How many liberties would you give up to live in an orderly DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should give people a tent, or a shipping container, or a shed from Home Depot -- something cheap that can give them some privacy and a shred of dignity.

I don’t want to live in a place where homeless and crazy people have tents and shacks strewn about all over public property and parks. Look at what L.A. is dealing with right now. You want that for dc?

No thanks.

You'd prefer they be more visible?

No I'd prefer they be given one-way bus tickets to Kentucky or Iowa or Alabama or some other red state. Just get rid of them, far enough that they can't come back. Send them to some state filled with rethuglicans, they created the homeless problem with their shitty economy, killing jobs and taxes, let them deal with the consequences of that. Get them out of here.

[Anonymous]

There's compassion...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should give people a tent, or a shipping container, or a shed from Home Depot -- something cheap that can give them some privacy and a shred of dignity.

I don’t want to live in a place where homeless and crazy people have tents and shacks strewn about all over public property and parks. Look at what L.A. is dealing with right now. You want that for dc?

No thanks.

You'd prefer they be more visible?

No I'd prefer they be given one-way bus tickets to Kentucky or Iowa or Alabama or some other red state. Just get rid of them, far enough that they can't come back. Send them to some state filled with rethuglicans, they created the homeless problem with their shitty economy, killing jobs and taxes, let them deal with the consequences of that. Get them out of here.

Isnt the economy better now than under Obama?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. I left out a word in my quote of Ben Franklin.

The correct quote reads as follows:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

That’s a false dichotomy written by a misogynistic slave owner.

Don't know much about history, eh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. I left out a word in my quote of Ben Franklin.

The correct quote reads as follows:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

That’s a false dichotomy written by a misogynistic slave owner.

How do you know that Ben Franklin was a misogynist?

You're pretty quick to throw that word around

And by the way... do you really think it is appropriate to judge an 18th century man by 21st century standards?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should give people a tent, or a shipping container, or a shed from Home Depot -- something cheap that can give them some privacy and a shred of dignity.

I don’t want to live in a place where homeless and crazy people have tents and shacks strewn about all over public property and parks. Look at what L.A. is dealing with right now. You want that for dc?

No thanks.

You'd prefer they be more visible?

No I'd prefer they be given one-way bus tickets to Kentucky or Iowa or Alabama or some other red state. Just get rid of them, far enough that they can't come back. Send them to some state filled with rethuglicans, they created the homeless problem with their shitty economy, killing jobs and taxes, let them deal with the consequences of that. Get them out of here.

Isnt the economy better now than under Obama?

Obama CREATED this economy, not trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. I left out a word in my quote of Ben Franklin.

The correct quote reads as follows:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

That’s a false dichotomy written by a misogynistic slave owner.

Don't know much about history, eh?

I’ll put my education up against yours any day.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't describe D.C. as "disorderly," but I would note that OP's conception of what an "orderly" city would look like mostly involves avoiding aesthetic unpleasantness for OP -- a generic "crime," litter, package theft, people shouting at him/her, having to see homeless people.

The problems that actually bother me about our city are the fact that people don't have a place to live, that people who need better mental health care don't get it, or the fact that people get killed almost daily (mostly in parts of the city OP probably has never seen). The problem with homeless people is not that they're visible. It's that they're homeless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WAPO ran a front page story yesterday on the deaths of homeless people in the District that figured a transgender named Alice as its poster child. The WAPO reporter knew she made her home on 17th Street north of Q (it was in the story) but apparently made no effort at all to see how her life and death affected those who live there.

Not to speak ill of the dead, but Alice was considered a major blight on 17th St. A meth addict who routinely aggressively verbally assaulted residents and storeowners, shoplifted, and engaged in public sex acts. A number of residents have emailed WAPO their disdain for their attempt to make Alice a homeless hero. And these are people who routinely take food and blankets to the homeless on their street and have been known to visit those who are in jail.

Could we start with a press that isn't so caught up in identity politics that it leaps to a hagiography on possibly the only transgender homeless death this year to highlight a significant social problem?

Shame on you. I truly hope you meant transgender PERSON, not "a transgender". I lived in the neighborhood until a couple of years ago and I remember Alice well. Yes, Alice was most definitely a nuisance. But Alice was also a person and clearly a very sad one, addicted to drugs and severely mentally ill. She mostly inspired pity in me and many others. Please name ONE way this article makes her a "homeless hero". Grow a heart.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/shes-just-one-more-missing-voice-dc-says-117-homeless-people-died-here-this-year/2019/12/20/8dfec686-21b9-11ea-86f3-3b5019d451db_story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should give people a tent, or a shipping container, or a shed from Home Depot -- something cheap that can give them some privacy and a shred of dignity.

I don’t want to live in a place where homeless and crazy people have tents and shacks strewn about all over public property and parks. Look at what L.A. is dealing with right now. You want that for dc?

No thanks.

You'd prefer they be more visible?

No I'd prefer they be given one-way bus tickets to Kentucky or Iowa or Alabama or some other red state. Just get rid of them, far enough that they can't come back. Send them to some state filled with rethuglicans, they created the homeless problem with their shitty economy, killing jobs and taxes, let them deal with the consequences of that. Get them out of here.

Isnt the economy better now than under Obama?

Obama CREATED this economy, not trump.

Uh, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. I left out a word in my quote of Ben Franklin.

The correct quote reads as follows:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

That’s a false dichotomy written by a misogynistic slave owner.

How do you know that Ben Franklin was a misogynist?

You're pretty quick to throw that word around

And by the way... do you really think it is appropriate to judge an 18th century man by 21st century standards?

It’s not appropriate at all, but it’s all the rage now: self-righteous, emotionally-charged, and unsophisticated people smugly applying contemporary standards to accuse, try, sentence, and summarily execute people from the past, without any sense of broader context or nuance that might — perish the thought! — otherwise lead to a more balanced perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. I left out a word in my quote of Ben Franklin.

The correct quote reads as follows:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

That’s a false dichotomy written by a misogynistic slave owner.

Don't know much about history, eh?

I’ll put my education up against yours any day.

If I were you, I’d be more concerned about my critical thinking and analytical skills...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Authoritarian societies where everyone is forcefully held to a certain standard of behavior are often used as backdrops to dystopian novels, and obviously real-life attempts have never been good. Yet the more time I spend in DC, the more a zero-tolerance approach to decorum seems appealing. Imagine a world with no crime, no nuisance, no break-ins, no package thefts, no litter, no panhandlers, no encampments, no one hurtling obscenities at you while you're walking down the street. In exchange, all you have to do is not be a criminal or nuisance yourself. Those who abide by the rules experience a comfortable and prosperous life. Those who don't are swiftly dealt with. Where do the noncompliant people go? Not sure. Rounded up and relocated to a commune where they could be reeducated or permanently quarantined from law-abiding members of society?

This is just a small fantasy I have as I go about my daily life in DC. Someone broke into a car in front of my house in the middle of the afternoon. WTF.

What happens when you cut in line or exceed the speed limit? Will you still be for it when you are te one being punished?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should give people a tent, or a shipping container, or a shed from Home Depot -- something cheap that can give them some privacy and a shred of dignity.

I don’t want to live in a place where homeless and crazy people have tents and shacks strewn about all over public property and parks. Look at what L.A. is dealing with right now. You want that for dc?

No thanks.

You'd prefer they be more visible?

No I'd prefer they be given one-way bus tickets to Kentucky or Iowa or Alabama or some other red state. Just get rid of them, far enough that they can't come back. Send them to some state filled with rethuglicans, they created the homeless problem with their shitty economy, killing jobs and taxes, let them deal with the consequences of that. Get them out of here.

Isnt the economy better now than under Obama?

Obama CREATED this economy, not trump.

Uh, no.

Bush pushed us to the point of economic catastrophe, and Obama saved us from going over the edge. I worked at the International Monetary Fund right before 2008 and people were writing memos about "The impending financial world collapse." It was dire. So then Obama absolutely came up with economic policies that saved us.

So there's a Democrat sandwiched between a disastrous Republican president (who also dragged us into an endless war...) and this one. I haven't seen any benefit of the "roaring economy" that was posted in another thread but I'm pretty sure Trump is going to ruin the economy just like he's bankrupted all of his businesses so far....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. I left out a word in my quote of Ben Franklin.

The correct quote reads as follows:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

That’s a false dichotomy written by a misogynistic slave owner.

How do you know that Ben Franklin was a misogynist?

You're pretty quick to throw that word around

And by the way... do you really think it is appropriate to judge an 18th century man by 21st century standards?

Yes, yes it is appropriate. I don't know where the myth that the founding fathers didn't know any better came from. Even during the 1700s, there were abolitionists and people advocating for better treatment of women. The slaveowners and other white men of the time did not realize that owning and abusing people was wrong; they just accepted it as something one did to maintain his position at the top of the social and economic power hierarchy.

So yes, I judge them harshly.