has a better package for their lazy, drug-addicted asses.
The assumption that the homeless are gravitating to urban rather than rural areas because they want to remain in the homelessness business forever is amusing.
Can you think of any other reasons a poor person might want to go to a larger ECONOMY?
Yeah, junkies and drunks and bums come to San Francisco because secretly they are really look for work.
Isn't that why you went?
White flag.
So you believe the homeless are a monolithic bloc who simply wish to remain homeless and move to where the freebies are best.
It's a peripheral problem, at best. I'm sure high housing costs cause *some* increases in homelessness, but it doesn't make sense that Seattle would bear the brunt of that (the displacement would logically flow to neighboring cities with lower COL), and it certainly doesn't account for the massive numbers of homelessness Seattle is seeing.
The problem has and remains a fun mixture of mental health issues and drug addiction. Seattle itself isn't going to fix that problem on its own, and it's a wide-scale zero sum game that needs to be addressed at the federal and state levels. But the city seems determined to shoot itself in the foot and become a beacon of tolerance for every troubled soul who can get themself a bus ticket. Which is ironic, because the more Seattle decides to become the haven for the country's homeless, the less of a problem it is in other municipalities and the less incentive other places have to contribute to a larger solution.
There's like two homeless people in N. Idaho. Why? Because Spokane has a better package for their lazy, drug-addicted asses.
The assumption that the homeless are gravitating to urban rather than rural areas because they want to remain in the homelessness business forever is amusing.
Can you think of any other reasons a poor person might want to go to a larger ECONOMY?
Yeah, junkies and drunks and bums come to San Francisco because secretly they are really look for work.
Isn't that why you went?
White flag.
So you believe the homeless are a monolithic bloc who simply wish to remain homeless and move to where the freebies are best.
Are you finally understanding life as we know it?
If you want to endorse the belief I described, do so bravely and directly.
It's a peripheral problem, at best. I'm sure high housing costs cause *some* increases in homelessness, but it doesn't make sense that Seattle would bear the brunt of that (the displacement would logically flow to neighboring cities with lower COL), and it certainly doesn't account for the massive numbers of homelessness Seattle is seeing.
The problem has and remains a fun mixture of mental health issues and drug addiction. Seattle itself isn't going to fix that problem on its own, and it's a wide-scale zero sum game that needs to be addressed at the federal and state levels. But the city seems determined to shoot itself in the foot and become a beacon of tolerance for every troubled soul who can get themself a bus ticket. Which is ironic, because the more Seattle decides to become the haven for the country's homeless, the less of a problem it is in other municipalities and the less incentive other places have to contribute to a larger solution.
There's like two homeless people in N. Idaho. Why? Because Spokane has a better package for their lazy, drug-addicted asses.
The assumption that the homeless are gravitating to urban rather than rural areas because they want to remain in the homelessness business forever is amusing.
Can you think of any other reasons a poor person might want to go to a larger ECONOMY?
Yeah, junkies and drunks and bums come to San Francisco because secretly they are really look for work.
Isn't that why you went?
White flag.
So you believe the homeless are a monolithic bloc who simply wish to remain homeless and move to where the freebies are best.
Are you finally understanding life as we know it?
If you want to endorse the belief I described, do so bravely and directly.
the homeless are a monolithic bloc who simply wish to remain homeless and move to where the freebies are best.
It's a peripheral problem, at best. I'm sure high housing costs cause *some* increases in homelessness, but it doesn't make sense that Seattle would bear the brunt of that (the displacement would logically flow to neighboring cities with lower COL), and it certainly doesn't account for the massive numbers of homelessness Seattle is seeing.
The problem has and remains a fun mixture of mental health issues and drug addiction. Seattle itself isn't going to fix that problem on its own, and it's a wide-scale zero sum game that needs to be addressed at the federal and state levels. But the city seems determined to shoot itself in the foot and become a beacon of tolerance for every troubled soul who can get themself a bus ticket. Which is ironic, because the more Seattle decides to become the haven for the country's homeless, the less of a problem it is in other municipalities and the less incentive other places have to contribute to a larger solution.
There's like two homeless people in N. Idaho. Why? Because Spokane has a better package for their lazy, drug-addicted asses.
The assumption that the homeless are gravitating to urban rather than rural areas because they want to remain in the homelessness business forever is amusing.
Can you think of any other reasons a poor person might want to go to a larger ECONOMY?
Yeah, junkies and drunks and bums come to San Francisco because secretly they are really look for work.
Isn't that why you went?
White flag.
So you believe the homeless are a monolithic bloc who simply wish to remain homeless and move to where the freebies are best.
Strawman ass fucking, lying and dodging questions like a Kunt. It's all you're good for Dazzler.
Nobody is homeless because they can no longer afford the 5k a month mortgage. I'd be homeless too if I refused to pay rent and live anywhere but Malibu on the ocean.
It almost always boils down to substance abuse and mental health. Enablement is the cruelest killer.
It's a peripheral problem, at best. I'm sure high housing costs cause *some* increases in homelessness, but it doesn't make sense that Seattle would bear the brunt of that (the displacement would logically flow to neighboring cities with lower COL), and it certainly doesn't account for the massive numbers of homelessness Seattle is seeing.
The problem has and remains a fun mixture of mental health issues and drug addiction. Seattle itself isn't going to fix that problem on its own, and it's a wide-scale zero sum game that needs to be addressed at the federal and state levels. But the city seems determined to shoot itself in the foot and become a beacon of tolerance for every troubled soul who can get themself a bus ticket. Which is ironic, because the more Seattle decides to become the haven for the country's homeless, the less of a problem it is in other municipalities and the less incentive other places have to contribute to a larger solution.
There's like two homeless people in N. Idaho. Why? Because Spokane has a better package for their lazy, drug-addicted asses.
The assumption that the homeless are gravitating to urban rather than rural areas because they want to remain in the homelessness business forever is amusing.
Can you think of any other reasons a poor person might want to go to a larger ECONOMY?
Yeah, junkies and drunks and bums come to San Francisco because secretly they are really look for work.
Isn't that why you went?
White flag.
So you believe the homeless are a monolithic bloc who simply wish to remain homeless and move to where the freebies are best.
Strawman ass fucking, lying and dodging questions like a Kunt. It's all you're good for Dazzler.
Sled is brave enough to admit that I accurately described his views. blob is not.
Nobody is homeless because they can no longer afford the 5k a month mortgage. I'd be homeless too if I refused to pay rent and live anywhere but Malibu on the ocean.
It almost always boils down to substance abuse and mental health. Enablement is the cruelest killer.
Substance abuse and mental health problems are certainly involved in huge percentages, though not all cases. (The cause and effect relationship between those conditions and homelessness probably runs in both directions, depending on the individual.) So do you think mentally ill people can just decide to stop being mentally ill? Substance abuse can be treated, but it's a long process and not inexpensive. Any proposed solutions besides not "enabling" the homeless? Whatever that means.
It's a peripheral problem, at best. I'm sure high housing costs cause *some* increases in homelessness, but it doesn't make sense that Seattle would bear the brunt of that (the displacement would logically flow to neighboring cities with lower COL), and it certainly doesn't account for the massive numbers of homelessness Seattle is seeing.
The problem has and remains a fun mixture of mental health issues and drug addiction. Seattle itself isn't going to fix that problem on its own, and it's a wide-scale zero sum game that needs to be addressed at the federal and state levels. But the city seems determined to shoot itself in the foot and become a beacon of tolerance for every troubled soul who can get themself a bus ticket. Which is ironic, because the more Seattle decides to become the haven for the country's homeless, the less of a problem it is in other municipalities and the less incentive other places have to contribute to a larger solution.
There's like two homeless people in N. Idaho. Why? Because Spokane has a better package for their lazy, drug-addicted asses.
The assumption that the homeless are gravitating to urban rather than rural areas because they want to remain in the homelessness business forever is amusing.
Can you think of any other reasons a poor person might want to go to a larger ECONOMY?
Yeah, junkies and drunks and bums come to San Francisco because secretly they are really look for work.
Isn't that why you went?
White flag.
So you believe the homeless are a monolithic bloc who simply wish to remain homeless and move to where the freebies are best.
Strawman ass fucking, lying and dodging questions like a Kunt. It's all you're good for Dazzler.
Sled is brave enough to admit that I accurately described his views. blob is not.
Because you didn't accurately described my views. You created a strawman and you fucked it in the ass.
It's a peripheral problem, at best. I'm sure high housing costs cause *some* increases in homelessness, but it doesn't make sense that Seattle would bear the brunt of that (the displacement would logically flow to neighboring cities with lower COL), and it certainly doesn't account for the massive numbers of homelessness Seattle is seeing.
The problem has and remains a fun mixture of mental health issues and drug addiction. Seattle itself isn't going to fix that problem on its own, and it's a wide-scale zero sum game that needs to be addressed at the federal and state levels. But the city seems determined to shoot itself in the foot and become a beacon of tolerance for every troubled soul who can get themself a bus ticket. Which is ironic, because the more Seattle decides to become the haven for the country's homeless, the less of a problem it is in other municipalities and the less incentive other places have to contribute to a larger solution.
There's like two homeless people in N. Idaho. Why? Because Spokane has a better package for their lazy, drug-addicted asses.
The assumption that the homeless are gravitating to urban rather than rural areas because they want to remain in the homelessness business forever is amusing.
Can you think of any other reasons a poor person might want to go to a larger ECONOMY?
Yeah, junkies and drunks and bums come to San Francisco because secretly they are really look for work.
Isn't that why you went?
White flag.
So you believe the homeless are a monolithic bloc who simply wish to remain homeless and move to where the freebies are best.
Strawman ass fucking, lying and dodging questions like a Kunt. It's all you're good for Dazzler.
Sled is brave enough to admit that I accurately described his views. blob is not.
Because you didn't accurately described my views. You created a strawman and you fucked it in the ass.
No one is stopping you from expressing any "thoughts" that may have popped into your head. Does your failure to do so indicate that no thoughts have afflicted you?
Nobody is homeless because they can no longer afford the 5k a month mortgage. I'd be homeless too if I refused to pay rent and live anywhere but Malibu on the ocean.
It almost always boils down to substance abuse and mental health. Enablement is the cruelest killer.
Substance abuse and mental health problems are certainly involved in huge percentages, though not all cases. (The cause and effect relationship between those conditions and homelessness probably runs in both directions, depending on the individual.) So do you think mentally ill people can just decide to stop being mentally ill? Substance abuse can be treated, but it's a long process and not inexpensive. Any proposed solutions besides not "enabling" the homeless? Whatever that means.
Gosh maybe that's why he said "almost always" and not "always" Dazzler. And this fucking kunt accuses others of playing semantics games. No where did I say or even imply that every single homeless are all motivated by the same things.
Yeah, and it's a fucking mystery what "enabling" the homeless means.
Now get back in there, that strawman's not going to fuck his own ass.
Nobody is homeless because they can no longer afford the 5k a month mortgage. I'd be homeless too if I refused to pay rent and live anywhere but Malibu on the ocean.
It almost always boils down to substance abuse and mental health. Enablement is the cruelest killer.
Substance abuse and mental health problems are certainly involved in huge percentages, though not all cases. (The cause and effect relationship between those conditions and homelessness probably runs in both directions, depending on the individual.) So do you think mentally ill people can just decide to stop being mentally ill? Substance abuse can be treated, but it's a long process and not inexpensive. Any proposed solutions besides not "enabling" the homeless? Whatever that means.
Gosh maybe that's why he said "almost always" and not "always" Dazzler.
Yeah, and it's a fucking mystery what "enabling" the homeless means.
Now get back in there, that strawman's not going to fuck his own ass.
What does "enabling" them mean, blob?
So far you gals have expressed disapproval of public and private assistance to the homeless. Do you think that they can just all decide today not to be homeless and be off the streets by tomorrow?
Nobody is homeless because they can no longer afford the 5k a month mortgage. I'd be homeless too if I refused to pay rent and live anywhere but Malibu on the ocean.
It almost always boils down to substance abuse and mental health. Enablement is the cruelest killer.
Substance abuse and mental health problems are certainly involved in huge percentages, though not all cases. (The cause and effect relationship between those conditions and homelessness probably runs in both directions, depending on the individual.) So do you think mentally ill people can just decide to stop being mentally ill? Substance abuse can be treated, but it's a long process and not inexpensive. Any proposed solutions besides not "enabling" the homeless? Whatever that means.
Gosh maybe that's why he said "almost always" and not "always" Dazzler.
Yeah, and it's a fucking mystery what "enabling" the homeless means.
Now get back in there, that strawman's not going to fuck his own ass.
What does "enabling" them mean, blob?
So far you gals have expressed disapproval of public and private assistance to the homeless. Do you think that they can just all decide today not to be homeless and be off the streets by tomorrow?
Nobody is homeless because they can no longer afford the 5k a month mortgage. I'd be homeless too if I refused to pay rent and live anywhere but Malibu on the ocean.
It almost always boils down to substance abuse and mental health. Enablement is the cruelest killer.
Substance abuse and mental health problems are certainly involved in huge percentages, though not all cases. (The cause and effect relationship between those conditions and homelessness probably runs in both directions, depending on the individual.) So do you think mentally ill people can just decide to stop being mentally ill? Substance abuse can be treated, but it's a long process and not inexpensive. Any proposed solutions besides not "enabling" the homeless? Whatever that means.
Gosh maybe that's why he said "almost always" and not "always" Dazzler.
Yeah, and it's a fucking mystery what "enabling" the homeless means.
Now get back in there, that strawman's not going to fuck his own ass.
What does "enabling" them mean, blob?
So far you gals have expressed disapproval of public and private assistance to the homeless. Do you think that they can just all decide today not to be homeless and be off the streets by tomorrow?
Fuck off
Still a little opaque, blob.
We need to know what "enabling" is so we can all stop doing it and solve homelessness. Please explain.
When you refuse to enforce the laws that apply to vagrancy and open air illegal drug use. When you decriminalize, all theft under $900.00. When you allow people to shit and piss in the streets, and you hand out "free" tents, sleeping bags, food, drugs and alcohol. And you allow people to feed their drug addictions through criminal activity that they know they will not be prosecuted for are you "enabling" homelessness you fucking worthless Kunt? Do you still not know what enabling means Kunt?
And go fuck yourself when it comes to answer your "questions" Dazzler, you're the fucking queen of the Kunt dodge.
When you refuse to enforce the laws that apply to vagrancy and open air illegal drug use. When you decriminalize, all theft under $900.00. When you allow people to shit and piss in the streets, and you hand out "free" tents, sleeping bags, food, drugs and alcohol. And you allow people to feed their drug addictions through criminal activity that they know they will not be prosecuted for are you "enabling" homelessness you fucking worthless Kunt? Do you still not know what enabling means Kunt?
And go fuck yourself when it comes to answer your "questions" Dazzler, you're the fucking queen of the Kunt dodge.
So you wish to house the homeless at public expense. You're much more liberal than you've let on.
When you refuse to enforce the laws that apply to vagrancy and open air illegal drug use. When you decriminalize, all theft under $900.00. When you allow people to shit and piss in the streets, and you hand out "free" tents, sleeping bags, food, drugs and alcohol. And you allow people to feed their drug addictions through criminal activity that they know they will not be prosecuted for are you "enabling" homelessness you fucking worthless Kunt? Do you still not know what enabling means Kunt?
And go fuck yourself when it comes to answer your "questions" Dazzler, you're the fucking queen of the Kunt dodge.
So you wish to house the homeless at public expense. You're much more liberal than you've let on.
No, I wish to put a boot right in your Kunt. Gosh what does enabling the homeless mean Dazzler? Your response shows how fucking disingenuous that question of yours always was.
Comments
White flag.
Thud
Fuck off!
It almost always boils down to substance abuse and mental health. Enablement is the cruelest killer.
Yeah, and it's a fucking mystery what "enabling" the homeless means.
Now get back in there, that strawman's not going to fuck his own ass.
So far you gals have expressed disapproval of public and private assistance to the homeless. Do you think that they can just all decide today not to be homeless and be off the streets by tomorrow?
We need to know what "enabling" is so we can all stop doing it and solve homelessness. Please explain.
And go fuck yourself when it comes to answer your "questions" Dazzler, you're the fucking queen of the Kunt dodge.