Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
A homeless man with a Bluetooth headset?
@ 1
Yeah, sometimes people have jobs, but are still homeless.
Oh yeah, I forgot the definition of homeless has been expanded to pretty much cover anyone who does not own a home. So now even people who rent apartments or homes, or rent a room in someone’s home, are considered “homeless” by homeless advocates.
Hey Troll… these vets were interviewed at “U.S. Vets, a temporary housing facility for homeless veterans.” What’s so hard to understand here? These were vets who had been on the streets, but who are now in this temporary facility trying to get their lives back in order. The whole idea is to break the cycle… get them cleaned up and employed so they can work their way back into society.
Asshole.
Troll: go crawl back in the troop-hating hole you came out of. these are people who have put their lives on the line for our country – what have you done? what has Oreilly done? Besides be wrong and spout BS?
where is the health care for them?
where is the PTSD care?
bush and the chickenhawks who drummed up this fake war now going over 6 years (longer than WW2) never served our country – of course if you run for president and actually serve – then the swift boaters will come after you (like with Kerry and McCain).
The chickenhawks should change their slogan to “use the troops” in the interest of truth-in-advertising, because that’s what they really do: Use the troops for their own imperialist aggrandizement; use the troops for their own rightwing propaganda; but support the troops? Only with hot air.
How Republicans Support The Troops
The Vietnam War was fought, in part, with draftees (although there were, of course, plenty of people — and 1 rabbit — who voluntarily enlisted). In those days, a new private was paid $90 a month (and had to spend much of it on mandatory haircuts, personal care products, and other unfunded mandates). The typical soldier fighting in Vietnam was an E-4 who made about $250 a month. Returning veterans got G.I. Bill benefits that were paltry compared to their WW2 counterparts (e.g., $130 a month for college expenses).
Immediately after Vietnam ended, the U.S. went to an all-volunteer military; and, to get people to enlist, military pay was tripled and enlistees were offered far more generous educational benefits — as I recall, something like $20,000 of educational benefits, which was more than my total student loan indebtedness when I graduated from law school. And they didn’t have to risk their lives fighting a war.
So, I wrote a letter to Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Asshole) suggesting that Congress do something for Vietnam veterans. Specifically, I suggested student loan repayment assistance to Vietnam Veterans up to an amount comparable to the post-Vietnam War peacetime army’s educational benefits. He sent back a not very polite letter stating I was just looking for a handout and, in so many euphemistic words, telling me to go to hell.
I can’t say that was out of character for a Republican politician, because it wasn’t. When a war veteran needs more gratitude from his country than a pat on the back, you can count on Republican politicians to be assholes. It’s a long-running theme with them. I’ll bet if you went back and looked it up, you’d find that WW2 veterans got generous GI Bill benefits because the country had a Democratic president and congress then, and I’ll bet you’d find some Republicans who voted against it.
You see, the CHEAP LABOR CONSERVATIVES not only want you to work for free, they also want you to bleed for free — all so THEY can enjoy the fruits of labor they don’t have to perform and the spoils of war that other people died for. You see, the way you get rich in America is not by working for it, but by getting other people to work for you! That’s how the system works — the wealth at the top always depends on coercion of those below. It’s a sort of human pyramid in which 99% of us have to prop up the 1% at the top. And giving back to workers and veterans some of what they took from them defeats the purpose of the whole scheme — so, they don’t.
Here’s the deal with homeless vets and Bill O’Reilly. Last night he had Joseph Califano, a Democrat, former Carter Administration Secretary of HEW, pal of Teddy Kennedy, and currently head of The Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, an organization he founded, and Cheryl Beversdorf, National Coalition for Homeless Veterans President and CEO on to discuss John Edwards’ contention that the problem of homeless vets is economy-driven.
Both guests agreed that Edwards was wrong. While there are a lot of homeless vets – Beversdorf said 195K – both agreed that the problem has nothing to do with the economy. Most homeless vets – indeed, most homeless period – suffer from drug or alcohol addiction and/or mental illness. Whether the economy is flying sky high or in the tank, substance abuse and mental health issues of vets don’t change.
O’Reilly was quick to agree that more needs to be done to address the root causes of homelessness among veterans, but he was correct to call B.S. on John Edwards’ false pandering on the issue.
This is so typical of Edwards. Shameless pandering and a complete lack of scruples when it comes to using half-truths and false claims to buttress his career.
See, for example, http://www.jewishworldreview.c.....wards.php3
The guy is a modern day version of the snake oil salesman-huckster.
No wonder he didn’t run for re-election since his Senate seat went Republican after he quit.
The guy is dangerous and a fake.
The Piper
Trolls frequently post crap here about Roger Rabbit living on “government cheese” as if I were some kind of freeloader. The irony is obvious, given that Republicans are the biggest freeloaders in the universe, but let’s talk about me.
I served in a front-line combat unit in a wartime army for puny pay and benefits and got treated like dirt by our state’s senior senator (R-Asshole) when I returned home. I also got treated like dirt by all those flag-waving Republican businessmen who refused to hire Nam vets because, you know, we’re all psycho baby-killers. … (pause) … Assholes.
After the war, I went to law school (might as well; couldn’t get a job, unless I lied about my military service) and (unlike many privileged kids) paid off all my student loans. It was a hardship, but I did it, which went against the grain because at the time this country was full of student loan scofflaws and the Reagan administration was doing little or nothing to make them pay up.
Then I went to work in state government. The pay was crappy, the hours were long (but you got paid only for the first 40 hours a week), the bosses were incompetent (or worse), and the public you served was unappreciative and often downright hostile. And, of course, you had all the usual office politics and backstabbing, etc., and (contrary to popular belief) no job security. The one good thing about it was you had good health benefits in those days. There was also a defined-benefit retirement program, although you had to pay for it yourself.
Now that I’m retired, I’m collecting the money that was deducted from my paychecks and paid into the state retirement fund decades ago; and, and, needless to say, there’s no subsidized health care — I have to pay full market price for health insurance out of my own pocket.
And — I have to read the bullshit posted on this board by Republican assholes who whine about me living on “government cheese.” They must dream this crap up while they’re waiting in line for THEIR government handouts. (Last time I checked, all the government cheese is going to those who already have a lot of cheese; it would be nice if they’d throw some of it my way, but you and I both know that won’t ever happen.)
So, righty assholes, I have just two words for you: FUCK YOU. When you’ve done what I’ve done, then you’ll have earned the right to complain. Until then, shut the fuck up.
@8 Yes, piper, I can say why you’d regard a Democratic politician with a progressive agenda as “dangerous.” To which I say, the more “dangerous,” the better — it’s high time someone did something for the little people in this country who do the nation’s work and fight its wars. The entrepreneur class seems to think they’re entitled to the whole pie, and the workers and soldiers are entitled to nothing. Seems to me the entrepreneur class has gotten too big for its britches and the pendulum now needs to swing back the other way. Our system of economic rewards has gotten skewed to the point where rewards are being grossly misallocated, and at least Edwards is talking about the issue, which is more than any Republican is willing to do. So — fuck you, piper.
I can see why
War messes people up, and some never recover. We ought to take care of them. We owe them that, and they deserve better than living on the streets. Only Republicans have trouble getting this straight; the rest of us understand it. Assholes.
@9: You are and you do. What Rodent, you sorry you got exposed? You are the very definition of a freeloader. You do not anny into the commonwealth’s kitty, but you recieve med. coupons and gov’t cheese. Where is your argument exactly?
@8
Both guests agreed that Edwards was wrong. While there are a lot of homeless vets – Beversdorf said 195K – both agreed that the problem has nothing to do with the economy. Most homeless vets – indeed, most homeless period – suffer from drug or alcohol addiction and/or mental illness. Whether the economy is flying sky high or in the tank, substance abuse and mental health issues of vets don’t change.
You’re right that the number of vets with substance abuse or mental health issues don’t change with the economy, but the number of them who are homeless does. That’s Edwards’ point. Of course, if you’re someone who believes that someone with a mental health or a substance abuse problem deserves their fate, then this obviously isn’t a problem.
” … (G)ot treated like dirt by our state’s senior senator (R-Asshole) when I returned home.” That would have been … Scoop Jackson? That R-Asshole?
(Have a bad week playing the market and playing the slots?)
@14…Lee…
No, the number who are homeless doesn’t change with the economy since their homelessness isn’t driven by economic forces. Addicts and the mentally ill don’t take well to shelters or programs come good times or bad. In fact, the argument can be made at least in this town, that there are more homeless in good times than bad since there’s a lower incentive to seek help when there’s free stuff all around.
Had a homeless guy tell me once that in Seattle if you’re not eating good, you’re not trying since people literally wake you up to put food in front of you. And I’ve seen it. Last year I went with a group to Occidental Park to feed the homeless, and we literally had an almost turf war with a couple other groups down there doing the same thing.
When I went with another guy to round up people or at least let them know we were there, we were asked the menu. When told it was sack lunches and hot beverages, one guy sniffed his nose saying he’d just gotten a complete chicken dinner from another source. We weren’t competetive!
Homeless guys picked through the massive amount of clothes we brought, with some openly complaining about styles, lack of designer lables, and other stuff.
I had to step between a very angry black guy calling a couple Latin guys every ethnic and racial epithet you can imagine and ask the black guy to quit screaming the “F” word at the top of his lungs since we had junior high and high school girls in our group. He told me where I could stick it, then I told him where he needed to go, which was anywhere but there, and then he moved along.
Trying to get addicted and mentally ill homeless people to receive treatment and housing can be as tough as herding cats. The shelters won’t let them in if they’re using, and there’s nothing legally you can do to force them in.
In Seattle, beds in no-cost treatment programs are available for any who wants one. The Salvation Army’s Adult Rehabilitation Center (ARC) promises entrance into its six to nine-month program within 48-hours of a phone call to them. Want the number? You can tour the facility upon request; it’s across from Qwest Stadium and Safeco Field.
There’s a vast difference between living with the consequences of your actions and so-called “deserving your fate.” Really, you ought to know better!
As for my beliefs on homeless vets? They’ve been a matter of public record for a long time: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....ans01.html
It’s fascinating to me the number of liberals who opposed helping vets because they were vets; nothing special about them, was the mantra. So much for liberals supporting the troops. When I testified before the KC Council that vets are deserving of the first slice of the pie for their service and sacrifice, you’d have thought I was advocating the greatest crime of the century.
Some even claimed their rec league basketall program was more important. Amazing level of tolerance that, eh what?
So play with your superficial analysis all you want and continue to ignore how John Edwards twists the plight of homeless vets for his own polical purposes. Curious…how many homeless vets could he house in his mansion? Or in the tool shed of his mansion?
He’s no “progressive,” he’s a cynical, conniving, hypocritical, pandering demogogue.
The Piper
After invading a sovereign county and killing their men, women, and children in the name of Halliburton and Exxon, you want to be treated with “proper respect?” Not by me, you won’t.
@16
No, the number who are homeless doesn’t change with the economy since their homelessness isn’t driven by economic forces.
I’ve heard you say a lot of dumb things, but that may take the cake…
http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/n.....elease.htm
How many different ways are you going to embarrass yourself here? Do you want me to twist your feeble little mind into a pretzel the same way I did in the Marc Emery thread (still waiting for a reply)?
he’s a cynical, conniving, hypocritical, pandering demogogue
When you figure out that this describes Bill O’Reilly much better than it describes John Edwards, maybe you won’t be such a laughingstock any more.
@16
Now the veterans are getting involved:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.....on_KEY=884
This may be something you might want to run by your sons first before you let your willingness to be hoodwinked by O’Reilly make this even more embarrassing for you.
@9: Just another whiny neo-lib loser.
@18…Lee…
While it can be argued that the lack of affordable housing prevents addressing some homelessness (but see my remarks on the availability of treatment beds at ARC), you can’t argue that the lack of affordable housing is the root cause of homelessness for those whose homelessness comes about as a result of substance abuse or mental illneess.
In these cases they would be homeless first irrespective of whether housing existed or not.
In addition, the generally accepted definition of “homeless” includes those in shelters, transitional programs, or even those who bunk on your sofa. So among Edward’s 200K are ones who are receiving services.
Edward’s facile and cliched verbiage exhibits an appalling ignorance of the realities of homelessness and how to deal with it. If he’d spent much time around them, he wouldn’t be so shallow in discussing the issue. It’s not as simple as his phony “Two Americas” scenario would have you believe. Until you’ve had a drunk guy in an alley barf on your shoes or make lewd comments to the women with whom you’re working, you’ve got no idea!
The Piper
@21
While it can be argued that the lack of affordable housing prevents addressing some homelessness (but see my remarks on the availability of treatment beds at ARC), you can’t argue that the lack of affordable housing is the root cause of homelessness for those whose homelessness comes about as a result of substance abuse or mental illneess.
No, and I’m not. Let me re-paste what I wrote in comment #14 so that maybe you’ll actually read it this time:
Second, your paragraph is intentionally nonsensical. I pointed out that the lack of affordable housing is cited by the overwhelming majority of city officials as being the root cause of homelessness, and your reply is to just say it’s not the root cause for the minority whose root cause is different. That’s retarded, and it makes no sense.
In these cases they would be homeless first irrespective of whether housing existed or not.
Right, but as the link I shared pointed out, these people are a minority subset of the overall homeless population. Again, your entire argument right now is premised on a false assumption that the minority is a majority.
In addition, the generally accepted definition of “homeless” includes those in shelters, transitional programs, or even those who bunk on your sofa. So among Edward’s 200K are ones who are receiving services.
So? They’re still homeless if they don’t have a permanent home. And that’s still a problem.
Edward’s facile and cliched verbiage exhibits an appalling ignorance of the realities of homelessness and how to deal with it.
I think there’s a typo there. That should probably say “O’Reilly’s” rather than “Edward’s”
If he’d spent much time around them, he wouldn’t be so shallow in discussing the issue.
Yeah, definitely a typo.
It’s not as simple as his phony “Two Americas” scenario would have you believe. Until you’ve had a drunk guy in an alley barf on your shoes or make lewd comments to the women with whom you’re working, you’ve got no idea!
So if a homeless person calls your female co-worker a hoochie-mama, we can all officially tell homeless people to fuck themselves?
Wow. Since you apparently don’t have the testicular fortitude to explain your hypocrisy any more in the Marc Emery thread, I’ll repeat my one unanswered question here:
Do you really not understand how retarded you are?
@22…Lee…
You love to pick fights don’t you? I’ll bet yo’ momma got called to the principle’s office beaucoup times to get your little butt out of trouble.
Edwards contends that 200K homeless vets are sleeping under bridges or on steam grates. In the 195K number used by Cheryl Beversdorf are homeless vets in shelters, treatment programs, temporary living arrangements of one kind or another, etc.
Edwards made it sound as if they’re all on the cusp of starvation and death, and that’s simply untrue.
What both Califano, again, a Democrat, and Beversdorf said in response to Edwards comments was that he was wrong; the homeless condition of those who are substance abusers or mentally ill isn’t triggered by the economy or affected by the economy, it’s triggered by the substance abuse and mental illness of the person.
What about this simple premise escapes you? Edwards was blaming their condition on economic facts. Like, as if it was because they didn’t have steady jobs or something. The problem with that is that in their condidition whether there were a million jobs or no jobs it wouldn’t make any difference since they’re almost all GAU types.
Whether the economy is up or done will not affect their homeless status.
Your contention, “the lack of affordable housing is cited by the overwhelming majority of city officials as being the root cause of homelessness” is misleading. The lack of affordable housing is, for some, a root cause of homelessness, but for others it’s something else…like substance abuse or mental illness. Those whose root cause is substance abuse or mental illness won’t be helped by subsidized rent since they can’t manage living in even that type of environment.
I’ve met homeless people who eschew housing preferring to live either on the streets or in make-shift shelters of their own because they don’t want the rules and restrictions of shelter or transitional housing. And I’ve met homeless people who, because of their addiction and/or mental illness will be classified “homeless” for as long as they live.
No twitching in the economy will change these people.
Again, Edwards was claiming that this is an economically driven problem – essentially, that these vets are homeless because they don’t have jobs or we won’t give them cash – yet the experts flatly said he was wrong; what drives the problem is something entirely different.
Listen up! It’s not that they don’t have jobs, they CANNOT KEEP what jobs they get. What about GAU do you not understand??? And it’s not that they don’t have cash with which to get into housing, they CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH WHAT THEY GET BECAUSE IT GOES TO DRUGS AND BOOZE!
Try sorting this issue out in human terms, Lee, which I know will be an enormous stretch for you.
And, BTW, it’s not about getting called a “hoochie-mama,” it’s about being threatened and working with people who have serious issues and who sometimes engage in serious, life threatening behavior. Think Mike Webb.
While you’re at it, think of something beside yourself.
The Piper
Pooper, you ignorant ass.
Wrong, you troop-hating demagague of baffoonishness! the 195 K # is for truly HOMELESS vets, clown!
According to the VA:
http://www1.va.gov/homeless/page.cfm?pg=1
The number of near homeless (shelters, friends couches etc.) is in ADDITION to the 195 K vets that are living on the streets.
Stuff that up your Troop-hating pipe and then stick your Troop-hating pipe up your ass!
@23
What both Califano, again, a Democrat, and Beversdorf said in response to Edwards comments was that he was wrong; the homeless condition of those who are substance abusers or mentally ill isn’t triggered by the economy or affected by the economy, it’s triggered by the substance abuse and mental illness of the person.
Again, you still don’t get it. As I pointed out above, the main reason for homelessness, according to city officials across the country, is a lack of affordable housing. All you’re saying is that for the minority of people who are homeless because of substance abuse or mental illness, the economy is not the root cause. Well, duh, of course not!! But that’s what makes them the minority subset!
Are you really not grasping this? Can I suggest you take a step back and really think about what you’re saying? If I can provide a parallel, it would be like if I tried to convince you that all Scotsman prefer tequila, and you said to me, “No the majority of Scotsman prefer scotch”. Then, I would say, but I’m still right because the Scotsman who drink tequila all the time prefer tequila.
Are you getting it now? Am I using words that are too big for you or something?
And that still doesn’t change the fact that the majority of people who are homeless are homeless because of a lack of affordable housing. You’re not making a point. You’re just reinforcing the well-established fact that your brain doesn’t fucking work.
I’ve met homeless people who eschew housing preferring to live either on the streets or in make-shift shelters of their own because they don’t want the rules and restrictions of shelter or transitional housing. And I’ve met homeless people who, because of their addiction and/or mental illness will be classified “homeless” for as long as they live.
No twitching in the economy will change these people.
And these people are a minority among the homeless. They are not the norm.
Again, Edwards was claiming that this is an economically driven problem – essentially, that these vets are homeless because they don’t have jobs or we won’t give them cash – yet the experts flatly said he was wrong; what drives the problem is something entirely different.
For the majority of homeless vets, this is true. If Edwards is saying that it’s true for ALL vets, then he’s wrong. But I don’t think he is. I think O’Reilly is distorting what Edwards is really saying (and it appears that Iraq veterans groups agree with me on this).
@24
To be fair, he only hates the troops he’s not related to. The kid who enlisted after high school, got his arm blown off in Baqubah, and became addicted to the pain pills he was prescribed and has no place to live, can go fuck himself for making such poor choices in life.
@13 That’s your opinion; and opinions are like assholes — everyone’s got one.
For the record, I consider it an honor to be attacked by these fascist fucksticks.
@13 (continud) My argument is that you’ve got it ass-backwards: I pay taxes and get no government benefits. Sorry to break the bad news to you, but that’s the way it is. Go fuck yourself.
@15 See #28.
A guy came up to me and shook my hand today because he saw my “Vietnam Veteran” license plate.* That hasn’t happened to me in a long time. He didn’t look like a Republican, and I’ll bet he isn’t a Republican.
* I had to pay the state $10 extra for it; so much for the wingnuts’ “freeloading” theory.
shook my paw
rabbits don’t have hands, but rabbits pay taxes
# 31, Roger, the only Republican’s left are the ones who use, abuse and piss on Veterans. Being a Republican today is defined by lack of patriotism, disregard for the constitution, and hatred of US troops.
@23 “You love to pick fights don’t you?”
Yes, because you’re wrong, about everything, all the time, and your ilk has royally screwed up this country. It’s called “holding people responsible for their actions,” Mr. St. Clair.
@23 One more thing, piper: This is a liberal blog, and you came here voluntarily. What were you expecting? If it’s a petting zoo you want, go to one of your wingnut blogs, they do a lot of that. We don’t. You came to the wrong shop for what you want, fella.
@34 I couldn’t agree with you more; and it is, as you state, blatantly obvious.
@36
This is not a liberal blog. You don’t know what it means to be a true liberal and progressive. This blog is a divisive Democratic partisan blog run by, and catering to, partisan hacks.
And you, Troll, are the lowest form of life.
@35 & 36…RR…
I come here so that guys like you don’t get away with the tripe you post and the attitude you have that somehow you’re God’s gift to humanity, which you clearly are not.
I have no illusions as to the intellectual honesty of most the HA Happy Hooligans since I consider it oxymoronic to even regard them as such. There are some with whom I disagree vehemently, yet I see in their comments a willingness to concede that disagrement can exist without immediately going to the most disagreeable. With most, however, including you, it seems your goal is to head straight to the disagreeable, while someone like @24…BO…heads straight to accusing me of serious offenses, and I’ll call him a liar straight up right here.
Hate the troops? Total crap! That I call B.S. on John Edwards demagoguery is what I did. Notice, I’ve been selectively critical of Edwards reserving for him a level of disdain I don’t hold for HRC, who I regard as rigidly opportunistic and an abyss of ambition. Barack Obama, on the other hand, seems to be a liberal of sincere beliefs, albeit ones with which I profoundly disagree.
But John Edwards? I’ve seen hacks like him before, and I regard him as dangerous and perhaps the most hypocritical politician I’ve seen in many years.
On the issue of veterans, what he said was cynical and said for political reasons; the guy could give a damn about anyone but himself. He’s the type who creeps you out from the get go with the gut feeling that somewhere along the line, any involvement with him will end up in ruin.
Still, I come to HA because I enjoy it. That what I say infuriates so many of you tells me I’m hitting some nerves. Calling total B.S. on Lee’s delusional thinking about the high-mindedness of drug use is but an example.
All left and no right means all you’ll ever do is go in a circle much like a dog chasing its tail.
Call me all the names you wish since what you say will definitely be little noted nor long remembered.
The Piper
Pooper
Yes, Pooper, you show your hatred for the troops with every disgusting lie you tell about their plight.
The fact that you will not even admit that you have been lying about the plight of homeless veterans (see post # 24 and actually read it, you nitwit) shows how utterly unforgivable your smug seething hatred for the troops is.
Grow up, Pooper, and join the rest of humanity. Your defense of the indefensible only illistrates the blackness of your soul.
@29 Rodent:
Whatever you have to tell yourself to feel better Rodent. What you say here is all completely subjective and I personally do not beleieve you. Glad I could piss you off though, and watch you make a fool of yourself by stooping low and throwing out vulgar expressions, which shows your angry little man syndrome and lack of intelligence. Have fun with that cheese! Going to bed now, as I unlike you need to get up early and go to work tomorrow. A bumper sticker I saw in reference to you and yours: ‘Work harder, millions on welfare depend on it’ Hope you get that help from the men in the little white coats that you so desperately need Rodent. Fairy tales, fairy tales….
@25…Lee…
You get so blinded by your loathing of the Bush administration and your willingness to be an apologist for anything a Dem espouses no matter how patently absurd or pandering that you won’t pare things to their essence.
My comment and your reply:
“Again, Edwards was claiming that this is an economically driven problem – essentially, that these vets are homeless because they don’t have jobs or we won’t give them cash – yet the experts flatly said he was wrong; what drives the problem is something entirely different.
For the majority of homeless vets, this is true. If Edwards is saying that it’s true for ALL vets, then he’s wrong. But I don’t think he is. I think O’Reilly is distorting what Edwards is really saying (and it appears that Iraq veterans groups agree with me on this).”
The question is what caused the homelessness in the first place. They are homeless not because of Bush policies or a lack of housing, but because of addiction and mental health issues. In many jursidictions, including around here, housing and treatement for veterans is available but unused. Is this because of Bush? NO, it’s because of the debilitating nature of substance abuse and mental illness.
The availability of jobs isn’t the issue either because without intensive case management and treatement, the addicted and mentally ill aren’t going to be holding jobs anytime soon.
Consider:
” What is the definition of homeless?
PL100-77 signed into law on July 22, 1987 known as the “McKinney Act” provided a definition of homelessness that is commonly used because it controls the federal funding streams.
Excerpt from PL100-77: Sec. 11302. General definition of homeless individual
For purposes of this chapter, the term ‘homeless’ or ‘homeless individual or homeless person’ includes –
(1) an individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and (2) an individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is –
(A) a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);
(B) an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
(C) a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.”
Under this definition, not what @24…BO…said, the 195K number includes those in shelters and in treatment. What BO confused the issue with were individuals AT RISK OF homelessness, not who are legally defined as homeless.
Edwards sought to blame veteran homelessness on the Bush administration, and that’s neither fair nor true. Look at the demographics of homeless veterans:
Veteran Specific Highlights:
23% of homeless population are veterans
33% of male homeless population are veterans
47% Vietnam Era
17% post Vietnam
15% pre Vietnam
67% served three or more years
33% stationed in war zone
25% have used VA Homeless Services
85% completed high school/GED compared to 56% of non-veterans
89% received Honorable Discharge
79% reside in central cities
16% reside in suburban areas
5% reside in rural areas
76% experience alcohol, drug, or mental health problems
46% white males compared to 34% non-veterans
46% age 45 or older compared to 20% non-veterans
Service needs:
45% help finding job
37% finding housing
http://www.nchv.org/background.cfm#facts
Note that over 3/4’s of them experience alcohol, drug, or mental health problems. Their issues are not a product of the economy nor are they ameloriated by better economic conditions; their issues are unique to them.
John Edwards is clueless on this issue.
What’s necessary to take them out of their homeless state is housing with intensive case management and wrap around services. One VA physician I heard on TV this evening stated that his hospital has plenty of room to treat them, but they won’t come in, which is not unusual in these instances.
Having worked as a Life Coach to homeless men, served them meals at Union Gospel Mission, done fund raisers and other projects for several homeless service agencies, I’m here to tell you that Edwards’ simplistic cliches won’t put a dent anywhere in the problem. You cannot force a homeless vet who refuses services or treatment to seek or accept them.
While not limited to veterans, consider Seattle Times columnist Nicole Brodeur’s November 30th column describing the challenges Seattle Parks Dept. employees are facing dealing with squatter camps on City property:
“Take Michelle Franklin-Williams, whose camp at Sixth and Yesler was being dismantled Thursday morning.
Franklin-Williams, 39, told me her mother lives in Auburn, and that she owns a home in Rainier Beach. But she’s also a crack addict who wants to use in peace. Shelters don’t allow drugs.
‘My husband died a couple years ago and I went off the deep end,’ she explained. ‘I should really call my mom. But it’s a pride thing, you know?’
I didn’t know. A pride thing, to live beside the freeway?
Here’s Kenneth Leach, who lives in a tent above Elliott Avenue: ‘I don’t function well in a controlled environment.’
Leach, 46, showed me his Bank of America debit card while beside him in his tent, a friend read a book. Two men with the ability to read, speak, manage money — the currency of a functional life.
But no. Leach has been out here for 15 years.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ur30m.html
I accept that some people choose this life, but I don’t think our tax money should go to cleaning up after them.”
Brodeur is close ideologically to you than she’ll ever be to me, yet she’s honest enough to face up to the reality of the situation. She documents two homeless people with dysfunctional lives, one of whom because of drug use.
This is the reality of homelessnes much the same way it is with crime: drugs, their use and abuse, with alcohol included in the mix.
Does more need to be done for vets? Yes. King County’s relatively new Veterans Levy, which I’ve supported for years, will help even though it was watered down by liberals to take money away from use exclusively for vets.
But again, Edwards blamed the homeless state of veterans on George Bush. The experts said that was a false charge, and the facts bear them out.
Think on it and consider whether Edwards isn’t scamming you, too. If you’re not willing to consider that, then consider where a lot of these homeless vets would be if they didn’t have substance abuse and mental health issues.
But for heaven’s sake…THINK!
The Piper
@41…BO…
Not my problem that you don’t understand the issues or definitions of homlessness. You simply wish to make bitter points at the expense of others. Read and digest my last long post to Lee in order to get a better sense of the issues. Then grow up.
The Piper
@20 Are you new here? I don’t recognize you. I’ll bet your new to this blog! I’m the ad hoc greeter. Allow me to acquaint you with the ad hoc posting rules:
1. This is a liberal blog;
2. Anyone can post here;
3. There is no censorship;
4. As liberals, our mission is to verbally kick the living shit out of you unpatriotic fascist goatfuckers;
5. No mercy for wingnuts!
6. Our terms are unconditional surrender. There will be trials.
7. klake is a nazi.
Speaking of whining, no one whines more than Dino Rossi. Let’s recap:
Winner of 2004 governor’s election: http://www.governor.wa.gov/news/img/main.jpg
Loser of 2004 governor’s election: http://www.lupins.org/img/products/allergy.jpg
you’re not your
Speaking of government cheese, no one lives off the government more than Republicans do. Bush’s cabinet is full of CEOs, but not one of them ever ran a company that had to make a buck in a competitive marketplace — they all ran companies on government dole, and their only expertise is squeezing juice from taxpayers. In fact, it’s been a long time since anyone in this country used as a business model selling a better product at a competitive price — now, it’s all about gaming the system, getting tax credits, and cheating employees, customers, and shareholders. The last thing any Republican wants is competition! That’s why they smear opponents instead of debating issues, and rig elections instead of picking decent candidates. GOP = Greedy Old Plutarchs.
@38 I’m a partisan hack. So are you, but the difference is, I’m willing to admit it. If you want someone to stroke your dick, you came to the wrong place, fella. Try the pathetic little competing wingnut blog, they dig circle-jerking over there.
@38 (continued) Funny how, now that “Liberal” is a respectable word again, they refuse to call us “liberals.” Wasn’t so long ago they thought that word was an epithet. Now, it’s hard to find a Republican who calls himself a “Republican” anymore — nowadays, they all pretend to be Democrats and call themselves “liberals.”
If I were a Republican, I wouldn’t admit it, either.
@42 I don’t give a fuck whether you believe me. In fact, I prefer that you don’t. You’re dismissed, and may resume fucking your goat now.
Pooper, you seem to be blinded by your hatred of the troops.
You stated
That is a bald faced LIE meant to disparage our brave troops and veterans. And you refuse to back down from that troop hating LIE, even when face from the facts from the VA
http://www1.va.gov/homeless/pa ge.cfm?pg=1
The number of near homeless (shelters, friends couches etc.) is in ADDITION to the 195 K vets that are living on the streets.
Even with those irrefutable facts, you continue to LIE about the brave young men and women who have served our country bravely, all to serve your USA-hating agenda.
You are fucking traitor to the United States, and the foulest of scum.
But, I am sure you will not respond to the facts. you will sit with your smug troop-hatng smirk and watch the Bush administration continue to misuse and piss on our veterans.
Keep making excuses for the mess that Bush has made, and his administrations befouling of our military. I expect as much from an asshole like you.
@51…BO…
Listen moron, you can’t read, or choose not to.
The federal definition of “homeless” includes those in shelters, transitional programs, or without a fixed residence, which includes on couches. It doesn’t include those at risk of homeless, a distinction you refuse to make or haven’t the brains to figure out.
So by definition, among the 195K are vets in shelters, transitional programs or transitory living situations. It does not include at-risk individuals. The two categories are distinct.
Also, the on the same link you cite is:
“But similar to the general population of homeless adult males, about 45% of homeless veterans suffer from mental illness and (with considerable overlap) slightly more than 70% suffer from alcohol or other drug abuse problems.”
Nearly 1/2 of the vets who are homeless suffer from mental illness and nearly 3/4 have substance abuse problems. Many mix the two making it that much more serious, but you cleverly omitted these statistics in addition to your deceitful misreading of the distinction between homeless and near homeless.
I have two sons in the military, so I’m pretty invested in this stuff. In addition, I’ve worked with homeless men for several years, so I have first-hand knowledge and experience in this area.
What have you got? Nothing that I can see other than a lot of bile and verbal puss. What comes out of the back end of you makes more sense and has more social utility than what comes out of the front end of you.
So far as I can see, the only hater in this conversation is you since that’s all you ever show.
The Piper
@ 53
Listen you troop hating moron, you can’t read, or choose not to.
The VA defines Homeless as Homeless. Those without a place to sleep except the street. The VA defines at risk as those living in “shelters, transitional programs, or without a fixed residence, which includes on couches.”
If you read the VA link you would know that, and quit denying reality. The fact that many of these veterans suffer from mental illness, and substance abuse in no way changes the fact that as our soldiers they need help that they are not getting. Many of our soldiers return with mental illness (that often leads to substance abuse) from the scars of their service, but to you that is of no concern. And you damn the messengers that point that out.
But in your Anti-USA troop hating blind rage you refuse to acknowledge that.
This makes your hatred and defiant ignorance to reality regarding our veterans even more appalling.
I sincerely hope your sons survive this disastrous fuck-up that the Bush Administration has thrust so many brave soldiers into unscathed, physically and mentally.
And I hope you get your head out of your ass and wake up!
You can sadly parade your sons as much as you want, but that don’t mean shit when you disparage all the troops with your unrepentant lies and ill-thought support of this administrations disregard for their safety on the field of battle and off. You are treating your sons as nothing but political pawns.
As long as their are pathetic tools of the enemies to the US and the military like you spouting their ignorant crap on the internet, I will punch back with the truth.
Crawl back under your rock and pray that your sons do not get the same treatment their old man wishes on the other soldiers.
I have nothing but bile for mindless monsters like you, Pooper. And you deserve nothing more.
@54…BO…
Are you saying the VA doesn’t use the McKinney-Vento Act definitions of homeless?
Show me specifically where the VA defines “homeless” different than the rest of the federal governemt.
You are contending that there are 195K homeless vets…ON THE STREET, yet that’s specifically not true per Califano and Beversdorf since they both said that the number includes those in shelters, transitional programs and transitory living situations.
You’re a stuck record that’s stuck wrong! Go to the following and see how the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, which includes the Dept of Veterans Affairs, defines homelessness: http://www.nchv.org/background.cfm#facts
Again, the FEDERAL DEFINITION is:
Homeless Veteran Fact Sheet
DEFINITIONS, DEMOGRAPHICS AND ESTIMATED NUMBERS
What is the definition of homeless?
PL100-77 signed into law on July 22, 1987 known as the “McKinney Act” provided a definition of homelessness that is commonly used because it controls the federal funding streams.
Excerpt from PL100-77: Sec. 11302. General definition of homeless individual
For purposes of this chapter, the term ‘homeless’ or ‘homeless individual or homeless person’ includes –
(1) an individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and (2) an individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is –
(A) a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);
(B) an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
(C) a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.
Read the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S definition of homeless, which includes a lot more than just people on the street. There are homeless vets in shelters, etc., and homeless vets on the street. All together, they make up the number of homeless vets.
Here’s some more…The Homeless Veterans Reintegration Act, which funds services for homeless vets is part of…guess what? THE McKINNEY ACT that defines homelessness as per the definition above. See:
“Fact Sheet VETS – 04
Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Program
The purpose of the Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Program (HVRP) is to provide services to assist in reintegrating homeless veterans into meaningful employment within the labor force and to stimulate the development of effective service delivery systems that will address the complex problems facing homeless veterans.
HVRP was initially authorized under Section 738 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act in July 1987. It is currently authorized under Title 38 U.S.C. Section 2021, as added by Section 5 of Public Law 107-95, the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act of 2001.”
http://www.dol.gov/vets/progra.....s_fs04.htm
You wouldn’t know the truth if it hit you in the eye. Or you willfully ignore it and simply lie.
You accuse me of being opposed to helping vets, yet I give you evidence of many years standing to the contrary that you ignore – evidence of my hands on advocacy and assistance to homeless vets. Where were you?
But…I’ve come to the conclusion that you could care less about soldiers and Marines since you all you do is accuse me without showing what your efforts are, how much time you’ve spent with the homeless, your level of advocacy on their behalf, etc. You haven’t got a clue as to what you’re talking about!
Put up or shut up.
The Piper
Pretty interesting thread. I wish I could have participated earlier, before all hell broke loose. Work, unfortunately, got in the way. Piper, you are dead wrong about John Edwards being a hypocrite. Do you honestly believe he is a bigger hypocrite than (let’s pick one of the Republican candidates) Mitt Romney? Tell me, have you ever witnessed a more soulless creature than Mitt Romney? John McCain wants to kill him. All of us have some measure of hypocrisy, such is part of the human condition. John Edwards’s heart has always been in the right place, and he happened to get rich pursuing his passion. (Why do you market capitalists begrudge him that?) His passion remains for the little guy, even if he is no longer the little guy himself. I’m not going to support him in the caucus, but I believe he is a great American–an American success story. Guys like you should respect him.
Pooper
SIGH
I have done it twice, Pooper. And still you ignore it. I can’t help a hopless head up-his-ass moron like you. Read the VA link, or better yet, have someone read it for you.
No, Pooper, that was what you said. Have someone read your posts to you.
Hell, Pooper, have someone read the entire thread for you. You have consistently stated that the 195 k HOMELESS are actually in shelters, couches, etc. despite the fact that the VA states that those in shelters, etc. are in ADDITION to the 195 k homeless.
Uh, again have someone read the thread to you.
You haven;t given me shit, Pooper. Just a bunch a vivid example of how you can’t actually read a thread and comprehend the contents of a VA website.
Where am I, I am not parading my “sons” and my “helping the homeless” credentials, that can just as surely come out of the same ass you get your credentials from. If you want to defend the indefensible, do it with facts, not stories of your alleged support for people you shamefully spread lies about.
Again, Pooper, you can claim to be Mother Theresa, and I can claim to be Ghandi, but it is only your arguments supported by facts that count.
You ain’t got shit, and your “facts” are not supported by reality.
I came to the conclusion that you don’t give a fuck about this country or its soldiers and veterans a long time ago, and you have said nothing to change that obvious perception.
@57…BO…
You’re caught with your facts and your law down, and it exposes you as the intellectual eunuch you are.
You can’t produce a definition to support your assertion. You misread and misunderstand the difference between homeless and at-risk-of. You obviously have zero experience with working with the homeless, and you show it with the sloppy way you confuse terms.
Let me say it again: the 195K number includes BOTH those on the street and those in shelters, transitional housing, and transitory accommodations. That’s the definition used by the VA per the McKinney Act.
You fubared a paragraph of text then claimed it was the definition.
Tell me…what’s it like to have a single digit IQ?
How’s it feel to be made the fool and stand there with egg on your face?
The Piper
@43
The question is what caused the homelessness in the first place. They are homeless not because of Bush policies or a lack of housing, but because of addiction and mental health issues.
Again, you fucking buffoon, see the link in comment #18 from the U.S. mayoral meeting. I’ll post it again and this time I’ll highlight in bold the relevant part so that maybe you can dislodge your head from your ass and stop making the same incorrect statement over and over again:
http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/n.....elease.htm
Again, we ask you, do you really not understand how retarded you are?
Third time for you, Pooper. Please have someone read it to you.
You obviously have zero experience with working with the homeless, and you show it with the sloppy way you confuse terms. You, Pooper, are no Mother Theresa. And you can squirm and attempt to hide from the facts, but you still are nothing but a troop hating, America despising Bush apologist.
Tell me…what’s it like to have a single digit IQ?
How’s it feel to be made the fool and stand there with egg on your face?
The Blatantly Obvious
@55
Are you saying the VA doesn’t use the McKinney-Vento Act definitions of homeless?
http://wanderingvets.wordpress.....snesswhew/
Crackpiper, you might also want to read this link in order to keep from embarrassing yourself further in this thread…
http://wanderingvets.wordpress.....istration/
Really, Pooper, as a child, did you ever imagine you would be in a forum trying to parse words to defend the fact that 195,000 veterans were Homeless?
When you kissed your sons on the cheek when they went in the military, did you have in the back of your empty mind that you would soon be defending the utter contempt that the Bush administration would show for the brave soldiers he would send into harms way? And the utter disregard his administration would show them when they returned?
How did you get so off track? What price did they offer you for this treason?
I can imagine you trying to defend your actions. Trying to legitimize their harm. “I am doing it as a patriot for the President! He surely knows what is best.”
Can you ever come to grips with what a hollow shell you are? Can you ever look your sons in they eye proudly again? (without the glazed look)
Or can you bravely change. Return to the ideals of America. Cast off your pride and admit you have been played for a fool.
And like a courageous Man, go forth and fight for the change that is needed to stop the destruction this administration has wrought.
I have hope for you, Pooper. You may be able to come back to reality, and become an American again.
Please, do not prove me wrong.
Piper, m’lad,
You’ve gotten your ass handed to you tonight by BO and Lee. You have said in the past that you’re a passionate guy. That’s not a bad thing, not at all. But, these boys tonight have shown you to be advancing ideology/passion over reason. That ain’t a good thing. You’re losing tonight, my friend. And, it is not particularly close.
@51 Rodent:
Mark1: ——Laughs heartily—————-
Rodent: —-blood pressure monitor beeps loudly, slices a piece of cheese————-
@63…PL…
Even though we disagree on everything under the sun through and including the right color socks to wear with a tux (black is best, BTW), I regard you as a reasonable, thoughtful person who, unlike Lee and BO, listens and considers before spouting.
Here’s the deal…195K veterans are homeless on any given night. Included among that figure are veterans in homeless shelters, transitory accomodations, treatment programs, etc. The federal McKinney Act definition of “homeless” includes these individuals. Nobody working with the homeless considers that term to include just street people.
In fact, in order to receive federal funding for homeless programs, you’re required to accept and use the McKinney definition. Since almost every homeless services program in the country receives federal money somehow, they’re reading off the same definitional page.
Contrary to John Edwards’ assertion, THERE ARE NOT 195K veterans sleeping under bridges and on grates on a given night because they don’t have or can’t find jobs or because of the Bush-created state of the economy. This was the core point made by Joseph Califano and Cheryl Beversdorf.
What got the 195K homeless vets there in the first place wasn’t jobs or housing, it was substance abuse and/or mental illness. Again, nearly 3/4 of them are substance abusers (not talking the occasional binge drinker) with nearly 1/2 mentally ill. Consider also that there’s considerable overlap between the two. These people will find themselves in a homeless state without regard to the availability of cheap rent housing.
If you want to discuss how to treat them, then affordable housing as that term is defined is necessary. Getting them to accept treatment, however, is very often another story. More on this below.
In a given year, maybe twice the 195K experience some degree of homelessness. That doesn’t mean there are 400K homeless now. Someone in a shelter for a month but now in a stable living situation would fall into this category. That’s typical of homelessness statistical analysis.
What this also evidences is that progress is being made to move homeless vets off the rolls and into stable living situations. Without question, though, more attention and resources are necessary.
When someone says the primary need of the homeless is affordable housing, they’re using a term of art understood in the homeless services community as not simply cheap rent for a low income person. It includes intensive case managment, wrap around services, and more. The homeless men with whom I’ve worked who are placed in housing stay there only because someone is minding the store behind them by taking care of a lot of the details. Only until and after a long process of learning or re-learning life skills can they hope to succeed.
The track record of simply placing homeless people into housing without case management and services is dismal. Old patterns and behaviors – substance abuse, mental illness, anger, poor decision making – invariably result in these placements being of short duration.
Lee and BO cite no authoritative sources for their POVs. Lee relies exclusively on the opinion of a self-serving blogger who has an obvious bone to pick with the VA. Whether his grievance is justified is beside the point. Suffice to say, the blogger’s beef about definitions and such sounds more like frustration with bureaucracy than anything else. His opinion isn’t evidence.
BO has his “head” firmly cemented in a complete misread of a single paragraph on the VA website, a zero understanding of the difference between “homeless” and “near-homeless” as those terms are defined and used among homeless service providers at all levels, and an obvious zero level of real world experience working with the homeless. He ignores statutory definitions, statistical measurement, and the combined experience of professionals in the field all because he’s on the losing end of a political argument.
On the issue of “affordable housing,” Lee doesn’t understand the term as it’s used among homeless service providers. Again, it’s not simply cheap rent, it’s housing with services. And it’s not the root cause of an individual’s homelessness per se. If someone has substance abuse or mental health issues that are profound enough to drive them into a homeless state, then an infinite number of cheap rental units is both irrelevent and useless.
You have to ask and answer the question: How did this person become homeless in the first place? That’s the root cause. The next question then is: What needs to be done? That’s the search for a solution. Confusing the two is neither helpful nor honest.
I know a mentally ill woman who comes from a very well-off family. She routinely experiences homelessness not because of a lack of housing – her family could afford to pay cash to buy her a $500K home without missing a beat – but because of her mental health issues. While there are times she can be persuaded to accept a placement into a housing setting, it’s not uncommon for her to also refuse it opting, instead, to live on the street. Because she doesn’t meet the legal definition of a threat to self or others, there’s nothing her family can do to force her to accept either treatment or housing.
Her’s is a typical story that’s frustrating to professionals in the field, both mental health and homeless services, and incredibly painful to her family. I went to high school with this woman, she’s the older sister of my late best friend, and it’s painful to me too.
There’s nothing I can do to explain this issue to mules who act like mules, and that’s exactly how Lee and BO are acting. Lee and I have long-standing head butting arguments, and it’s routine for him to dig in his heels and refuse to concede anything simply because I say it.
BO is simply an obnoxious partisan who reminds me of a guy I knew once in a papermill who bet someone that a word was spelled a particular way. When confronted with the dictionary spelling that proved him wrong, he refused to pay off contending that the dictionary was wrong. From then on, the entire crew would have nothing to do with him. So much for seeking after the truth.
I have the data, the collective experience of homeless service providers at all level, the accepted definitions of terms, and plain common sense on my side. They have bupkis.
What brought this issue up in the first place was John Edwards’ demagogueing it at a campaign appearance. His “claims” were flatly refuted by two experts in the field who provided context and statistics to debunk him. This is an example of why I have zero respect for the man since my guess is that he already knows this stuff but doesn’t care. If he can whip up a crowd with a lie to further his political ends (which are sinking, BTW), then he’ll do it without batting an eye.
While I have profound philosophical disagreements with Barack Obama, I’ll be the first to say that he impresses the Hell out of me as an honest participant in the process. Watching, as I did, his 49-minute interview with the editorial staff of a Reno newspaper, I came away impressed with the depth of his thought, the sincerity of his core beliefs and values, and the sense that with him what you see is what you get. Neither HRC or Edwards are that way at all. Both are posers who position themselves for advantage rather than step forward warts and all without guile. Fake southern accents and obsessive primping in a mirror reveal a lot.
Obama’s growing popularity over HRC and Edwards is easily understandable when you factor this into the equation; the more you compare him to them, the worse they look.
With Obama, I see someone with whom you could debate the issues and come away with a sense that he spoke from within, not from a poll-driven set of consultant-prepared talking points. I believe he’s an honest man, albeit one whose world view and approach to issues and their solutions profoundly differs from mine.
So…there you have it! I fully expect Lee and BO to attack me again without conceding truth one in the process. As I said, when you debate with mules…This has all the elements of a Wagnerian Götterdämmerung-like cataclysm with them fighting to a bitter and fiery end.
But mules don’t much appreciate Wagner, do they?
The Piper
Poope4r, like all liers, when caught in his lie, moves the goal post and changes the definitions.
Pooper @ 23 said:
Let that sink in. Pooper just said that the 195,000 homeless vets are not living on the street. Pooper says that the 195,000 homeless vets are warm and cozy in shelters, treatment centers. or temporary living apartments of one kind or another. Nothing to see here, move along. The vets are just fine.
This is an astounding claim! And of course as I pointed out three times is COMPLETELY UNTRUE, according to the VA. Pooper is lying in order to diminish the plight that hundreds of thousands of our Veterans, those who bravely served our country, are suffering through.
That is not the definition of a troop-hater.
But now, as Pooper sees he is fooling no one with his troop hating denial of the facts, he does the time honored trick used by lying scum the world over (and especially on right wing news and right wing talk radio) of changing the goal post, and completely revising what he stated earlier.
Pooper @ 65 now says
Like Biil O’Rielly, Pooper has changed his original statement. Now there are 195,000 Veterans living on the streets (not in various housing or shelters) but the reason they are living on the streets is not due to the economy.
That is a completely different statement than what he stated earlier, and that is what I was trying to get the moron to admit in the first place!
There ARE 195,000 veterans living on the streets, and if Pooper wants to parse the reasons why, then FINE. But goddammit, why did Pooper spend a whole evening DENYING the fact that the homeless vets were truly homeless?
I don’t really give a damn if it is due to the economy, Mental illness caused by war zone stress, of substance abuse caused by mental illness.
The fact is there is 195,000 veterans living on the streets, and that is a disgusting fact! One that I will never let a scumbag troop hating wingnut asshole like Pooper get away with denying!
Now that Pooper has FINALLY admitted the reality, we can move on.
It is difficult reasoning with a wingnut kool-aid drunk buffoon like Pooper, but it must be attempted, even if after you make them admit reality, they don’t even realize what a fool they have made of them self.
@ 66 I did not mean to call Pooper a “lier”, I meant to call him a “liar”
I regret the error.
@ 66 when I said “That is not the definition of a troop hater”
I meant to say “That IS the definition of a troop hatter.”
Again, my regrets.
@66…BO…
The mule has come back to get hit upside the head once again.
That he’s patently incapable of understanding the English language – aside from venomous insults and lunatic accusations – is pretty obvious.
That he’s also incapable of seeing how something can be said in different ways is also obvious. Must be a product of public education.
Without a citation to a single authority, his word must be accepted as if divinely appointed. As he retreeats into a corner, he lashes out like a caged animal. Exposed for the fake and humbug he is, he offers the nothing that he is.
There are 195K homeless veterans in the U.S. on any given night. Some of them are on the street. Some of them are in shelters, etc. I’ve offered documentation and evidence in support of this.
John Edwards and BO, his Hey-Boy, are wrong to contend they’re all sleeping under bridges and on steam grates. Such a contention is a lie, and both of them know it.
Listen mule, you can accuse and name-call all you like, but calling me a troop hater when all the evidence is to the contrary only makes you out to be a gasbag moron.
What have you done for the troops? For the homeless? What have you put on the line? How are you working to improve the situation? How much do you donate to homeless services organizations? How much time have you given to them?
You’re in this for political gain, and you could care less about the average service man or woman, the soldier or Marine. You’re a shill and a pimp for for a lie, and you stand condemned out of your own forked-tongue mouth.
Nice thing about mules, however, is that they’re born sterile and can’t reproduce.
The Piper
Pooper again poops his oft repeated liwe (even against the statements made by the VA itsdelf. And his own statements as cited above) Pooper retreats into cowardice and again changes his tune.
One more time for the Pooper.
Pooper @ 23 said:
But the VA actually says
http://www1.va.gov/homeless/pa ge.cfm?pg=1
Who you expect people to believe, Pooper? A confirmed wingnut troop hating joker like you, or the VA.
But I expect you to keep responding against the facts, with home-spun bullshit because you HATE the facts. And belittling the plight of Homeless Veterans is what you LOVE.
And I think Edwards would make a wonderful President. But I do not support him. Never have.
But again. never let the facts get in the way of the bullshit you like to spread. Keep hating the veterans, Pooper. You are good at it.
@70…BO…
You are a glutton for punishment. But in all this, it’s you who abuse veterans since you trivialize and cheapen the issue and use it for partisan political purposes.
I said, “In the 195K number (which means “included in”) used by Cheryl Beversdorf are homeless vets in shelters, treatment programs, temporary living arrangements of one kind or another, etc.”
The VA distinguishes between homeless and those at the risk-of homelessness, a distinction you fail to grasp.
Under the law and how the term is used by agencies of the federal government the following, while at risk, are not considered homeless:
“Many other veterans are considered near homeless or at risk because of their poverty, lack of support from family and friends, and dismal living conditions in cheap hotels or in overcrowded or substandard housing.”
If you can’t figure out the difference between the two, then you’re either dumber than Forrest Gump or refuse to admit you’ve got egg on your face…or a combination of the two, which is my guess.
I’m still waiting for you to establish your bona fides in terms of helping the homeless and supporting vets. So far, all you’ve given them are your lies. In fact that’s all you’ve given anyone.
Keep braying, mule…
The Piper
Yes, and it is stated plainly on the VA website. The fact that you can’t see that those statements completely refute your belittling of the Homeless Veteran plight only demonstrate how hatred for those veterans has blinded your ability to comprehend.
The issue is not about me and you, Pooper. I know you would love to distract from your idiocy, but I am not playing that game with you.
There is no way you get the egg of your face and your truly astounding inability to recognize that each post you make further demonstrates your deep seated lack of intellectual honesty concerning a very real problem.
But that is what you want. Not to support our troops and veterans, but degrade and ignore them.
Keep pooping, Pooper. But in the end, we will all have to clean up the mess mindless attitudes like yours have caused this country.
@72…BO…
Bray, mule, bray!
You fail to distinguish between the categories, and you do so intentionally because you got caught in a lie, and rather than fess up and correct it, you stick to it. Smooth move, Ex Lax!
And the issue is as much about you as anyone. Anonymous, hidden coward that you are, you attack, belittle, and demean, but you don’t establish your own qualifications to do it. Who are you? Some gasbag with a keyboard who backstabs, that’s all.
Why don’t you ID yourself, tell me exactly who you are. We can then meet and debate the issue, say, down at Fort Lewis in front of some soldiers? Or does appearing in front of them frighten you?
Increasingly, you sink into an abyss of your own ignorance and arrogance.
If there’s a hater of vets in this thread, it’s you. My conscience is clear.
The Piper
Then I feel sad for you. You are so divorced from reality, that even your conscience is blind.
And speaking of gas bags, Pooper. I am sure even those who know you have a hard time distinguishing between the bagpipes and the gasbag blowing in them.
Puddy The Fight “Doktur” score card
It was going so well for BO until the late rounds when Piper slipped in a right uppercut and a left cross. BO is backing up… up against the ropes.
76 – Again the shit-head is wrong. Pooper is so punch-drunk, he’s reduced to mindless babbling.
I disagree with TBO on one small point. Pooper doesn’t hate the troops. He has what? Two sons in theatre? How can he hate the troops? I’ll tell you what he hates:
Reality. The simple reality that his ideology, the talking points that made life easier to deal with, that whitewashed the unbelievable incompetence and corruption of the Bush legacy are false, bankrupt, exhausted, devoid of any credibility.
@77
I disagree with TBO on one small point. Pooper doesn’t hate the troops. He has what? Two sons in theatre? How can he hate the troops?
As I wrote in comment #26:
@65
On the issue of “affordable housing,” Lee doesn’t understand the term as it’s used among homeless service providers. Again, it’s not simply cheap rent, it’s housing with services. And it’s not the root cause of an individual’s homelessness per se. If someone has substance abuse or mental health issues that are profound enough to drive them into a homeless state, then an infinite number of cheap rental units is both irrelevent and useless.
You have to ask and answer the question: How did this person become homeless in the first place? That’s the root cause. The next question then is: What needs to be done? That’s the search for a solution. Confusing the two is neither helpful nor honest.
I know a mentally ill woman who comes from a very well-off family. She routinely experiences homelessness not because of a lack of housing – her family could afford to pay cash to buy her a $500K home without missing a beat – but because of her mental health issues.
And she’s in the minority among homeless people. Are you really that fucking stupid, Crackpiper. You’re wrong about this. Please figure out some way to deal with it.