State Of Emergency In Los Angeles As 60,000 Made Homeless

State Of Emergency In Los Angeles As 60,000 Made Homeless

Posted on October 5, 2015 by Sean Adl-Tabatabai in News, US


It looks like Eric Garcetti, the Mayor of L.A. is, at long last, making good on his promises to help the homeless.



On Tuesday 22nd September 2015 Los Angeles declared a state of emergency on homelessness.

Neonnettle.com reports:

Last year Mayor Garcetti declared that he aimed to end homelessness amongst military veterans, however, it is only now that the city has begun to address the situation properly. Finally the homeless will be receiving care and support through a comprehensive program instated, whereby a budget of $100 million dollars annually is allocated for aid.

This pledge is truthfully a long overdue acknowledgement of an obvious problem, one that the city of Los Angeles needed to put greater support towards, for many years already.

Health & Safety at Risk

Homelessness in the metropolis is at horrific levels, with somewhat 25,686 disadvantaged souls scattered about L.A, according to statistics. The city is suffering from all angles, with Crime levels rising and health crisis outbreaks. Unsanitary living conditions throughout the city give rise to immune system deficiency and results in many Health hazards.

The homelessness crisis is placing the lives of many at risk, with areas such as Skid Row being so atrocious that even a unique strain of tuberculosis was born there! Complications such as these make not just the living conditions of others a concern, but one has to worry over the spread of disease to other areas of the city and surrounding areas, in turn affecting the community as a whole.

This was a repercussion of homelessness experienced on a first-hand level by Rev. Andy Bales. Rev. Bales, as reported by Richard Winton of the LA Times, lost his legs and almost his life as the result of an infected blister, which festered and spread thanks to bacteria encountered during his work helping the homeless in Skid Row. This is just one case, one victim who is not even forced to be in such conditions. There are many, constant sufferers living in this cesspit of poverty.


Read the full article here:
http://yournewswire.com/state-of-emergency-in-los-angeles-as-60000-made-homeless/

bloody immigrants taking honest american houses

Shurrup Smelly....or we will end up getting em here....

didge will start a campaign to invite all them american homeless to come and camp in your (not his of course) back garden.....

eddie wrote:State Of Emergency In Los Angeles As 60,000 Made Homeless

Posted on October 5, 2015 by Sean Adl-Tabatabai in News, US


It looks like Eric Garcetti, the Mayor of L.A. is, at long last, making good on his promises to help the homeless.



On Tuesday 22nd September 2015 Los Angeles declared a state of emergency on homelessness.

Neonnettle.com reports:

Last year Mayor Garcetti declared that he aimed to end homelessness amongst military veterans, however, it is only now that the city has begun to address the situation properly. Finally the homeless will be receiving care and support through a comprehensive program instated, whereby a budget of $100 million dollars annually is allocated for aid.

This pledge is truthfully a long overdue acknowledgement of an obvious problem, one that the city of Los Angeles needed to put greater support towards, for many years already.

Health & Safety at Risk

Homelessness in the metropolis is at horrific levels, with somewhat 25,686 disadvantaged souls scattered about L.A, according to statistics. The city is suffering from all angles, with Crime levels rising and health crisis outbreaks. Unsanitary living conditions throughout the city give rise to immune system deficiency and results in many Health hazards.

The homelessness crisis is placing the lives of many at risk, with areas such as Skid Row being so atrocious that even a unique strain of tuberculosis was born there! Complications such as these make not just the living conditions of others a concern, but one has to worry over the spread of disease to other areas of the city and surrounding areas, in turn affecting the community as a whole.

This was a repercussion of homelessness experienced on a first-hand level by Rev. Andy Bales. Rev. Bales, as reported by Richard Winton of the LA Times, lost his legs and almost his life as the result of an infected blister, which festered and spread thanks to bacteria encountered during his work helping the homeless in Skid Row. This is just one case, one victim who is not even forced to be in such conditions. There are many, constant sufferers living in this cesspit of poverty.


Read the full article here:
http://yournewswire.com/state-of-emergency-in-los-angeles-as-60000-made-homeless/

You're a Conservative. You don't care about the homeless.

Move on.

victorismyhero wrote:Shurrup Smelly....or we will end up getting em here....

didge will start a campaign to invite all them american homeless to come and camp in your (not his of course) back garden.....

Rather have homeless yank vets over here than child raping Muslim Savages

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:State Of Emergency In Los Angeles As 60,000 Made Homeless

Posted on October 5, 2015 by Sean Adl-Tabatabai in News, US


It looks like Eric Garcetti, the Mayor of L.A. is, at long last, making good on his promises to help the homeless.



On Tuesday 22nd September 2015 Los Angeles declared a state of emergency on homelessness.

Neonnettle.com reports:

Last year Mayor Garcetti declared that he aimed to end homelessness amongst military veterans, however, it is only now that the city has begun to address the situation properly. Finally the homeless will be receiving care and support through a comprehensive program instated, whereby a budget of $100 million dollars annually is allocated for aid.

This pledge is truthfully a long overdue acknowledgement of an obvious problem, one that the city of Los Angeles needed to put greater support towards, for many years already.

Health & Safety at Risk

Homelessness in the metropolis is at horrific levels, with somewhat 25,686 disadvantaged souls scattered about L.A, according to statistics. The city is suffering from all angles, with Crime levels rising and health crisis outbreaks. Unsanitary living conditions throughout the city give rise to immune system deficiency and results in many Health hazards.

The homelessness crisis is placing the lives of many at risk, with areas such as Skid Row being so atrocious that even a unique strain of tuberculosis was born there! Complications such as these make not just the living conditions of others a concern, but one has to worry over the spread of disease to other areas of the city and surrounding areas, in turn affecting the community as a whole.

This was a repercussion of homelessness experienced on a first-hand level by Rev. Andy Bales. Rev. Bales, as reported by Richard Winton of the LA Times, lost his legs and almost his life as the result of an infected blister, which festered and spread thanks to bacteria encountered during his work helping the homeless in Skid Row. This is just one case, one victim who is not even forced to be in such conditions. There are many, constant sufferers living in this cesspit of poverty.


Read the full article here:
http://yournewswire.com/state-of-emergency-in-los-angeles-as-60000-made-homeless/

You're a Conservative.  You don't care about the homeless.

Move on.

So are you. Deep down....we all know that. You send off money to absolve your guilt but sit on your fat arse and do fuck all else.
A racist conservative and my dad is bigger and more negro, than your dad.

Ps voted liberals last time. I liked Nick Clegg  

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You're a Conservative.  You don't care about the homeless.

Move on.

So are you. Deep down....we all know that. You send off money to absolve your guilt but sit on your fat arse and do fuck all else.
A racist conservative and my dad is bigger and more negro, than your dad.  

Ps voted liberals last time. I liked Nick Clegg  

treacherous dog!!!

Voting for clegg are you mental

eddie wrote:So are you. Deep down....we all know that. You send off money to absolve your guilt but sit on your fat arse and do fuck all else.
A racist conservative and my dad is bigger and more negro, than your dad. Razz

Ps voted liberals last time. I liked Nick Clegg

Clegg, Cameron...they all blend together. It's hard to tell with Britain after Blair cuddled up on the lap of GWB.

And NEGRO?? Get the PC police.

Nobody gets my money...and I'm not going to pay for another fookin' fool war where we don't know who the enemy is, and forgot what we are after.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:So are you. Deep down....we all know that. You send off money to absolve your guilt but sit on your fat arse and do fuck all else.
A racist conservative and my dad is bigger and more negro, than your dad.  Razz

Ps voted liberals last time. I liked Nick Clegg  

Clegg, Cameron...they all blend together.  It's hard to tell with Britain after Blair cuddled up on the lap of GWB.

And NEGRO??  Get the PC police.  

Nobody gets my money...and I'm not going to pay for another fookin' fool war where we don't know who the enemy is, and forgot what we are after.

Tbh I think Clegg had some good policies and he sure kept Cameron on a leash
I prefer coalition governments - it brings more balance.

Actually I agree with you on the war thing: I don't think it solves anything but I sure as shit don't know what else to suggest sometimes

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Clegg, Cameron...they all blend together.  It's hard to tell with Britain after Blair cuddled up on the lap of GWB.

And NEGRO??  Get the PC police.  

Nobody gets my money...and I'm not going to pay for another fookin' fool war where we don't know who the enemy is, and forgot what we are after.

Tbh I think Clegg had some good policies and he sure kept Cameron on a leash
I prefer coalition governments - it brings more balance.

Actually I agree with you on the war thing: I don't think it solves anything but I sure as shit don't know what else to suggest sometimes

I know.  You are half-right, I have conservative instincts.  Sometimes I want to go in directly and fix things.

But I'm beyond the impetuous stage in life.  And after that huge fookin' faux lie that Republicans told to get into the second Iraq war, no one gets my vote without strong argument.

Republicans are all dick--"I said it had a head; I never said it had a brain."  They approach the more delicate parts of life like a dog approaches a female...sniff, mount and push.

Quill, I have an idea that you don't like Republicans, am I right?

What was the 'faux lie' then? I'm listening.

nicko wrote:Quill, I have an idea that you don't like Republicans,  am I right?

Yep. They lie. And the reason they lie is they don't want the truth out.

While Democrats represent the general interests, Republicans represent special interests. Republicans represent the ones that want privilege and access to money. But there's a huge flaw in accumulating wealth in the hands of the few: as the number of millionaires dwindle, so do the numbers of votes.

In order to expand their vote basis, Republicans have to trick people into voting for them. They have to distract people: Look over there, don't look over here! They have to raise faux issues like Whitewater, Benghazi or Emails. They have to generate excitement by starting wars by lying...still haven't found dem WMDs in Iraq kids.

In the meantime, they spend all their own passion hating people. Don't want them to have equality. Don't want them to have the vote. Don't want them to have healthcare. Don't want them to have food. Don't want them to have education. Don't want them even to have highways, bridges or dams...just what makes money.

You can always tell a conservative because they have no answers. Democrats work simply and plainly to fix whatever is wrong; Republicans spend all their efforts unfixing and trashing things: no Obamacare, no immigration, no health, education or welfare and nothing to replace them with. Republicans and government are a contradiction in terms...there's nothing for them to do, unless they want to dismantle something. Hence, the gridlock we have in Congress as we speak. They can't get anything done; they won't get anything done; they exist merely for obstruction.

Besides, they have a horrible body odor.

nicko wrote:Quill, I have an idea that you don't like Republicans,  am I right?

I had to look and see what was said: the lie was that of the GWB Administration, to the effect that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons.

That was the original excuse for starting a war in Iraq in 2003. When they got in there, they found there was nothing...and the Bush people had made it all up merely to start the war.

This is typically what conservatives do, in order to distract people from the fact that they are picking their pockets. It's a broad, institutional game: how the 1% end up owning 99% of everything.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:Quill, I have an idea that you don't like Republicans,  am I right?

Yep.  They lie.  And the reason they lie is they don't want the truth out.

While Democrats represent the general interests, Republicans represent special interests.  Republicans represent the ones that want privilege and access to money.  But there's a huge flaw in accumulating wealth in the hands of the few: as the number of millionaires dwindle, so do the numbers of votes.

In order to expand their vote basis, Republicans have to trick people into voting for them.  They have to distract people: Look over there, don't look over here!  They have to raise faux issues like Whitewater, Benghazi or Emails.  They have to generate excitement by starting wars by lying...still haven't found dem WMDs in Iraq kids.  

In the meantime, they spend all their own passion hating people.  Don't want them to have equality.  Don't want them to have the vote.  Don't want them to have healthcare.  Don't want them to have food.  Don't want them to have education.  Don't want them even to have highways, bridges or dams...just what makes money.

You can always tell a conservative because they have no answers.  Democrats work simply and plainly to fix whatever is wrong; Republicans spend all their efforts unfixing and trashing things: no Obamacare, no immigration, no health, education or welfare and nothing to replace them with.  Republicans and government are a contradiction in terms...there's nothing for them to do, unless they want to dismantle something.  Hence, the gridlock we have in Congress as we speak.  They can't get anything done; they won't get anything done; they exist merely for obstruction.

Besides, they have a horrible body odor.

that'll be didge then to a "T"

victorismyhero wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yep.  They lie.  And the reason they lie is they don't want the truth out.

While Democrats represent the general interests, Republicans represent special interests.  Republicans represent the ones that want privilege and access to money.  But there's a huge flaw in accumulating wealth in the hands of the few: as the number of millionaires dwindle, so do the numbers of votes.

In order to expand their vote basis, Republicans have to trick people into voting for them.  They have to distract people: Look over there, don't look over here!  They have to raise faux issues like Whitewater, Benghazi or Emails.  They have to generate excitement by starting wars by lying...still haven't found dem WMDs in Iraq kids.  

In the meantime, they spend all their own passion hating people.  Don't want them to have equality.  Don't want them to have the vote.  Don't want them to have healthcare.  Don't want them to have food.  Don't want them to have education.  Don't want them even to have highways, bridges or dams...just what makes money.

You can always tell a conservative because they have no answers.  Democrats work simply and plainly to fix whatever is wrong; Republicans spend all their efforts unfixing and trashing things: no Obamacare, no immigration, no health, education or welfare and nothing to replace them with.  Republicans and government are a contradiction in terms...there's nothing for them to do, unless they want to dismantle something.  Hence, the gridlock we have in Congress as we speak.  They can't get anything done; they won't get anything done; they exist merely for obstruction.

Besides, they have a horrible body odor.

that'll be didge then to a "T"

Not in my book.  Didge pays attention, and as a result, he's doing fine on policy.  What you don't like about didge is the times when he gets personal.  If you didn't play little digs like this  you could ride right by the personal stuff and have a fine conversation with him.

Now, back to the point: the reason why conservatives have no answers is because (1) they are selfish, and it's not their problem; and (2) they don't think.  The first reason is their ideological bent, and the second is just a lack of practice...because their ideology is like a religion, god will take care of all.  They just have to keep reading the bible, which in this case is Adam Smith's, Wealth of Nations.

Thus, they engage in little rituals (akin to communion and prayer) which amount to jingles and reaffirmations--of what?  Their religion, of course.  So you can't discuss with conservatives...they only engage in religious-like reaffirmations of Smithsonian ideology.

For example:

You: “Damn, that auto accident left me with no legs and a heap of medical bills.

Conservative: “If you had worked hard and saved your money, like I told you, you wouldn’t be in this situation.  You reap what you sow.  Money doesn't grow on trees.  You can't suck blood from a turnip.”

Do you think for a moment the conservative has engaged his brain?  Of course not...he's parroting back what he has read about in capitalist ideology.  Conservatives don't care about real-life circumstances; they have a litany of maxims and metaphors (jingos) which they repeat back, like a priest mouthing his prayers.  Why do you think they have no real answers in politics?

Because the conservative ideology does all the thinking for them, they fall out of practice using their brain.  Look at the conservatives on this site: they only mouth half-thoughts and bowel urges.  They're worth two short posts at best, and never long ones.

This isn't to say that a conservative can't think; but they frown on it.  They think intellectualism is sissy and non-macho...never realizing they are throwing out the baby with the bath: Brains are your Brawn.  

If you ever want to try on a conservative thinker, read something from Friedrich von Hayek, who "shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (with Gunnar Myrdal) for his 'pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and … penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena.'"  But, alas, most conservatives have neither the patience nor the interest in something that deep.  Their eyes glaze over at the title.

Here's a head start: Read "Why I am Not a Conservative," by F.A. Hayak, which explains most of the problems/frustrations with conservatism, of which he really is one.  It's only ten pages.  http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

Despite what you think, I'm neither left or right (I don't like extremes particularly) but I will weight that scale on the other side:

You: “Damn, that auto accident left me with no legs and a heap of medical bills.

Leftie : “You've worked hard and saved all your money but I'm sorry, we have to help other people who've just arrived, as well as you, and you'll have to go to the back of the queue....we haven't got enough to go round because we took on too many....youre upset??.....What, are you racist???!!!."

Middle ground:

You: “Damn, that auto accident left me with no legs and a heap of medical bills"

Middle centre Man: "okay I understand, you've worked hard and saved some money, we can help you with the rest, you're in a queue behind this one little boy who's just arrived from Syria  and seriously ill, then you're next....I know it's frustrating but we have to help others who are needy but we haven't forgotten you, obviously, we have enough to go round as we didn't take on too many and yet we still managed to help everyone....you're cool with that? Course you are, we haven't ever forgotten you, have we?"

Quill doing his one size pigeon holing again I see

eddie wrote:Despite what you think, I'm neither left or right (I don't like extremes particularly) but I will weight that scale on the other side:

You: “Damn, that auto accident left me with no legs and a heap of medical bills.

Leftie : “You've worked hard and saved all your money but I'm sorry, we have to help other people who've just arrived, as well as you, and you'll have to go to the back of the queue....we haven't got enough to go round because we took on too many....youre upset??.....What, are you racist???!!!."

It's easy to change the facts. That's called ignoring the question.

smelly-bandit wrote:Quill doing his one size pigeon holing again I see

Anything to contribute? Or is the brain tired again today?

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Despite what you think, I'm neither left or right (I don't like extremes particularly) but I will weight that scale on the other side:

You: “Damn, that auto accident left me with no legs and a heap of medical bills.

Leftie : “You've worked hard and saved all your money but I'm sorry, we have to help other people who've just arrived, as well as you, and you'll have to go to the back of the queue....we haven't got enough to go round because we took on too many....youre upset??.....What, are you racist???!!!."

It's easy to change the facts.  That's called ignoring the question.

trouble is the lefties think "their ""facts"" are the only truth...
they think they have a monopoly upon "facts"

whereas the reality is they are as bent and corrupt as the right.....

eddies summation is spot on....

as for my dig at didge...well its true.. it is a "fact"

he has lots of "ideas" and "ideals" and a view of how the world should look according to didge....

but not the slightes idea of how anyof it would work beyond "everyone should be together and "get along"....

well I got news...the world has never and never will......"get along"
untill perhaps some external existential threat forces us to....

victorismyhero wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's easy to change the facts.  That's called ignoring the question.

trouble is the lefties think "their ""facts"" are the only truth...
they think they have a monopoly upon "facts"

whereas the reality is they are as bent and corrupt as the right.....

eddies summation is spot on....

as for my dig at didge...well its true.. it is a "fact"

he has lots of "ideas" and "ideals" and a view of how the world should look according to didge....

but not the slightes idea of how anyof it would work beyond "everyone should be together and "get along"....

well I got news...the world has never and never will......"get along"
untill perhaps some external existential threat forces us to....

Vic, it was a hypothetical. The facts are what you want it to be. Fer crissake, you're smarter than that aren't you?

When you change the facts on a hypothetical, you are simply saying you don't want to answer the question...and you'd rather change the subject. Lefties indeed.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Despite what you think, I'm neither left or right (I don't like extremes particularly) but I will weight that scale on the other side:

You: “Damn, that auto accident left me with no legs and a heap of medical bills.

Leftie : “You've worked hard and saved all your money but I'm sorry, we have to help other people who've just arrived, as well as you, and you'll have to go to the back of the queue....we haven't got enough to go round because we took on too many....youre upset??.....What, are you racist???!!!."

It's easy to change the facts.  That's called ignoring the question.

This is a reply to your example, I wasn't aware there was a question?

You gave an example of how you see the extreme right and I gave one of the extreme left.
And also of Mr Middle Man.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's easy to change the facts.  That's called ignoring the question.

This is a reply to your example, I wasn't aware there was a question?

There's always a question when there's an issue.

eddie wrote:You gave an example of how you see the extreme right and I gave one of the extreme left.
And also of Mr Middle Man.

Like I said, you changed the subject. It's all right; it just terminates the prior subject. I had made my point and was tripping up tommy down in "World Politics". So I was gone anyway.

Ok yes always a question where there's an issue yes, I take that as logically right, but I found that part of your post was the part I wanted to counter.

Subject shmubject

Okay, I'm back.  Just watched Tennessee go up a TD on Georgia.  Lurker must be thrilled.  I am too.

eddie wrote:Despite what you think, I'm neither left or right (I don't like extremes particularly) but I will weight that scale on the other side:

You: “Damn, that auto accident left me with no legs and a heap of medical bills.

Leftie : “You've worked hard and saved all your money but I'm sorry, we have to help other people who've just arrived, as well as you, and you'll have to go to the back of the queue....we haven't got enough to go round because we took on too many....youre upset??.....What, are you racist???!!!."

And the next:

eddie wrote:Middle ground:

You: “Damn, that auto accident left me with no legs and a heap of medical bills"

Middle centre Man: "okay I understand, you've worked hard and saved some money, we can help you with the rest, you're in a queue behind this one little boy who's just arrived from Syria  and seriously ill, then you're next....I know it's frustrating but we have to help others who are needy but we haven't forgotten you, obviously, we have enough to go round as we didn't take on too many and yet we still managed to help everyone....you're cool with that? Course you are, we haven't ever forgotten you, have we?"

Do you notice that your response is still in the category of no answer?  Conservatives!!  It's always no answer.  Basically, you are saying No, but changing the reason.  You are pleading 'lack of resources'.  Version two is just a milder response.

Ok.  Have you ever been in a war and pleaded 'lack of resources'?  No, and do you know why?  Because you don't want to let the war go and lose.  You find the resources.  If you want it, you can find it.  It's not impossible, it's just about priorities.  We in the US went $17-trillion in debt because the Bush/Cheney cabal wanted a war in Iraq.  But do you think they could afford socialized medicine, even at a much smaller price?  Their response: Hell no...fuck 'em...let 'em die.

But conservatives think nothing of saying 'No' to their fellow human being in need.  See, this is exactly what I mean when I say conservatives are selfish.  When it's 'pay your share' time, it's No.  But when it's 'gimme' time, all the hands are out.

In the counter ideology--that of community--both giving and taking are equally pleasant.

Quill you've twisted what I've meant and my meanings actually.

And for your information, the answer is nearly always "no...but" over here.

But you don't live here so you wouldn't know.
I go by my many many experiences.

I don't hate or despair of my country, I don't see negatives everywhere I go - I'm actually a massive optimist - but I do see reality.

And we both know, you see reality when you live it.

eddie wrote:Quill you've twisted what I've meant and my meanings actually.

And for your information, the answer is nearly always "no...but" over here.

I knew what you meant.  I was just adding an additional piece of Intel.  "No...but" is a statement of priority.  Consider social programs and policies as a train...it's always a question of which boxcar gets to be in the front, and get to the station sooner.  By juxtaposing war in the hypothetical, I am pointing out that your argument is not one of absolutes, but of priorities.

So we are back to square one.  Conservatives could have answers, but the don't.  They don't really say 'No'; rather, they simply don't answer the question.  They leave it in 'neverland'.  And saying, 'Yes, but I've got to do this first...' is just another way of leaving it in neverland.

There are real problems in our politics and society.  We have discrimination.  We have economic inequity.  We have unemployment.  We have refugees and immigration.  Many problems.  All of these problems constitute fraying at the edges of the fabric of our society.  You can't ignore them because at some point the fraying at the edges becomes the unraveling at the center...of the whole thing.

Liberals are problem solvers.  Conservatives are nay-sayers.  Conservatives are like heavy elephants that sit at the center of the cloth and say 'don't disturb me...I'm fat and I'm happy'.  They don't want to face problems.  In fact, they sculpt a philosophy of minimal government because everything is just fine in their world.  Because they are fat and happy, they don't want to change...nay, they don't even want to address the problems.  So they leave it in neverland.

But history teaches us that the unraveling happens, and it happens most because of the weight of the elephant.  Liberals are out fixing the problems, while conservatives are Nero, fiddling and eating grapes while Rome burns.  Oh yes, and they like their wars; that's why Nero liked the coliseum...more entertainment.  More grapes, please.

eddie wrote:But you don't live here so you wouldn't know.
I go by my many many experiences.

I don't hate or despair of my country, I don't see negatives everywhere I go - I'm actually a massive optimist - but I do see reality.

And we both know, you see reality when you live it.

It's a human issue, not a parochial one.  And it's not a negative thing; it's a challenge.  We all go by our experiences.  It's just that some of us take a longer-range view of our experiences.  It's not just a matter of living it; it's a matter of what you pay attention to while living it.

Over her in the UK, a liberal is the middle party.
That's what I consider myself.

Do call yourself a liberal? Over here you'd be classed as far left.

eddie wrote:Over her in the UK, a liberal is the middle party.
That's what I consider myself.

Do call yourself a liberal? Over here you'd be classed as far left.

It's a language difference. Over here they are not really party names. A liberal is a LWer and a conservative is a RWer. The parties are Democrat and Republican.

I guess when the press wants to identify a sympathy, as opposed to a party, they will us the term 'progressive'.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Over her in the UK, a liberal is the middle party.
That's what I consider myself.

Do call yourself a liberal? Over here you'd be classed as far left.

It's a language difference.  Over here they are not really party names.  A liberal is a LWer and a conservative is a RWer.  The parties are Democrat and Republican.

I guess when the press wants to identify a sympathy, as opposed to a party, they will us the term 'progressive'.

Ah ok. Well as you know we have a liberal party over here, they're like the middle man - I voted for them.
I am neither extreme Left or Right.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Over her in the UK, a liberal is the middle party.
That's what I consider myself.

Do call yourself a liberal? Over here you'd be classed as far left.

It's a language difference.  Over here they are not really party names.  A liberal is a LWer and a conservative is a RWer.  The parties are Democrat and Republican.

I guess when the press wants to identify a sympathy, as opposed to a party, they will us the term 'progressive'.

Or they successfully reduced it to 2 parties to control the system.

one only has to look at the way US lobbists Always try and Force 2 party policitc on every nation they deal with to see it is part of the US imperialist plan for dominating and destroying democracy in other western nations

US system is Simplified democracy to the point of ineffectiveness. it is the worst example of democracy in the English speaking world it is an obvious front for the 'legalized bribery' that US Lobbyists are famous for.

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's a language difference.  Over here they are not really party names.  A liberal is a LWer and a conservative is a RWer.  The parties are Democrat and Republican.

I guess when the press wants to identify a sympathy, as opposed to a party, they will us the term 'progressive'.

Or they successfully reduced it to 2 parties to control the system.

one only has to look at the way US lobbists Always try and Force 2 party policitc on every nation they deal with to see it is part of the US imperialist plan for dominating and destroying democracy in other western nations

US system is Simplified democracy to the point of ineffectiveness. it is the worst example of democracy in the English speaking world it is an obvious front for the 'legalized bribery' that US Lobbyists are famous for.

There's a lot of truth to that.  Watch closely the Republican Party and what is happening to it nowadays.  Because it is in the minority, and doesn't really have a popular base, it is undergoing extreme antics to survive.  

Originally, they gerrymandered in the extreme, which has had the effect of giving a minority a relatively stronger voice.  The effect of this is to freeze politics.  Now, in Congress they are all slaves to this minority because, due to the power of gerrymandering, every member can be kicked out--they call it being 'primaried' because the way to do it is to run a more conservative person against you in the primary. And they keep getting more and more conservative types, until they have had to reach in and get conspiracy theorists and UFO seekers...who are getting applause, FGS.

Look at them: no Republican wants the position of Speaker of the House, even tho it's the 2nd highest office in the nation.  They can't pass any legislation because they can't muster a majority.  Congress is completely jammed.  Look at the people they are running for the presidential office...they can't get the serious contenders because the responsible ones feel it is a career-ender to enter the race.  Donald Trump is the front-runner, FGS!

@quill

true i think US politics is becoming a poisoned chalice, no one leaves intact anymore.

veya_victaous wrote:

@quill

true i think US politics is becoming a poisoned chalice, no one leaves intact anymore.

It's not politics, veya. It's Republicans. Look around you...have you ever seen such craziness?

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

@quill

true i think US politics is becoming a poisoned chalice, no one leaves intact anymore.

It's not politics, veya.  It's Republicans.  Look around you...have you ever seen such craziness?  

wow!!!!

@Quill
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php

Even Obama is no where near as popular as when he started.
the system is bad because it is corrupted, whoever is the face is going to only have bad light on them now because ultimately both side continue to try and widen the gap between the rich and poor, continue to pour money into the pockets of the already wealthy because that is what will produce the most personal gain for themselves. No one gets into politics(or gets anywhere) anymore expect for personal gain. An honest candidate cannot compete against the 2 big parties electioneering machine so the 2 big parties are free to continue their corruption unconcerned, at this point they have passed laws to make their corruption legal anyway.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION

SKYNET
faster, better and cheaper than waste of space that currently occupies parliaments across the western world

veya_victaous wrote:@Quill
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php

Even Obama is no where near as popular as when he started.

Not even with me.  His position on the TPP is inexplicable.

veya_victaous wrote:the system is bad because it is corrupted, whoever is the face is going to only have bad light on them now because ultimately both side continue to try and widen the gap between the rich and poor, continue to pour money into the pockets of the already wealthy because that is what will produce the most personal gain for themselves.

That is pure ignorance.  The Republicans represent special interests.  The Democrats only try to serve the public interest.  CRISSAKE, THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE!!  The Republicans openly state in their doctrine that they represent money, and are adverse to the interests of the poor and the middle class.  

The only reason Republicans don't have everyone voting against them is because they produce these Carnival side shows like the Iraq War, abortion and the war on women, Immigration, White Water, Benghazi, Obama is a Muslim, Emails...and they try to rig elections.  Why do you think they suppress elections?  Duh...

veya_victaous wrote:No one gets into politics(or gets anywhere) anymore expect for personal gain. An honest candidate cannot compete against the 2 big parties electioneering machine so the 2 big parties are free to continue their corruption unconcerned, at this point they have passed laws to make their corruption legal anyway.

Total bullshit.  Let me ask you...what good is living if life is so bad?

veya_victaous wrote:VIVA LA REVOLUTION

SKYNET
faster, better and cheaper than waste of space that currently occupies parliaments across the western world

Cheers.

LOL 
quill you are sound Like a reverse fox news supporter

Both sides suck
Both Represent Special interests
NEITHER care about he poor or society as a whole

That is Western Politics since the Roman Republic, nothing has changed in the USA.  still Progressives and Conservatives Or 'the Populous' and 'the Boni'... One plays to the Plebeians the other to the Patricians but the tunes remain the same.

and who said life is bad? Life is what it is...  man is just an animal.

veya_victaous wrote:LOL 
quill you are sound Like a reverse fox news supporter

Both sides suck
Both Represent Special interests
NEITHER care about he poor or society as a whole

That is Western Politics since the Roman Republic, nothing has changed in the USA.  still Progressives and Conservatives Or 'the Populous' and 'the Boni'... One plays to the Plebeians the other to the Patricians but the tunes remain the same.

and who said life is bad? Life is what it is...  man is just an animal.

You are just a hackneyed middle-of-the-roader, frightened to offend either side.  That's where all this bilateralism came from, you know.  It is the media pundits' way of not offending.

But the truth is that no one has ever brought forward an ounce of evidence to say that anything--let alone everything--is done equally by both sides.  In fact, I would be amazed if anyone ever proved that the world came in measured, equal pieces like that.

People don't come in bllateral measures.  Some people are law-abiding and some people are criminals; if everyone were both, we wouldn't have enough prisons.  Certainly, some people are LW and some are RW.  Some are left-handed and some are right-handed.  Some people are dog lovers and some are cat lovers.  Some people are meat eaters, some vegetarians.  Nowhere in the world do we find the world divided in measured, equal pieces.  No one even does the testing, fcs.

Except when pundits are talking politics.  Without any evidence whatsoever--it's an empirical question, after all--pundits lazily claim that politics comes in measured, equal pieces.   They all do it...they claim.  No politician is in it for the people, and, they are all thieves.  It could easily be tested....court records, survey research, legislative and judicial censors...it could easily be tested to find out if there is precise equality of the proposition, or not.  But the proposition is more popular that Peter Rabbit.

It's a religious thing, I believe.

the TPP
Done all the proof anyone with open Eyes needs Pushed through by both sides while we all watch the show in the middle east

Easy done Quill
Really
 Honesty Did you think you poses a challenge at all when you said prove the LW is just a guilty as the RW when it comes to ensuring the control of the ultra-rich

And Courts? WTF are you smoking? Lawyers are even more dishonest the whole Legal system is set up to oppress the common man.. Proof the fact they use jargon for no reason the fact they force law degrees which are beyond the economic reach of the average income. the whole thing is a scam systematically set up over centuries to protect special interests.

And QUILL Do you support Obamacare? if so YOU ARE RIGHT WING!!! that is a  RIGHT WING POLICY.  ALL Left Wing health care policies are based on State ownership as is the ideals of Socialism. Any policy suggesting private heath cover is by definition Right Wing. the US is Far Right wing or Ultra Right wing in every policy it actually implements.