 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Gomer Pyle
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 04:08 pm |
|
In mid December 2007, I heard that a Burlar broke into the Union Rescue Mission, crack the safe and stolen 10s of thousand of dollars.
These Beggars were able to acquire 10s of thousand of dollars and stash it inside the safe. And who knows how much more money they have stash somewhere else we don't even know about.
I then remember that in mid November 2007 one of these Missions had these Beggars march through downtown LA and were able to get sponsor and raise $500,000 in one day.
And a few years back, the news it said that the officers of the March of dime was making $500,000 or more a years. There is more to this begging business than meet the eyes.
For 10s of thousand of dollars I think I can put on some stinky, smelly clothes and lie, B/S and fabricate sobbing stories to get these suckers to dish out some dough.
Maybe even create my own Beggar Clan and call it some kind of Beggar Mission. And if people don't pay to my Beggar Mission, I will slander them until they pay protection money. Or I can get a gang of Beggar from my Beggar clan and congregate around their business so it is hard for them to do business. Then they will pay me protection money.
I did a search on Google about "cyber begging" and find out that there is a website that shows you how to create your own begging websites. So now I have my own begging website on cyber space. But I can not disclose the name of my website. So next time you are giving to some new Beggar Mission or so call worthy cause, you can be a sucker giving to me. And I don't even have to put on some stinky, smelly clothes to sucker people to give me money.
Begging is good business.
|
Radical Maverick
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 07:03 pm |
|
| wow, so the world is actually a Utopia without any problems and the charity industry is actually a hoax concocted by the liberal media! we are in fact justified in grouping an entire class of people together under the same goggles, and the actions of a percentage of that class justifies us doing so! This is incredible.wow.
|
Gomer Pyle
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jan 3rd, 2008 09:49 pm |
|
Homeless Advocates Must Face Facts
by C.J. Carnacchio
Back in the 1980s, homeless advocates were often fond of telling their media lapdogs that there was anywhere from two to three million homeless in the United States. But, both the Urban Institute and the U.S. Census Bureau estimate the number of homeless to be in the neighborhood of 300,000 to 600,000. Despite this hard evidence, many American still believe that there are millions of homeless and consequently there is a "homeless crisis" in the U.S.
Liberals and homeless advocates have succeeded in manufacturing this so-called crisis not only by exaggerating numbers but also by distorting the truth about the roots of homelessness. The media has served as an all too willing accomplice in the advocate’s Machiavellian charade. In his book Rude Awakenings, Richard W. White Jr. points out that "homelessness became a crisis to most Americans after the media introduced the term and labeled it a crisis. Before then it was not a crisis or even a problem." Reporters never questioned the statistic or the claims of the homeless advocacy's propaganda.
Both advocates and the media portray the homeless as simply ordinary Americans down on their luck; victims of cruel economic forces and a housing crisis. They delight in telling us that we are all just one paycheck away from living on the streets. But the pure down-on-my-luck group is relatively small; about 15 percent. They are highly visible in media stories about the homeless because advocates learned long ago that this group elicits the most support for their cause.
Ignored is the prominence of substance abuse, criminal behavior, and mental illness which highlights the majority of the homeless. Advocates and the media neglect to tell us that seven out of ten homeless have been institutionalized at one time or another; this includes mental hospitals, detoxification centers, and prison.
Advocates and the media always argue that it is external forces, not individual choices that lead to homelessness. Personal responsibility is never an issue. They place the blame on face-less corporations, evil Republicans, and a selfish society.
Consequently, many homeless have become more offensive and even violent in their behavior as they have come to believe that everyone who passes them owes them something. They used to believe that their plight was their own fault but as White observes, "Now, because of what they [homeless] hear in protest songs, read in newspapers, see on television, hear from advocates, or learn from the social system, they think that their condition is someone else's fault. Some act as if they are morally superior to people who work and raise a family." But, the fact is, that in the majority of cases, the homeless are either directly responsible for their plight or some individual-based problem is at work.
Advocates refuse to acknowledge that there is a certain percentage of homeless who CHOOSE to live that way. They are not willing to assume the responsibilities associated with maintaining a job and a permanent residence. They prefer the mythical "freedom" of the streets and turn down shelter even when its offered to them.
Next, current estimates indicate that roughly a third or more of the homeless are drug addicts or alcoholics. Homeless advocates argue that substance abuse is a result, not a cause, of homelessness. They reason that such substances are used by the homeless to escape the reality of their wretched lives thereby absolving them of any responsibility or blame.
But, as White points out, "In Los Angeles' inner city, Paul Koegel and M. Audrey Burnam found that nearly 80 percent of alcoholics in their sample of homeless adults 'reported that their first alcoholic symptom occurred before they were first homeless' and that in 57 percent of the cases this occurred at least five years before their first episode of homelessness."
Alcoholism and drug abuse are the result of individual choices such as a willingness to sacrifice career, family, and health in favor of getting high. Human beings are capable of both good and bad decisions, but no matter which road is taken, responsibility must always be assigned to the individual choice-maker.
Many homeless advocates have failed to see that their aid programs have in fact perpetuated substance abuse. As Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, a clinical and research psychiatrist, pointed out, "When one is addicted to alcohol or drugs, the highest priority is to save as much money as possible to feed that addiction. Present homeless policies, which in some cities have guaranteed free beds and food for everyone who asks, have probably exacerbated rather than relieved the problem of homeless substance abuse." These free services coupled with the homeless' panhandling incomes (and in some cases welfare benefits) allow them to fund their self-destructive habits and perpetuate a cycle of dependency.
The frequency of criminal behavior is another aspect of the homeless population advocates fail to mention. In his book Without Shelter: Homelessness in the 1980s, Peter H. Rossi found that 42 percent of the homeless, catalogued in 16 studies, spent some amount of time in jail or prison. Again, advocates argue that desperation forces the homeless into criminal activity. But a 1986 study conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 61 percent of homeless' jail time occurred before their homelessness and even "suggested that [unsuccessful] crime leads to homelessness."
Experts also estimate that another third of the homeless suffer from severe mental illness. While clearly this is not the result of bad individual choices, it is still a problem confined to the individual and not in anyway society's fault. But, advocates argue that it is the stress of homeless life that causes these mental problems. But, in the book Homelessness, Health, and Human Needs, the Institute of Medicine found that severe mental illnesses "are unlikely to result from the trauma of homelessness." In fact, few psychiatrists still subscribe to the notion that mental illnesses such as schizophrenia can happen to anyone given the right environmental conditions; no matter how stressful.
The mentally ill homeless should either be institutionalized, put into the care of family members or legal guardians, or forced, as a condition of being allowed into society, to take the necessary medications to control their illness. Many of the homeless could function in society if only they took their medication. But groups like the American Civil Liberties Union will not allow these measures because they would infringe upon the homeless' civil rights.
But, as psychiatrist/columnist Charles Krauthammer retorted, "For the severely mentally ill, however, liberty is not just an empty word but a cruel hoax. Free to do what? What does freedom mean for a paranoid schizophrenic who is ruled by voices commanded by his persecutors and rattling around in his head?" The ACLU is more interested in defending their right to sleep in parks and bus terminals than actually salvaging their lives. It is precisely this kind of feeble thinking that has led to the idiocy of the "homeless rights" movement.
People who pay taxes to support the streets and parks ought to be able to enjoy them in relative safety and comfort. But Supreme Court decisions such as Papachristu v. United States, which declared vagrancy laws unconstitutional, and a New York City judge's protection of panhandling as a form of free speech have taken away the ability to maintain order. Public places have been surrendered to people who take no responsibility for them or themselves. New York columnist John Leo observed the result: "Sandboxes become urinals. Swings are broken. Every park bench seems to be owned by a dozing schizophrenic. When the cycle is complete, the community withdraws, serious druggies and criminals move in."
Contrary to popular belief, it is not selfish to demand the unharassed use of public facilities. The exercise of individual liberties in public places is not unlimited. It is in fact contingent upon the maintenance of public order. Others must be free to enjoy the commons in peace. But, groups like the ACLU have shown little interest in relating rights to responsibilities.
As William Donohue stated in his book The New Freedom, "Push one person's rights too far and the result is the emasculation of someone else's rights. Elevate rights to a status of an absolute and the result is the destruction of other values." Rights must always be balanced by responsibilities; individual liberties with the commonwealth.
One last point that homeless advocates and the media fail to mention is that much of the homeless population is a testament to the failure of liberal government housing policies. These so-called reforms have destroyed the majority of the single-room-occupancy-hotels or "flophouses" the homeless used to live in.
While these places sometimes lacked bedding, heat, and water and were not very comfortable, they did provide a night's shelter for a very low cost. Sociologist Ernest van den Haag summed up the reforms' results: "Politicians, bureaucrats, and bleeding hearts waxed indigant about the deprivations people suffered in cheap lodgings which lacked amenities. Their solution? Get rid of these cheap lodgings. The former customers, unable to afford more expensive lodgings, now have to sleep on the streets. In effect the government decided that it was better for people to have no roof over their head than to live in places that do not have hot water."
All things considered, the Left has no real interest in an honest and frank discussion about the true roots of homelessness or the role of personal responsibility. Why should they? The homeless provide them with living political symbols of what they claim is the failure and injustice of capitalism coupled with the cruelty of the wealthy. They are paraded before the media as victims of evil Republican policies. Such images fuel feelings of guilt in many voters who consider themselves well off by comparison. This guilt translates into calls for increased State action, which in turn generates a larger electoral base for the Democrats and the further growth of the behemoth State. By all accounts it is to the Left's advantage that the homeless stay homeless. Compassion indeed.
Last edited on Sun Aug 24th, 2008 10:09 pm by
|
Radical Maverick
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 4th, 2008 12:25 am |
|
| yeah, try reading an article by an actual liberal and 'homelessness advocate' instead posting by someone who, you know, isnt one? I honestl hope you dont think you're informed for reading about other perspectives from someone who shares your perspective. that's hilarious. I dont support homelessness or the 'notion that it's 'all society's fault', so spare me that anti-PC crap.
|
d(-_-)b
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 4th, 2008 08:59 pm |
|
| gollleee shazam
|
Gomer Pyle
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 06:50 pm |
|
Radical Maverick wrote: yeah, try reading an article by an actual liberal and 'homelessness advocate' instead posting by someone who, you know, isnt one? I honestl hope you dont think you're informed for reading about other perspectives from someone who shares your perspective. that's hilarious. I dont support homelessness or the 'notion that it's 'all society's fault', so spare me that anti-PC crap.
The truth is the truth regardless if it is a conservative or liberal. I pick this article by a conservative because it best describes the truth about the Beggar Clan. But it only gives one perspective of these carreer beggars. It does mention about the beggars being criminals but does not gives too many details about their criminal activities. If you want more details, see my post call Beware of the Beggar Clan at http://www.perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=158714&forum_id=57 .
And the post "beware of the beggar clan" does not gives all the details I have as there are some I can not post for confidential reasons. And keep in mind that the first event on my post "beware of the beggar clan" happen 20 years ago. And the killing of the business men happen 12 years ago.
Many time in the news I have heard of these homeless being killed by police officers in the line of duty. I used to think "poor homeless persons" and was not on the side of the police officers. But now I understand why the police officers killed them. Because they are a bunch of dangerous carreer homeless criminals. Never again will I ever take the side of the homeless over a police officer.
Keep in mind I have nothing against the people who are down on their luck temporarily and will eventually get back on their feet. But it is these carreer homeless criminals that is describe in the conservative article above that I am talking about.
I have observed some of these carreer homeless criminals out there with their scams for 20 years. I think 20 years qualify as being a carreer.
Last edited on Sun Aug 24th, 2008 10:10 pm by
|
Radical Maverick
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 07:48 pm |
|
| and that qualiffies being murdered by police? some people cant get out, period.Im not saying scam artists dont exist, in fact I know what you're talking about from experience. what bothers me is your callous generalize about any and all perspectives and how you mesh them together to justify your opinions. it's easy to talk, assuming you've never been homeless. for some of them it's all they know, and if they have the potential to change, does that justify a cop freaking killing a person for being as they are?
|
Radical Maverick
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 07:49 pm |
|
d(-_-)b wrote: gollleee shazam
excellent contribution.
|
d(-_-)b
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 5th, 2008 10:59 pm |
|
Radical Maverick wrote: d(-_-)b wrote: gollleee shazam
excellent contribution.
i just don't waste my time arguing with idealogues.
|
Gomer Pyle
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jan 20th, 2008 08:53 pm |
|
Radical Maverick wrote: and that qualiffies being murdered by police? some people cant get out, period.Im not saying scam artists dont exist, in fact I know what you're talking about from experience. what bothers me is your callous generalize about any and all perspectives and how you mesh them together to justify your opinions. it's easy to talk, assuming you've never been homeless. for some of them it's all they know, and if they have the potential to change, does that justify a cop freaking killing a person for being as they are?
You are assuming that these bums are harmless. Go to this website about the bums and tell me they are harmless after you take a look at the website.
http://www.bumfightsdump.com/
You are sitting in your nice comfortable home in a nice neighborhood making your statement.
And if you read the article Homeless Advocates Must Face Facts you would know that only 15% of the homeless are legitimate homeless. The other 85% are criminals or insane people that should be in jail or a sanitarium that is running around out there.
A police officer or you could walk up on one of them and they could be on drugs or insane and imagine that the police officer or you did something terrible to them and want to kill you as revenge. Who knows what a persons on drug or insane could be imagining.
Anyway, take a look at the http://www.bumfightsdump.com/ website and then tell me that these homeless are harmless.
|
Radical Maverick
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jan 20th, 2008 09:41 pm |
|
I never said homeless people arent harmless. you talk about assuming, yet dont seem to mind telling me wheree or how I live; thanks for that! what drugs are you on that make you imagine these dog eat dog scenarios? (joking)
maybe you could describe the term 'homeless advocate'. if it means I support homelessness and what it to continue, then that's BS, you'd have to be a pretty sick polititician to want that. if it means homeless people deserve to be treated with respect, then why is that a bad thing?
how do you feel about jackass impersonators beating down on some guy taking a nap? are they part of your 15%?
|
Radical Maverick
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jan 20th, 2008 09:43 pm |
|
d(-_-)b wrote: Radical Maverick wrote: d(-_-)b wrote: gollleee shazam
excellent contribution.
i just don't waste my time arguing with idealogues.
but you dont mind posting jibberish?
|
Jrmrrm25
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jan 21st, 2008 08:09 pm |
|
HA HA HA lol I'm starting a website 
IM rich !!!!!!!
Last edited on Mon Jan 21st, 2008 08:12 pm by Jrmrrm25
|
Jrmrrm25
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jan 21st, 2008 08:16 pm |
|
| I agree with you 95% but I think the homeless should get a fricken job. I mean i saw one guy who said he was a cripple and it started to rain and he got up and ran so I'm not a real "homeless advocate"
|
Gomer Pyle
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 02:12 am |
|
Jrmrrm25 wrote: I agree with you 95% but I think the homeless should get a fricken job. I mean i saw one guy who said he was a cripple and it started to rain and he got up and ran so I'm not a real "homeless advocate" You are learning. These homeless and homeless advocates have many tricks up their sleeves. They make Houdini seems like an amateur.
Most people only get to see the faces that they want you to see. Few get to see their true faces.
You are fortunate enough to see one of their true face when the cripple bum suddenly ran when it rain. When you get to see the true faces of these homeless and homeless advocates, you will see how despicable they really are.
I have seen enough that for the rest of my life, I will alway be against these homeless and homeless advocates. If there is any intiative for the homeless I will vote against it. If there is any organization that is against the homeless, I will support it. And if there is any dispute involving the homeless, I will take the position against the homeless.Last edited on Sun Aug 24th, 2008 10:11 pm by
|
Radical Maverick
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 05:26 pm |
|
Gomer Pyle wrote: Jrmrrm25 wrote: I agree with you 95% but I think the homeless should get a fricken job. I mean i saw one guy who said he was a cripple and it started to rain and he got up and ran so I'm not a real "homeless advocate"
You are learning. These homeless and homeless advocates have many tricks up their sleeves. They make Houdini seems like an amateur.
Most people only get to see the faces that they want you to see. Few get to see their true faces.
You are fortunate enough to see one of their true face when the cripple bum suddenly ran when it rain. When you get to see the true faces of these homeless and homeless advocates, you will see how despicable they really are.
I have seen enough that for the rest of my life, I will alway be against these homeless and homeless advocates. If there is any intiative for the homeless I will vote against it. If there is any organization that is against the homeless, I will support it. And if there is any dispute involving the homeless, I will take the position against the homeless.
'you are learning'. do you read what you post? last I checked, therre's more than one way to look at issue.i've had experience with your homeless arcchetype, and your whole seems to be deal with an entire part of society based on the actions of a few individuals.
get over yourself.reading afew articles doesnt put you in any position to preach.
|
Gomer Pyle
Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 28th, 2008 12:54 pm |
|
Jrmrrm25 wrote: I agree with you 95% but I think the homeless should get a fricken job. I mean i saw one guy who said he was a cripple and it started to rain and he got up and ran so I'm not a real "homeless advocate"
i saw one guy who said he was a cripple and it started to rain and he got up and ran
Well, there is this one homeless bum that I saw out there for 20 years pulling their scam. Waiting at freeway entrance near the Staple Center with a shopping cart trying to get hand outs dressing in stinky smelly clothes.
One of my contact told me that what his/her name, yes my contact knows the person name, lives close by in an apartment where he/she can takes a showers. Also this person belong to the beggar clan.
For over 20 years I thought this person was homeless. But if my contact is correct, I was fooled by like everyone until this little information was reveal to me. At the moment I heard that information, a few years ago, I did put all the informations together until recently I was able to put everything together and came up with the conclusion I presented here.
|
IDL
Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 28th, 2008 05:51 pm |
|
The problem lies in the inability to distinguish truly needy people to people who are lazy or scammers.
We all know there are both types of people.
Nobody wants to give to a scammer, but I don't think anybody has a problem with giving to someone who is unable to help themselves. How do we tell the difference? I don't know.
|
MustangSally
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Bootlick, NE |
| Posts: | 1901 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 29th, 2008 12:06 am |
|
The March of Dimes are beggars?
You just blew all credibility, Gomer.
|
Gomer Pyle
Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 9th, 2008 08:42 am |
|
IDL wrote: The problem lies in the inability to distinguish truly needy people to people who are lazy or scammers.
We all know there are both types of people.
Nobody wants to give to a scammer, but I don't think anybody has a problem with giving to someone who is unable to help themselves. How do we tell the difference? I don't know.
Go this this website and watch a news report about the homeless scam. They watch and follow these beggars and shows you the truth about the beggars out there. Go to the website and press play and watch the video.
http://mamacoke.blogspot.com/2008/04/homeless-fraud.html
|
Current time is 12:45 pm | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
|
|
|
