How many starving people could they feed
How many starving people could they feed if they hocked all their fancy costumes, decorations and jewelry?
(Pope Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew I)
Picture by: RamonaQ. Caption by: RamonaQ via Advanced Lol Builder
You May Like:
Who are you, Martin Luther? = )
*grabs nails to pound tenets on Vatican Door*
“Thou shall hock all wealthy possessions and give proceeds to the poor”
Don’t forget to get a mortgage on the Vatican while you’re at it!
Actually, selling an item that has been blessed is a sin. It’s called Simony.
Once a rosary or a cross is blessed it can never be sold… only given away. The same would go for anything put to holy use, like the vestments and other gifts that are offered to the Vatican.
Logic. Whaaaaaa??? *splodies*
Dont you think God would understand if you sold all the decorations of the vatican and the jewels and other things, got like somewhere around 2 million dollars for everything and used it to feed, clothe and shelter starving, poor catholics?
yeah where is that in the bible? that is another catholic “rule” then why do i always see rosaries for sale that are blessed and holy water for sale in little bottles. sorry i came after you just i get miffed when the pope wears versace slippers and people in africa are dying of starvation and the catholic church is the richest institution.
well maybe pope man should hire starveing peoples in africa to make him shoes, dat fix everything
Sin well only if its sold as a blessed item, like if you were trying to get more money for something because its blessed is the reason that that Sin exists.
Thas stoopid
I was just gonna say, “Martin Luther said it first!”
caption’s still true tho.
More like Judas Iscariot. Remember the perfume?
No. But he was a friend of my great x ? Grandpa ;o)
A) Martin Luther was Catholic
B) Those clothes are gifts.
C- That didn’t mean he didn’t criticize the Catholic Church.
Don’t remember that bit? Cause I sure do.
D) Luther’s thesis nailed to the church door was not an uncommon action to do.
E) Half of what he criticized the church about were isolated incidents (church indulgences were only widely happening in Germany)
F) The Protestant Reformation was a power bid by the landed nobles and princes of Germany to secede from the Holy Roman Empire.
G) He inadverdently caused the deaths of hundreds of people because of the territory and loyalty disputes.
H) The Catholic Church contributes the most to the donation of funds, supplies, and other necessities to impoverished regions of the world.
I) The Vatican is by relation the last territory of the Holy Roman Empire, it is its own nation and as such the Pope is the head of that nation.
J) Dime store arguments about the a religion makes one look retarded. Last time I checked being a preachy uptight douchebag wasn’t funny.
I agree with you Neoritter. you weren’t funny.
Zing!
Eh, I didn’t think the caption was very funny either. It was very preachy and self-righteous. These captions are supposed to be funny!
Glad you agree, I wasn’t trying to be funny
We should start a Space Marine Chapter, dude ^_^
G2) Actually, you low-balled the estimate. Ten thousand peasants were killed in the uprising, and Luther condemned the rebels, facilitating their deaths…
D) So you can’t sell a gift? The pope wipes his ass with toilet paper that probably costs more than I make in a year while Catholics the world over starve.
Wow! You know what brand of TP the Pope uses? Bully for you.
Neoritter, thank you for the truth, but I guess it’s not welcome here.
You’re basing everything you say on speculation and not fact.
*wow he mus thave one tough ass ‘couse every church I’ve been to has some weak and rough stuff*
foo’
How does the fact that the clothes are gifts keep them from selling them to give money to the poor?
Regifting makes baby jesus cry.
LOL
This whole argument is retarded. Ok, so sell your clothes and jewelry, how much is that going to be in relief money? Maybe enough to feed a small number of people. They are already pouring a huge amount of money into helping the poor, far more than you guys accuse them of spending on clothes. The fact that they wear fancy clothes has nothing to do with anything.
So, feed the damn small number of people! Should everyone not pay the part of the taxes that go towards homeless children and poor families that aren’t gold diggers because “it would only feed a small number of people”? If you were in Darfur, telling the people not to use sexual protection, and then went and saw a village of starving children, would you not give them $20 in food because “it’d only feed a small number of people”? Every small number of people matters. You wouldn’t be saying that if you were one of small number of people.
The Vatican gets great deals at Wal*Mart
go sell every non essential thing that you own and give the money to poor people. Go on, do it.
What if they come back all stoned?
Boofer has it. The church gives a lot more away than it takes. I’m an atheist but for the past 100 years or so, the Catholic Church has generally been a good thing. Whatever happened in the past, who cares – none of those people exist anymore.
The Catholic Church gives more money than it takes in. None of the rest of you give even 5% of your total income to the poor. Think about that.
kidtruth, you have received a noble invitation to join my Space Marine Chapter.
“for the past 100 years or so, the Catholic Church has generally been a good thing”
Um, no. There are too many reasons to list. Don’t care to start a flame war here, dude, but NO.
Actually you mean Y-E-S. One or two incidents don’t make up the whole.
if it gives more then it takes it, how does it still exsist? would it not sooner or later vanish? if you pour water out of the tub faster then you pour water into a tub, the tub will never fill up
That’s why they a) collect money and are funded and b) only give so much at a time. they can’t help that many people if they don’t have the money to do it. They have a hose and a steady stream of water.
Except they’re not the person who is the leader of a religion based on helping everybody, and who is supposed to strictly follow a book with a specific story about giving your material possessions to the poor to be able to get into the wonderful cloudiness that is heaven.
And this is why I’m an atheist
Yeah, I started getting uncomfortable with that when my dad started criticizing pastors like Paula White and Joel Osteen for big churches and makeovers, and then I see the ‘Bishop’s Palace’ in Galveston, TX, near my hometown Houston, or Popejets…
The Bishops palace is awesome, I agree. But go to Saudi Arabia if you want to see REAL vulgar religious displays of wealth- gold domes, gold toilet seats, etc… Think of the poor they could feed, if only they were Muslim……
Think of the poor they could feed, in their own country!
Actually, the Pope doesn’t own a jet, airlines lend him one when he needs to travel.
The Bishop’s Palace was built by a lawyer. A Bishop did live there for a while, but it was not built for him.
Ironically the person writing this is being preachy!!!!! Not a funny LOL, saw much funnier ones for this. “Wonder Twin powers Activate!!” Or “Welcome to Christmas land, would like some sugar plums little boy?”
Aw man! The Wonder Twin one would have been so much funnier than this one… -_- why do people always vote up preachy instead of funny?
I think a lot of people vote on them because they think they’re true, not that they’re funny. Which really kinda sucks when you think about it.
The whole point of the site is to have funny captions on pictures. >_< *sigh*
If it seems that the majority of the commenters agree, that the captions should be funnier, who’s voting?
And yes, “wonder twins” would have been much, much funnier.
Again, there are a lot more voters than there are commenters.
Wonder Twins caption awesome….way funnier, I agree!
Oh those are both teh awsum! But which one gets the form of water? It’s the lamest of the lame superpowers.
Hurry up and clap really hard or Aquaman gets it!
What does Aquaman get? Does he get the clap?
He could have that treated… I guess he didn’t condom up?
No I think he has crabs.
He’s gotta watch those skanky mermaids he’s going out with. They all seem to have a fishy smell for some reason.
Lost and Found:
Peter Pan reference (see the part where Tinkerbell is dying)
*sigh* I know…
Form of…..Dumb Ass Dogma!
Let me guess you don’t believe in religion, so let’s mock it. Also let me guess you get mad when people mock that oyu don’t believe in religion!!!! IRONY, no wiat HYPOCIRSY!!!
People don’t mock that I don’t believe in religion. They tell me I’m going to Hell, that I’m un-American and should leave the country, won’t let their children around me at the company picnic, etc…
It’s not the religion, it’s the trenchcoat/bare leg combo….
and the body odor…..
…and the muttering….
*fresh meeeeeeaaattt*
You got me.
*throws Khaaaaan back*
No thanks
Where did the fracken’ trench coat come from?
I don’t get mad at all. I pet them on their little heads and say, “There,there…it’s OK.” I think you jumped the gun on the hypocrisy thing. You guessed wrong. Wait till I display it, then call me on it.
Well you showed it by saying, and I quote “Dumb Ass Dogma”. So you seem to be either bitter or hold some resentment towards religion, or else you wouldn’t have felt the need to insult it.
What you said was, and I quote, “Also let me guess you get mad when people mock that oyu don’t believe in religion!!!! IRONY, no wiat HYPOCIRSY!!! ” I replied that it doesn’t make me mad at all when folks question my opinions.
As a reformed Catholic, of course I have resentment….most of us do. And as such I am allowed and qualified to use the phrase Dumb Ass Dogma. Absolutely no hypocrisy here whatsoever, just a statement of opinion.
By the way, who is this girl Hypocirsy?
Is she hot?
Should I wiat for her?
No you’re not. Hypocrite.
That is a brainless and thoughtless reply, DT, not worthy of your usual self. On a par with, “I know you are but what am I?”. Because I stated an opinion I’m a hypocrite? Lame. I know you aren’t a troll, DT. You have cracked me up more than once with very clever posts. Don’t act like one please. It’s beneath you.
Dooshbag circumvention fail.
Can’t win ‘em all.
Meh. I remember the first time you disagreed with me, DT, I imagine it’s somewhat like a girl losing her virginity for the first time.
It’s always gonna hurt.
losing virginity for the first time? I thought it could only happen the one time.
there are people who claim “born-again virgin” status. i actually know a couple of them.
Guess I did win! No one else said it, so….
*waits for apology*
I do apologize….you ARE a fekin troll after all, aren’t you? My mistake. (Withdraws feeding tube)
So what if I am? Apparently, you’re a humorless twat.
I know you are but what am I! O man….I am soo sorry people but I had to. (Puts away box of Troll Treats)
ROFLMAO! Dance little sister, dance…
LOL. Touche, muthafukka.
Second brainless thoughtless reply in a row fail.
Ankle deep thought.
Wow. You really are stupid, aren’t you?
Sarcasm recognition fail.
Oh, and FWIW, :kiss:
My apologies folks, I’m fairly new here and I let myself get sucked into the name calling game with a troll like object. Not the way to make an impression. Sorry. I’ll try to do better. Honest.
The fact that you just apologized for being stupid totally just made you seem more ignorant, and not the bigger person like you were aiming for.
Lesson: Never back down once you’ve started up a troll.
Even if I agree with said troll.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t!
Brak: You’re agnostic, you can’t be damned!!!!! Very slick… very very slick….. Did you take lessons from Bill Clinton?
That, my friend, is a valuable piece of information!! I can’t be damned….wow! That means I can….woohoo….I gotta go make a call…
So you’re allowed to ridicule a religion, b/c you’ve been there, done that, have the T-Shirt? Oh and BTW resentment is a form of anger, you said you didn’t get mad, so which is it? Resentment or not mad?
You seem to be putting out a lot more anger than I am, friend. And yes…been there, done that, have the T-shirt. It’s called life experience. Let me ask you,…isn’t there a girl in your past who hurt you horribly and don’t you still feel resentment for what she did to you? Same kind of deal. I’ve managed to dissipate the anger for the most part because anger is poison to the soul but it’s never completely forgotten. I have no resentment toward people who practice their particular religion (as long as it does no harm), only toward the institutions that use and abuse them. And yes, dumb ass dogma is part of that particular institution. Why are you so upset with me? Cripes, let’s try and get back to teh funneh.
Ok funny… a Preist a Rabbi and a Pollack all walk into a bar….
…with a four-foot-long purple dildo….
…and so the dildo says….
….hey bartender! Mix me a Sidecar…..
And the bar tender replies…..
…We don’t serve dildos in here…..
…to which the priest responds, “why, what do you have against us?”…
*bah. dum. tish*
That was AWSOME!
1)I Like Peanut Butter and Deep Thought, you are invited to join my Space Marine Chapter!!
2) So brak, what make you a ‘reformed Catholic?’
The realization at an early age that Catholicism (or basically any religion that demands unthinking loyalty under threat of damnation or the rack) made no sense to me. It seemed unreasonable and cruel. At age six, on being instructed in the lovely concept of original sin by dear Sister Micheal Barbara, I had the temerity to ask how could god be so mean as to put sin on the soul of a baby who never DID anything. It just seemed so WRONG. For this I was subjected to a good week of physical and mental/emotional abuse for daring to ask for clarification. It only stopped because good old Mom came down and practically punched her out. That was only the first incident. There have been many.
I say reformed, as in no longer, because I finally managed to shed the guilt that religion thrives on and decide to live as good and upright a life as I can, NOT because of threats of whatever, but because it is the right way to be. I ain’t perfect but I try like hell to treat folks right.
I see ‘Sister’ Micheal Barbara diserved to get pinched.
1) I woudn’t say damnation is a threat but a natural conclusion to seperation from God, like being away from the Sol’s warmth (that’s the Sun, BTW)
2)God did not put sin on a baby just to be mean. What Barbie there didn’t seem to keen on is the fact that the sin is inherated from Adom and Eve eating the friut off the tree, and babies don’t go to Hell if they die, the go to Limbo, just FYI.
Oh, much better. Because babies who never got the chance to live don’t deserve heaven.
Learn to spell.
Well that belief is if your specific denomination of Christianity believes in Limbo, or Purgatory. The church I used to attend as a child held the belief that to sin takes a conscience thought and to know what you’re doing is wrong. Therefore, babies were incapable of committing a sin. Like I said, it all depends.
I know Maxwell, I was commenting directly *at* Sigma.
Even if I believed in Christianity, or Purgatory, I still think babies would go to heaven. If God is the way he acts in the New Testament, I can’t see him condemning something that never even got the real conscious ability to choose for eternity.
Anyway, I’m agnostic, so no need to start the railing on atheist pigs.
Do it on agnostic procrastinators.
I, myself, am an open agnostic, so there’s no railing. I was more just clarifying to Stigma that calling and to everyone that sticking “FYI” after a religious belief is completely, well, pointless.
Whoa I completely deleted part of my sentence there… its supposed to read “clarifying to Stigma that calling out a certain religious belief as fact by sticking an FYI at the end of it is pointless.”
I think I spelled about 98% of that correctly, no need to try to tear me down ’cause I made one or two errors.
-Coughs-
6
>.>
Does it really matter?
1. Damnation is USED as a threat. It was pounded into our poor little minds at every opportunity by God’s Wives and back up by the priesthood. Whether there is actually such a thing-of course the jury is out on that one. Nobody’s come back to fill us in on that one, eh? Oh….and no, Sol is not the sun, my friend. He’s the heater repair guy down at Weinstein’s Heating and Cooling. Sol’s warmth good.
2. The whole concept of original sin is barbaric no matter how you slice it. If there is a god and he does that, he’s a dick. And making babies who die dance bent backward under a stick for eternity is even worse!
Like I said, they disserve to get punched. Also, original sin stemmed from our free will, which God has no power over. And not all sects or cults or whatever believe there is a Limbo, especialy the Catholic Church as far as I know. It’s also a place like Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory, it’s name used for a party game some time in the recent century.
Sol is [a] name for the Sun. Hence *sol*ersystem. Look it up.
As someone who has never posted here before and just read the thread, you come off looking stupid brak.
Calling something that a lot of people consider to be valid “dogma” and being derogatory towards it with absolutely no evidence to support your statement is the basis of trolling and hatespeech. That’s why the locals at the site jumped all over you.
Constructive criticism.. away!
oyu wiat
What language is that?
Dislexian.
Crackberry!!!
Nobody gets offended when idiots mock them for not believing a religion. You don’t get offended when the party insulting you hasn’t got a leg to stand on. ‘I Like Peanut Butter’, are YOU offended?
How do you mock someone for being an atheist?
It’s quite easy. It basically means you believe in nothing. (I’m not saying that is so, but it’s pretty easy to mock)
Hmm. I think I thought the word “mock” had more of a “make fun of”-meaning. Looking it up I see it can also mean “to treat with contempt”. Adding that meaning to the word in my vocabulary, I now do know several examples of mocking atheism.
(…over and out… ;p)
No, it just means you don’t believe in deities.
I read it as if ILPB just meant that that is the sort of thing that people who try to mock atheism will say.
If it wasn’t so, let me join in on the correction post. ;p
Ahh…perhaps you are correct!
I’m not an atheist. I’m an agnostic. Do I need to explain to you what that is? I doubt it. I’m sure you already know.
I know what it means. I was just repsonding to Danbala on how you can mock an athiest or agnostic.. not necesarily a good mock, but it can be done. It’s not that I believe it, just showing it coudl be done. I believe people should believe what they want. I rarely even mock Scientology and that’s easier than Christianity.
Ohmy, yes. All you need to do to mock scientology is to say “scientology”. :p
DO NOT MOCK THE THETONSSSS! THEY WILL COME FOR YOU NEXT, TRUST ME NON-BELIEVER!
See?
And you don’t? Danbala, CLEARLY the souls of an entire race were dropped in a Hawaiian volcano here on earth by someone with the name “Fire Lord” Xenu, and their souls are what make us sad and depressed today.
Shhheeeesh, non-believers are SO doomed.
P.S.- Anyone think that maybe if we tell Scientologists that psychology drugs are specially designed to make the theton souls leave them be, they will hate Psychiatry less?
Trogdor will protect me. He is a man….but he is….a DRAGON man. Beefy arms, consummate V’s. No fear.
Until Xenu comes back. Then we’re all up shit creek without a paddle…
Oh Shit….and Gozer…could be trouble.
I’ve seen dogs and cats living together lately o.o
The End of Days are upon us, my friends >_<
Yes, and I’m not religious. I’m offended by the liberals (not all) who mock religion and then turn around get all offended we their belief system (whether it be PETA, living Green, etc…) is mocked. I just get tired of the religions is a crutch, religion is BAD, religion makes people do evil things, religion opresses me…… Don’t listen to it. If they come to your door, politely ask them to leave (like I do with the ACLU or Democratic Politicians who try and change my voting), let them have their beliefs IF they don’t infringe on your rights (ie get inacted into laws). And YES there are some fantaics out there, just like there are fanatics on the left, but you can’t judge a whole by the radicals. Isn’t that what the liberal agenda tries to teach?
I would recommend a couple of books for you, by Sam Harris – The End of Faith, and/or, if you prefer a more succinct summation of his argument, Letter to a Christian Nation.
May I suggest ‘Letter from a Christian Citizen’ by Douglas Wilson?
You ARE more angry than me! I love it!! LOL
Not angry, just tired of the whole, let’s mock people’s beliefs. It’s so juvenile. You don’t agree with them, get over yourself. Unless you can mock yourself accordingly, don’t mock anyone. That’s all I’m saying. There wasn’t any anger in my post actually.
I see your point. And believe me, mocking myself is a full time occupation. But isn’t the whole premise of this place based on mocking the people who are elected or appointed to do a job which none of them ever do well? I guess I’m still getting the feel of the give and take here.
See once we get beyond our initial stoopid knee jerk reactions we’re being civil…….. let me ruin it, you’re an idiot!!! (I’m kidding…) I just didn’t see you mock yourself that’s all. And yes I do have resentment towards those that mock religion. However I see where it comes from. There is quite a bit of hypocrisy there (in all religions), just like liberalism and conservatism, I just think mocking it feeds the divide vice trying to understand each other.
Unfortunately, it’s built into the human psyche to automatically yell, “Hey! My thing is better than your thing. So you better come over here. Or else.” No matter what “thing” you have chosen, be it religion, politics, musical taste, there is an almost genetic compulsion to defend it, preferably with violence of some sort whether physical or vocal or teh interwebz. I wonder if we’ll ever be able to defeat this miserable failure within ourselves. Stuff would get better if we did.
My main problem with religion in general is that is so incredibly divisive at such a visceral level by it’s nature…and we not only let it be, we completely buy into it and let the institutions and organizations that form around it encourage the divisions and grow fat and rich because of them. It’s actually not necessarily the religion itself that bothers me, I guess, so much as the arrogance and superiority it inspires, even demands in it’s followers.
I believe that religion and the right to think it silly carry equal weight. Wish we could evolve beyond the need for it….and politics.
Religion is the opiate of the masses.
Pass out poppies!
Sounds similar to the political part system…..
*party* not part…
Yeah, doesn’t it?
Never give a sucker an even break.
If men were angels, governments would’t exist.
@Deep….Dude….don’t bogart, pls.
@Sigma…..If six turned out to be nine…….
PURPLE HAZE, ALL AROUND…!!! *o*
I’m the TROGDORRR dragon of PK.
How far from that is an angel?
Depends on the degree of Burnination.
Degree?
My friend, there is no degree.
There is exist (pre-burninate)
and extinction. (post-burninate.)
OK….Old Testament type angel, maybe…all that fire and devastation and stuff. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
But be wary and do not become overconfident. Remember, I hold……..the Mushroom of Truth!
badgerbadgerbadgerbadgerbadger
Hey, don’t make fun of that movie! That is a great movie!
LOL
Froo you are awesome XD.
I woman-love you too
Snootchie Wootchies!
Best. Movie. Ever. (at least to me).
I’ll even watch it cut on TNT if it comes on, I love it THAT much.
Look, it’s a sailboat!
Wow, you’re standards are lower than the depth which the Eldar race has fallen. So, so tragic.
6. they could feed 6 people.
6 BIG hungry people.
LOL ^_^
How many starving people could you feed if you hocked your computer?
Not too many. It’s 3 years old.
I could buy some starving people a round of Happy Meals. That’s about it.
I’ve always wondered why the meal is “happy”…
it’s a perv, gets touched by children, gets happy.
Michael Jackson Meal??
*Cue too soon*
Yup. I tried to avoid it.
though if it was michael jackson meal it would come in a plasstic box…
They serve a drink with that in honor of MJ, it comes in small cans. OHHH!!!
50-year-old meat between two 12-year-old buns…
*slaps own hand*
“BAD MG!!! BAD MG!!!”
as prize you get a small detachable nose, nowhere to attach though
and if you peel the tag on the drink you get a free an overnight (wink)trip to a certain themepark
Good lord.
I’m laughing and all, but that was WAY over the top XD.
He shoulda’ stayed awsome -_-
You know that cow wasn’t too happy about the prospect of being turned into a yummy cheeseburger…mmmmmmmmm
*realizes she hasn’t had lunch*
when the cow dies they tell her she will become a nice steak in some fancy restaurant, so they can die happy.
Mmmmmmmm, kobe beef.
you’re eating Kobe Bryant… cannibal, yikes is a cannibal!!!
Hey, he died happy. It’s a win-win.
That’s what they want the cow to think, so it doesn’t get nervous and clot the meat, when they do, they make nuggets
No Kobe beat the Nuggets!!! Damn europeans can’t follow our sports correctly. We don’t even try and follow soccer (oh sorry futbol).
I don’t follow soccer, I know who kobe is and the cow is still dead anyway.
Euch… Join the vegetarians! We have fungus and Soya bean Curd!
The cow is already dead. Might as well eat it.
I don’t think the fungus much cares…
Yeh but that carrot screams real loud when you YANK it from the ground away from its family.
I read a book that said that if you hook a plant up to a polygraph and think bad thoughts about it you can see it react on the chart thingy…..
Mind you that was the same book that stopped me from sleeping as a child due to fear of Arnold Paol the vampire….
I don´t like to hurt veggies. they don’t scream.
Myth BUSTED on MYTHBUSTERS!!!
PS I think it died of a heart attack!!!
it wouldn’t have been inseminated, born, bred and fed if people didn’t want to eat it….
or if it didn’t taste SOOOOOOO good!!!! Well wait that means people wouldn’t want to eat it.
Rare. With a side of tartare.
I just had dinner, steak.
yum
I had pasta salad and am looking forward to fungus sausages tomorrow thank you very much….
I’ll probably lunch something non-screaming tomorrow, but I can’t abandon my steaks.
It all screams. Yes, even the vegetables. You just can’t hear the ones without mouths.
That’s why they don’t taste so good.
veggies lack that life hanging feel.
do you know what is the best way to catch a rabbit?
scream like a carrot!
Fungus sausages? Omg, lol.
Just eat some meat. If you’re worried about the environment, just make it some human meat!
Computers serve several purposes and are heavily relied on in today’s society.
Fancy clothes cover you, but unlike regular clothes, make you look like an ass.
Some people require clothes to look like an ass, unlike Igor the Vigorous being a prime exception.
Your insult makes no sense.
Abort? Retry? Fail?
RETRY:
Sigma = two squads of Terminater Space Marines
Deep Thought = Space cruser in orbit w/ cannons ready for bombardment
Igor the Vigorous = Two squads of Shoota’ Boyz Orks
Game. Set. Match.
Looks like Sigma experimented with it *and* inherated it.
?????
Sorry, weird.
Was playing with your misspelling of inherited, which sounded a bit like inhaled, and since to me your post made no sense whatsoevvah, I made a (granted, loose) association to Clinton’s claim that he experimented but didn’t … oh, FFS, this is just getting worse by the minute.
Was amusing to me, for what it is worth!
Well you’re my gal. You’re just my gal!
-Idiot in the crowd shouting during moment of silence voice-
I did toooo…
Your insult carries no water because all you did was call me an ass, no proof given or point relayed. That’s called trolling.
Therefore I am not offended by your insult, just feel pity towards you.
Ah, so you can call good people an ass for beeing better than you and carring more about people than you, is that it?
No, I can say a person I don’t know personally looks like an ass because of the ridiculous outfit they’re wearing.
Re-read my sentence.
You don’t like looking sharp, clean, or profesional in what you do for a living? Their outfits represent the old school clothing of the Ancients, like today’s suites have stuff that date back past the Victorian Era or something.
If I were trying to help the poor? I wouldn’t spend more than I have to for some thing decent, and whoever judges me can think what they want.
Someone who looks down upon “just decent” appearances isn’t worth the worry anyway.
They are doing the same thing, but while getting generous gifts they are giving more than they earn (see kidtruth above). As Gods messengers they resemble the spiritual splendor of Heaven and God. Or are they still pretentious to you?
I’m not saying they’re pretentious, just saying they don’t need the damn outfits pictured above.
Just doesn’t seem necessary to me.
They don’t always wear that, just at special occasions, like *this* example.
What’s the difference between a BMW and a porcupine?
The porcupine has the pricks on the outside!!!
same thing applies for EVERYONE
No, it applies to Christians and those who wish to live according to the bible. It applies even more-so to those representing the Catholic church.
People who don’t believe in the bible aren’t being hypocritical by not giving to the poor, because they never said they would, nor have they told others to do so. These guys have done both.
Bullshit. It applies to everyone.
Liberals just want the government to spread it out for them, rather than to distribute it themselves…
Thanks for throwing the word Liberal in there as an insult, that really helped you make your point.
Maybe they just want the government to take care of the poor and hungry because if they didn’t force people to do so via taxes, many would not.
I know that not every wealthy person is a greedy twit, but there are some that would rather watch people die in the streets than hand over their hard earned money to feed the hungry.
Insult? BWAHAAHAHAHAHAHAA… sniff.
Truth hurts, eh?
No. Why would it hurt? I stand firmly behind my beliefs and I couldn’t care less what you think of me. I’m socially liberal, but want smaller government and more power delegated to the states.
It just makes you look like a child when you resort to name calling.
Get off my lawn.
Chillax… it’s the truth because it’s the truth. Libs want government to do it, and God wants cons to.
Fu(ktard… now THAT’S name calling…
Excuse me Mr. Deep… but vcktard is my word. I have the copy right for it, so that’ll be one billion dollars please.
No. ‘vcktard’ was not used by Mr. Deep Thought, he used ‘fu(ktard.’
Sentenced ten years servise in the Planitary Defence Force (PDF).
I appreciate someone who realizes that the expression is “couldn’t care less”. Proper idiomatic expression win.
People who say “irregardless” bug me too. Regardless is already without regard…/sigh
AUGH! “Irregardless” makes me see red. >_< I think the majority of people who use it are just trying to look smart.
irregardless of that i always see red, and a lot of other colors
lay off the mushrooms
BUT THEY’RE SO DELICIOUS!!! 0.0
Irregardless of your feelings on the subject at hand, I will continue to use the word Irregardless, Irregardless of the circumstances and Irregardless of the subject matter, Irregardlessly, Irregardless of whether that is a proper word or not… Irregardless of whether I know what I’m talking about, or not.
Clearly you do, irregardless of what you say.
This is exactly why I don’t like zombies…
I don’t like them cause they’re sloppy eaters.
grammar is the least of their problems.
Their limbs tend to fall off too.
Isn’t “irregardless” a double negative? So it would actually mean “with regard” instead of “without regard?”
Yeah.
What if you use it twice in a sentence? Does the first one cancel out the second one?
irregardless of what we think irregardless means, I’m not going to judge iregardlessly…
Same.
It doesn’t make logical sense to say that you could care less about something, therefore there are things you care less about in the world, and that means that you actually care a little about said happening.
Those types of people live in their own special type of hell on earth. Most people on their own are generous and would want to help others. If the government is “taking care” of the poor, then you will be creating more of the type of mentality where you hoard what you have. Why should anyone give anymore if the government is handling it, no matter how badly or inefficiently.
I think we have a reasonably high amount of charity here, and a “taking care of the poor-government”. I’ll try to find some figures. Soon … ish.
It turns out to be pretty tricky. What I managed to find so far is that we gave 5.3 billion Swedish krona total in 2005. That’d be about $83 per person and year. What I can find for the US is a number of $200. This are not adjusted to gdp, of course. A rough estimate of our effective tax here is at about 60%.
(And our govt is giving a bit in charity in its turn.)
I can says “this are” in well grammar!!!
LOL
Most of the rich people I know started out poor and worked for what they have. They have no problem giving people a hand- but they don’t want to give handouts either to people who could work and won’t.
Plus there are those poor people who spend money on drugs. And guns. And Gamers Workshop. *sigh* -_-
The Steve: I believe it is the right of the invidivdual to chose whether or not he wants to give his money to the poor. I would rather donate food than give money. I would rathe rit be my choice and not forced to by either the church or government. If someone doesn’t want to give moeny to feed the poor it is his/her choice, and hopefully their conscience is clear. However forcing them to do that is pushing your morals onto them. As you said, it is THEIR hard earned money. Not yours, not mine, not the poors, but theirs.
Buy a bum a burger but begrudge him a booze buck…
Crudely put but quite correct.
Crudely? Never heard of alliteration, bozo?
Jebus crispies! You can’t even take a compliment gracefully!
ANGRY??? WHO’S ANGRY????? NOT ME!!!!!!!
Geezzeeee dude……OK, let me phrase it better….crudely but cleverly put. I liked it! It made me chuckle and I agree with your point completely…..and it was awesome alliteration amigo. OK??
No, no *facepalms* I just wanted to use the “b” in bozo to further the phrase… sorry about that.
Apology absolutely accepted…O lordy I so want to say it, but then Bad Brak would win and he must never be allowed out again. Ever.
CONVERSATION = EPIC WIN!!
Plus, eventually the money runs out, then what do the poor do? Better to teach the poor to be self sufficent if at all possible.
ILPB: You’re 100% right.
On the other hand, I don’t think that the greatest nation on earth should have hungry and poor dying in the streets.
What to do, what to do?
We don’t have that! Where is anyone dying in the streets?!
There’s a dead squirrel in the middle of the road I live on… does it count?
untill you find a person it will have to, for purposes of discussion.
*pokes the dead squirrel with a stick*
ouch! I’m not dead yet!
Oops! Sorry!
Squiggly: Poke harder. That’ll take care of that minor problem.
yes you are
*points to name*
Is it a pointed stick?
I think the squirrel is a zombie. Is the discussion still valid if it’s UNdead and in the middle of the road?
did it die on the street or did it walk there after dying?
I just posted a comment and it didn’t show up, I REALLY AM A ZOMBIE!!
I dunno. Hey Squirrel, did you die in the road or not?
Dead set: Origins (the zombie squirrel)
NAh, just ask the Redneck down the street, he’s looking for some squirrel soup.
Yikes, look in any major city. People are dying, or worse eating rotten food thrown out by a fast food joint. Trust me if you’ve been to SE DC you will see it (it’s still here even after the overhaul).
Wow, that’s not right. I just meant they aren’t dying of starvation, like you see in Africa. But, yes that’s bad.
It’s not the mass starvation like in Africa, but it is happening. Of course I do get annoyed at the one homeless guy who constantly hits me up for money, and one day I offered to buy him a Subway snadwich and he said he’d prefer the money.
yeah, I don’t like subway as well.
Jimmy Johns is better.
I dunno Jane… Jimmy John’s is so fast… it kinda… freaks me out.
See what he wants the money for.
He asked for money for food. So I offered to buy him a sub. He said he’d rather the money. I have a feeling it wasn’t for food.
They’ve done studies, and some “homeless people” are raking in sometimes upwards of $40,000 a year begging for money.
Here’s a GREAT discussion of that very phenomenon…
They’ve done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works every time.
So… anecdotes are bad. Citing studies is bad. Statistics are bad…
How the hell does one back up one’s argument here, then?
Okay DT, to be fair I was just quoting a little Anchorman. I can’t hear “they’ve done studies…” without thinking of Sex Panther by Odeon. I hadn’t even looked at your link…
…but now that I have, I feel compelled to tell you that that is not a study. It’s a blog with a guy making all sorts assumptions. If you’re trying to prove a point, I think the best way to qualify a source is to consider if you could use it in an academic research paper. If not, then it’s probably not a good source to support your argument.
Uhmm… it’s an economic blog, and I said “discussion” of it.
You did, indeed, say “discussion.” But then you said “citing studies is bad…” and I was responding to that post, since you asked how one is supposed to support an argument here.
I like scotch! Scotchy, scotchy, scotch!
HAND ME YOUR BOTTLE OR HAND ME YOUR HAND WITH THE BOTTLE… IN HAND!!!
Yes we do have people dying on the streets. It just isn’t very newsworthy. Boston usually has 3 or so homeless folk dying of exposure every winter. Link to research study comparing death rates of homeless and not-homeless folk in Philadelphia, complete with adjustments for substance abuse. With substance abusers removed from the sample, the death rate is 3 times higher for the homeless.
That’s right, homeless people NEVER freeze to death because there’s no room in a homeless shelter for them and they’re forced to sleep outside in subzero temperatures. And the NEVER die because they were just flat out unable to find food, or the food they DID manage to scavenge gave them some form of food poisoning that would have been just unpleasant for us, but proved lethal for someone with an immune system compromised from mal nourishment. I’m not even counting the ones who are murdered just because someone thought it would be funny to set a homeless person on fire, or beat the shit out of them or whatever. Yup, no homeless dying in the streets here.
According to the United Way, about 400 homeless people per year die in Los Angeles county alone.
Um…which is utterly meaningless unless you have causes of death. 2.5 million people *with* homes die in the US every year. So what? All it means is people die, not what they die OF.
The most common cause of death among homeless individuals was a cardiovascular event, accounting for almost a quarter of all homeless deaths, followed by unknown cause, and intoxication by substance abuse, comprising 23% and 22% of deaths, respectively.
So…not starving and freezing, but as expected heart attacks (like the rest of us) and a whole lot of drug abuse. Hardly the picture that was being painted of people freezing to death on park benches or the long slow death of starvation. There’s a reason our poor people don’t look like “Starvin’ Marvin” and the ChildCare commercials. The poor in this country actually have an “obesity problem” if you can call it a problem – won’t see that many other places on earth.
The life expectancy for the homeless is 36% lower than those who are not homeless. Also, the symptoms of mental illness, combined with the hygiene problems associated with homelessness, result in many untreated physical health problems such as respiratory infections, dermatological problems, and risk of exposure to HIV and tuberculosis.
I don’t think that anyone is arguing that our homeless situation rivals that of Africa, so no need for the hyperbole on your part. Homeless people do freeze to death though, without question. Dying from exposure is not a hard thing to do.
The life expectancy stat is easily accounted for by the great (enormous) rate of drug addiction you’re talking about. Color me unimpressed.
On the east coast, where the weather is more harsh, it is a different story than in LA county.
And the high percentage of drug use can easily correlate to the high percentage of mental illness.
It was an answer to “Where is anyone dying in the streets?!”
Yes, but just because people who live in the streets die does not indicate that they died, as has been waxed poetic, of starvation and freezing. We’re the only country on earth that has fat poor people and no, we really don’t have people starving to death on the streets except a few who are drug addicted, mentally ill and unwilling to avail themselves of the help that’s available. There was one huge story, for example that was made into the clarion call for the whole homeless movement – a woman froze to death on a park bench in DC I believe. Turns out she had $300 in her pocket. There was obviously something very wrong with her, but it was made out to be a heartless society who just wouldn’t help this poor woman out of poverty – when in fact she could have stayed in a warm motel room for a week on that money. The whole premise is ridiculous – we are not Ethiopia; we do not have the conditions here, even for the poorest, that any other country does.
“Yes, but just because people who live in the streets die does not indicate that they died, as has been waxed poetic, of starvation and freezing.”
Nope. Never said it did.
Oh, and she probably would have died in Ethiopia as well – to heat or civil war or dehydration or whatever, rather than cold. Some people really need to be instituionalised lest they kill themselves, more or less on purpose.
That you never said it does not mean I haven’t been reading it from others, Danbala. I have.
I am sure. I am just not interested in answering for what other people have said. I only read SB’s comment about 400 dead as a direct response to the question which she had replied to.
Let’s look into the Constitution. What does it say?
The sad part of the Gretest Nation on Earth is people are free not to help the poor, and the poor are free to be poor. There are many different types of homeless: Some fell on hard times, some have mental diseases, some did it to themselves. So should we help those that have done it to themselves, or just those that “deserve” the help? How many times to you send a man to rehab before you realise he’s a lost cause? Do you put the man in a mental institution against his will, for his own good (sounds kind of tyranical) b/c he’s homeless (no crimes attached)…. it’s a quandry, but to me… let the Charities deal with it. People are more giving when not forced, and they feel they’r emaking a difference on their own, vice being preached to about it.
AND SHIT!!! We agreed again.
If you donate enough to charity, then you could get a big enough tax rebate that you will in effect not be paying taxes. Which would mean you could stop complaining about your tax dollars going to the ‘undeserving poor’. Just a suggestion!
Theres a cap on the deductions you can take for charity.
And if I am not mistaken….the current administration is working on making that cap even lower
Not to mention the AMT which cuts you off deducting charity contributions.
Link to some very interesting data on homelessness in the U.S.
A few things that jumped out at me: 23% of homeless are veterans, 25% physically or sexually abused as children, 21% homeless as children, 35% report some kind of mental illness.
The only thing that surprised me about that is the first figure – the 23% vets. I’d thought they’d be pampered in palaces if you listen to how much reverence there is for military personnel.
There’s only reverence when we ship them off. When they get home we give them the shaft, especially when it comes to mental health. My friend’s boyfriend served in Iraq, he was just a kid when he went over there, and it messed him up pretty bad…when the troops returned, the way they assessed who needed mental health services was to get a group of 400-500 of them together and then they said, “Who needs mental health services? Raise your hand.” Of course, no one raised their hands. That was the only time he was asked if he needed help.
Another friend of mine was in the Navy for 8 years, and is trying to get mental health help currently tells a similar story.
You sure got that one right, SB.
One of the biggest aspects, though, is a soldier’s innate inability to ask for help, as you’ve so eloquently stated.
Yeah exactly, and mental health issues are so stigmatized for military personnel…it’s heartbreaking, to see these young people go through so much for their country, and then be completely abandoned when they get home.
Not just abandoned: Denigrated to pariah level, particularly in conflicts that are deemed “unworthy” or “unwinnable.”
And the VA? What a fricking joke.
Not disagreeing, only adding:
I think that quite a few mental issues in themselves make their “victim” unable or not prone to ask for help.
No, they do a very good job of having credible guests on their programs. You don’t hear extremists from either side really; or if you do, it is clear that they represent extreme views…and I can’t even recall the last time I heard anything of that nature.
If you don’t listen, you should give it a try. Bet you’ll be impressed.
Did that comment end up in the wrong place?
Yeppers.
I think she did.
Total nesting fail! That was for DT re: NPR.
If the military wants you to have fealings they’ll issue them to you.
That’s quite, quite depressing. I mean, I know there used to be little help for mental issues post-war, but I had hoped it would be improved today.
I’ve seen a few TV programs, mainly about physical issues (caused by gas/other chemicals) and the lack of help after modern wars but … Well, y’know. TV… They’re always sensationalist in one way or the other so I was hopefully assuming they were few, those cases.
What is it that makes military personnel so fantastic and loved while they’re serving and uninteresting once they’re done? Or rather – why can’t people (== society) be a bit better at seeing that they’re not having mental issues just for fun…
I expect that most people believe the pitch that the military takes care of its own…I wasn’t aware just how bad the services are for veterans until I started hearing about it from friends, although NPR has done a commendable job on reporting the failures of the military to live up to the promises they make to the enlisted.
Another part of the problem could be that if the military acknowledges how fvcked up the troops are when they return from combat situations, it will lead to more public awareness of the costs associated with war, which could lead to more anti-war activism…I don’t really know. But it’s been going on for decades and it continues…the rates of suicide for returning veterans are continually increasing as well.
We treat our Veterans like shit. I admit it. You can gladly raise my taxes for that. However one caveate, don’t necesarily buy into everytime a bum says he’s a vet. We have our fair share of fakers in DC (which I find odd since it has a high population of military or vets).
Yeah… I guess… This is my main issue with charity over taxes. I prefer the taxation approach because it doesn’t become a popularity contest. If someone needs help, they should get it. Wether they are a military veteran, someone who thinks they are a military veteran, or someone who just tries to play that card to get sympathy, they should all be able to get the health care they need.
And Obama tried to pass legislation making Veterans pay out of pocket for the ongoing care for war injuries – mental or physical. Until there was such an angry outcry that he had to backpedal on it.
No, his proposal was that private insurance companies would pick up the cost of this ongoing treatment, not that vets would pay out of pocket.
And the end result of that is that when people reach their family limits for the year (which disabled and injured vets do with ease) they pay out of pocket for their expenses, either for themselves or their families. Not to mention they have to pay for that private insurance out of pocket and most won’t COVER these things. The real-world results are vets paying out of pocket, and Obama didn’t back down until the outcry reached a zenith. This from the man who claimed to care SO much about veterans.
Anniee’s spot on, SB. Did some necessary research myself on this one…
I’m mostly going “WTF, this is obviously something that society would pay for via the usual national healthcare”. I know that is not up your alley, Anniee.
;p
Actually, there is no annual maximum benefit on medical coverage. There are lifetime benefit maximums which are usually $5 or $6 million. If war-related injuries/illnesses/disabilities are currently denied by private insurance carriers, it’s because those benefits are currently provided by the government as the primary payor. If the rules were changed so that private insurance companies were the primary payor, this would not be an issue.
DT, if Anniee is spot on, gimme a cite.
Whatever insurance you have that doesn’t have you paying out of pocket, I want it!
I’ll have to go back and dig some up. All I know is that shit that used to be covered by the VA no longer would be covered, and co-pays were coming.
I didn’t say there aren’t out-of-pocket costs, I said that there are no annual maximum benefits on medical coverage (just lifetime maximums).
Actually, I believe you did say they wouldn’t pay out of pocket higher up, if I’m reading it right.
No, his proposal was that private insurance companies would pick up the cost of this ongoing treatment, not that vets would pay out of pocket.
They will pay more out of pocket. I’m sure you understand where I’m coming from.
Well I’ll put you in touch with my close friends, who is on SSDI while her husband is on VA assistance and all their various adventures with maximum yearly benefits, why don’t I? Since you know ALL about it.
Ah. I should have been more specific. There would likely be co-pays associated with some services, though not necessarily…it would depend on how the contract was written. But the overall burden would not be put on the vet, as Anniee’s post implied.
SSDI is not private insurance, it’s government insurance. Hence, Social Security Disability Insurance.
So…what in the f*ck was he supposed to do, BUY insurance? Are you stubborn or just stupid to know that means money out of pocket?
I have private insurance and it costs me 400 a month for the policy and then an additional 350 per month in doctor and prescription co-pays. That’s if no one gets sick. So don’t sit there and tell me that something – probably the ONLY thing – that should have been understood to be COMPLETELY COVERED by the government – the health care of people who were injured in our wars – proposed to be put back on to the shoulders of the men who bore the wounds already – was not a f*cking slap in the face and a kick in the teeth. Because it was, and the veterans knew it and that’s why they were FURIOUS.
What was who supposed to do?
I didn’t take a position on Obama’s proposal for shifting some veterans costs to the private sector; I don’t know enough about it to have a position on it one way or another. I was merely correcting your errors.
However, I believe that the point was that if a veteran is paying for private insurance, and also has benefits through the VA, then the private insurance carriers are collecting premiums but are not on the hook to pay out claims, and as such, the insurance companies were getting something of a free ride.
I didn’t make any errors.
But holy HELL where did you get that amazing spin job on it? That’s almost brilliant – too smart for Media Matters, so where did it come from? Too smart for KOS too. Huffpo maybe?
Wait, wait, wait…
People actually READ the Huffington Post?
No errors, except claiming vets would be responsible for all costs out of pocket, annual maximum benefits on private insurance, misidentification of social security insurance and private healthcare…did I miss any?
I read any of those sites. I don’t learn about issues from sites which display a clear bias, because of the concept of intellectual honesty; that is, when I learn, it’s not to support an opinion I already hold, but to be open minded and analyze facts for what they are. Sometimes the facts conflict with my ideals, and then I have to reassess my positions. Sometimes the facts support my ideals, and then I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
I didn’t say those things, you did. Or simply misunderstood what I was saying – I know you’re not very bright so I guess it’s possible.
Now wait a minute – you DON’T read sites with a clear bias but you’ve already said you don’t know enough about this issue to form much of an opinion. Then you gave me one of the most beautiful pieces of spin I’ve ever seen (I mean it; that was amazing) – there’s no way in hell you thought of that yourself, so where DID you get that idea from? Is that how The One himself spun it? That’s…I’m genuinely impressed. I wish you’d just answer the question because wherever you got it, I want to go there and read some stuff too.
“Sometimes the facts support my ideals, and then I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.”
I thought girls were always warm and fuzzy inside?
-Prepares to be beaten with canes-
Oh my mistake then, when you said
“Obama tried to pass legislation making Veterans pay out of pocket for the ongoing care for war injuries”
“when people reach their family limits for the year (which disabled and injured vets do with ease) they pay out of pocket for their expenses”
“Well I’ll put you in touch with my close friends, who is on SSDI while her husband is on VA assistance and all their various adventures with maximum yearly benefits”
I thought you actually meant those things.
The issue was discussed on NPR a few months back, that’s where I heard the perspective I quoted here. You could try NPR.org and do a search.
Ohhh NPR – no clear bias hehe. Well maybe I will; that was a pretty amazing way of spinning it (but I repeat myself.) But NPR is pretty awfully boring, so who knows. Thanks for the cite.
NPR is the least biased news source that I’ve found. They typically have representation from multiple viewpoints on any issues they cover in detail. This was the case with the veteran’s healthcare proposal.
It might not be as exciting as listening to frothy-mouthed, self-righteous, opinionated pundits shout at their guests and make outrageous, divisive claims about political and social issues, but then, honest journalism rarely is.
SB – they sure do — all the way from whackadoodle hippe lib from mid-centrist riding the ragged edge of commie lib.
SB: What do we do about it? Do we force them into institutions agaisnt there will, without having committed a crime? Really how do we handle this?
I would check the 23% being Vets, remember some people tend to lie. Don’t jump on me for saying that, as I’m sure it is still rather high, but I wouldn’t say 23%. The reason, someone is more likely to give to a person who they feel did something for this country and then was abandoned, vice a druggy.
Lots of the homeless people who I have talked to have expressed a wish to be albe to go back to their institutions. These are mentally unstable, rather trashed people who spent their entire life in institutions until the government suddenly decided “that’s inhumane, let’s close ‘em”, and plenty of those inhabitants now sleep in bus-wossnames-the-little-cubicle-things-where-you-wait-for-them.
Just because we who can take care of ourselves think that institutions are demeaning might not mean they are to the people who can’t, I think.
I’m not sure what to do about it. My cousin works for an outreach organization that tries to get homeless folks in touch with services that are available to them. The vast majority of the people she sees are mentally ill, most often it seems they suffer from schizophrenia. I don’t think forcing the homeless into institutions is a viable option…I can’t imagine how one would get that done, logistically, legally, etc.
The study I cited is from the U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services, so I doubt very highly that the veteran count was not verified.
Many veterans are also drug addicts, don’t forget. And many veterans are also mentally ill and don’t have it together enough to access the services that are available to them.
The study provides some suggestions on how these people can be helped if you scroll down towards the bottom.
I wasn’t saying the survey was compelely wrong I was just saying that I’m sure the number was somewhat inflated due to Homeless Individuals would lie. It’s also a LOT of money to verify someone’s military record. Chances are some of the individuals couldn’t remember their Social Security # to help them verify (can’t reallly look up by name that well). Actually I would doubt the 100% validity of the count, US DoHHS is a beauracratic branch of the government, so anything they can do to help boost funds to their cause can be done. Everyone does it, CIA, FBI, DoT, DoD, etc…. (I know pessimistic view of things but life experiences).
I will agree most of the homeless have some mental disorder, whether it be addiciton, schizo, etc… but once again how do we go about helping them legally? As you said it’s hard to do.
ILPB, if you have evidence that this study failed to verify a verifiable fact, then you should cite it, but otherwise I’m afraid the study has more credibility than your assumption. Inflating the number of homeless veterans certainly does nothing to improve the image of the government.
Recommendations on how to help the homeless, particularly those with mental health issues, include:
Outreach, whether in shelters or on the street, is effective. Given the opportunity, most homeless people with serious mental illnesses are willing to accept treatment and services voluntarily. Consistent outreach and the introduction of services at the client’s pace are key to engaging people in treatment and case management services. A consistent, caring, personal relationship is required to engage people who are homeless in treatment.
Integrated mental health and substance abuse treatment provided by multidisciplinary treatment teams can improve mental health, residential stability, and overall functioning in the community. Regular assertive outreach, lower caseloads, and the multidisciplinary nature of the services available from these teams are critical ingredients that lead to positive treatment and housing outcomes.
Supportive services to people in housing have proven effective in achieving residential stability, improving mental health, and reducing the costs of homelessness to the community. Supported housing is preferred by many homeless people with serious mental illnesses. Many people who are homeless with serious mental illnesses can move directly from homelessness to independent housing with intensive support and attention.
Prevention. Homelessness among people with serious mental illnesses can be prevented. Discharge planning that helps people who are leaving institutions to access housing, mental health, and other necessary community services can prevent homelessness during such transitions. Ideally, such planning begins upon entry into an institution, is ready to be implemented upon discharge, and involves consumer input. Providing short-term intensive support services immediately after discharge from hospitals, shelters, or jails has proven effective in further preventing recurrent homelessness during the transition back into the community.
SB: My citation is working for the federal government and knowing the beauracy that each government agency has to do. There is always a fudge factor in everything that is done. So I’m sorry my citation is simple, it’s the federal government. That’s all I’m saying. Not a huge disagreement there, I said I bet the number is close, but just a little inflated. Trust me I work in SE DC, I’ve seen the people do their studies. It’s a questionaire on a clip board. My favorite is the ACLU…. “No I don’t believe in equality, now go away!!!”
A lot of your ideas are great, however one flaw. All of them depend on the person looking for help. The sad thing is, that’s not always the case, b/c the individual doesn’t know they need help (due to mental illness), doesn’t want help, or is too scared of help (already been in one of our dumb ass institutions that still believe in shock therapy). I wish we could help everyone we could, and that’s the idealism in me coming out, however the practical side realizes it’s a losing battle, sort of like the drug war. (I know such a bad pessimist, I admit it).
I should clarify, those are not my ideas, that’s a cut and paste from the study I linked.
My cousin does outreach for the homeless, which means when she sees homeless people, she gives them her card and tries to get them to come in. But you are correct, it’s often very hard for the mentally ill to have it together enough to take advantage of the help that’s available to them. She has been trying to help this one kid, he’s in his early twenties and has schizophrenia and has already had serious drug problems and has prostituted himself…sometimes they can get him to come in for periods of time, get him on meds, get him in housing, etc., but he is so damaged already. Recovering from drug addiction and the experience of prostitution would be hard for anyone, not to mention schizophrenia on top of it. Some people just don’t get any breaks.
Breaks = opportunities to change your life. You can only offer so many and be refused. Oh yeah. He’s getting breaks. A lot of them. More than you or I are ever offered.
Schizos prefer the company of their voices. I know you don’t want to hear that, but they invaribly do. They feel depressed and dysfunctional without them, typically.
Well, I’ve had some tough breaks in my day, like anyone, and I’ve gotten through it, but I’m glad as hell I’m not schizophrenic. Don’t know what would have become of me.
One problem with this disorder, too, is that the meds have really rough side effects, so yes, some of them prefer the illness itself than the side effects of the drugs.
Not being confrontational, or suggesting you’re erroneous in your conclusions, just offering a sad reality. As in any problematic behavior, one must want to change. It’s hard to want in when it’s preferential and more pleasant “personally” not to accept that assistance.
“Schizos prefer the company of their voices. I know you don’t want to hear that, but they invaribly do. They feel depressed and dysfunctional without them, typically.”
HST: Can you cite that please?
Nope. Anecdotal as a past med professional and working with an entire extended group of family members engaged in similar professions.
“Prefer” to medicating. As was discussed, the meds suck compared to the symptoms. Bipolars are exactly the same, regarding the highs.
I’ll gladly look for supporting evidence. I’m sure it’s out there; it’s not just a stereotype.
I would love to see some sort of study on that.
Me too. I’ll be looking. I know the docs generalized it: not in a morgue humor way, but more in a head-shaking, resigned-to-the-inevitable way.
This is a common sentiment I found at a website for schizo support but that I have personally heard before, in a fashioin:
the meds make me loose all feelings, like sad, angry, happy,lust love. i feel dead and nothing effects me . i lose all emotional feelings… the voices at least its not so lonely with them… even though they all hate me …well not all of them just the 2…
Don’t worry, I’m still looking, though.
HST: That site is down, I’ll check it in the morning. Charro have to go night night big day sitting on my lazy commie ass waiting for government handouts.
Oops I meant being at work.
Oh, also, I can understand the thing about the meds. I was on Abilify for a while and it really did take away all my feelings. Anger, sadness, happiness; I was basically at an even keel all the time which was frustrating. To be honest though I really preferred it to the crashing depressions and frantic desires to ehm.. Go crazy. For lack of a better term
I can’t speak to how anyone else feels regarding the meds, I only know how I felt. I’m happy to see what you find.
Dunno what you guys are talking about. I’m on emotional stability meds, and I’m just toned down a bit.
Just as crazy as ever, and still have those moods, just feel less anxious about every little thing.
Here’s a good one re: refusing treatment due to desire/need for substance abuse.
Here’s a link to a study on the topic; it’s from 1998 so there likely have been advancements in medicine, but from what my cousin has told me the side effects are still bad.
Good stuff, SB. Thanks.
I was trying to find a link to people “preferring” the voices, but I think that’s all wrapped up in the side effect/refusal to acknowledge sypmtoms phenomenon.
Very well said, ILPB.
We have the “wealthiest” and fattest poor people in the world in America. The definition of poor in america is not having 120 cable channels on the tv.
…and an “I” phone.
Fucking cell phones.
i’ve only got 40… so what am i? nearly homeless??
/sarcasm
Worse, with 40 it means you have no cable!!! that’s just plain un patriotic. You need the Dish or Cable… I think it’s in the Constitution.
I don’t even watch TV… *hides face*
Your probably the smartest one of all yikes
Thanks, but, well, I do want to watch TV though… *hides face*
i do have cable. just the basics. i don’t need 3 ESPN classics. i watched the games live if i was interested at all.
Communist!!!
Uuuhhhmmmm…Don’t Catholic priests take a vow of poverty? Yeah, big FAIL there for the Vatican.
Why are you directing that comment at me?
No, only certain order take that.
Thanks. I wouldn’t know…
Also, they don’t actually own any of that stuff, the church as a whole does.
Kind of like driving the company car, and having a corporate housing allowance… To bad we can’t tax that!
PSST: These aren’t Priests. It’s a Bishop and the Pope. No most priests don’t take a vow of poverty, you’re thinking of monks. However I’ve never known a “rich” priest as they are housed by the church, fed by the chruch.
Deep Throat (sorry everytime I see your name I think of that): Let’s say “liberl agenda” vice liberals, your point becomes that much more valid. However I believe the point you were making is that the liberal agenda, which is not always friendly to Christianity, also employs the tithing rule, however it is enforced more upon the rich, vice everybody.
Point being that it’s too much work to drop a few bucks in the red bucket at xmas…. ROFLMAO!
Point being that a few bucks in the red bucket at Christmas doesn’t cover it. If it did, they wouldn’t be back out every Christmas.
…and I’d only need to file one income tax statement in my entire life…
Okay, everyone, raise your hand if you knew the droning about “liberals” was going to show up here?
Yeah, me too.
Hey there, dumb bitch, wanna blow me before or after you learn how to read?
Illiterate. Moronica.
Deep Thought, you should change your name. For one of two reasons.
Either due to the fact that the name Deep Thought implies that you actually think deeply which you’ve several times demonstrated that you do not.
OR because it’s a reference to Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, and nobody who fails as hard as you should be allowed to quote the Guide.
And you’re no Vonnegut, sweetie-pie.
Point your hard-on somewhere else, pretty boi.
Don’t you have a zit to pop, kid?
Don’t you have a co(k to block?
Who thought the droning from liberals about religion pushing values on them would come up here, raise your hand?
Stromy: It could be said either case so let’s not try and do th epolarizing thing, and actually have a civil diagreement.
doesn’t apply to the followers of Ayn Rand, in fact, they’d be hypocrites if they hocked their stuff for the poor.
There’s not liberals. They’re objectivists. Different beast entirely.
I’m sorry I was replying to the comment “Bullshit it applies to everyone” I was working under the assumption that everyone included anyone whether they are objectivists, liberals, conservatives, stoics, epicurean ect…
The sentiment of the LOL DOES apply to everyone:
How many poor people could YOU keep alive today? is the basic message…
Not as I read it, no.
Literally read, it’s “they” as individuals, and not “it” as in the Catholic Church as an entity.
Ah, but the lol would only apply to people who actually speak for giving money to the poor and saying that that is the morally correct thing to do. So not everyone. The basic message is that urging others to give to the poor because that is right, while you’re more blinged out than a well-off monarch is dodgy.
That’s how I read it.
Yes, but it’s not the literal interpretation, which is what I was addressing. If you didn’t know they were Catholic, you’d just assume the message as being literal.
So nah, nah nah nah-nah.
If I didn’t know they were Catholic I’d assume they were wearing masquerade stuff from a joke shop, cause frankly it all lokks like shite. So I’d kinda assume they were the poor ones. :p
Ok, so not really.
To express it mildly, it was unclear that you were addressing the literal text of the lol and disregarding any common knowledge of the characters in the picture.
Mebbe ah wuz, aayund mebbe ah wuzznt….
Good discussion, either way!
Also, if I didn’t know better, I’d think that was St. Nick and Emperor Palpatine, so I would guess the same thing regarding their costumes…
how many could i keep alive today? hum…none so far as I am aware. My computer is a Frankenstein creature, it’s the only thing in my name and i have a negative net worth for at least a few more years.
I see what you mean though, everyone could be asked that question. it is just there are many groups who have a doctrine that says one thing, and answer another. Christians, Buddhists, Economic Liberals…so on
Okay, guys wait… this LOL is obvious made as trollbait to start arguments. So….
IT’S A TRAP!!!
*obviously
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO………….
Thanks, Admrial Ackbar!
How could they be jamming our signals unless they knew…we were coming…
Well if she does it right, she’ll ask.
They must have used the raspberry..
They look like they’re at Midieval Times! The Pope is totally rooting for the Pink Knight.
Precisely my problem with the catholic church and the vatican.
I’ve read the bible, and I’m pretty sure the carpenter’s son would not approve of a representative of the church carrying a scepter, wearing robes trimmed in gold, etc.
Did these guys even READ the bible?
“Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.” (James 5:1-3)
Well, let’s face it, it’s not like the bible gives the most ethical of instruction…
I’m not saying it does. Hypocrisy just makes me three different flavors of angry.
They act like they’re superior to everyone because they’re devout Catholics but they don’t practice what they preach. /end rant
Then you shouldn’t be here typing on that computer, eh, Stevie ol’ boy. Sell that house and computer and live in a mud hut. It’s all you really need to survive, right?
I’m not a Catholic. I don’t go around telling people to give their riches to the poor…
Do you know the meaning of the word Hypocrisy?
Besides, I’m a liberal. Didn’t you hear? My rich neighbor pays my mortgage and I bought my computer with my welfare checks. /sarcasm
But you are a liberal. So you go around telling people to give their riches to the poor….
No, to the government…
Which is the poorest.
Groan. The majority of people think the government should protect its people from violence. Why not from poverty?
Because governments aren’t designed to be “profitable” such that they have extra income to “give.”
Exactly, government produces no wealth.
If it did, wouldn’t we have to tax it?
I don’t think the government should be overtaxing people to rake in cash to hand out but I do think we need government intervention in basic things. If you’re against the gov’t giving money for welfare you should be against it getting involved in any social matters. Otherwise it’s hypocritical.
I agree!
So then what are we arguing about? Darn the internetz.
Seereyous bizness, teh internetz…
That depends on how you have designed your government. General discussions are tricky if we’re talking about the US government half the time and government in general half the time.
Learn the difference between Social and Economic issues. Then take the time to ask someone about their beliefs before you make assumptions and label them.
I’m Liberal on Social issues.
I prefer they not take ANY tax money for welfare, unemployment, etc. I think that non-profit organizations would do a better job, but when that isn’t enough someone has to step in to prevent people from living on the streets and starving to death.
If not the government…then who?
Or do we just let them starve?
They can eat their shoes!!!! Crap then they have cold feet. Hey aren’t their plenty of rats in the inner cities?!?! (You do realize I’m being sarcastic).
As said before if there isn’t enough money let’s hit up the bleeding heart liberal actors and actresses who do the telethons, but somehow don’t give.
No kidding! I hate how they sponsor all these events where we, the middle class, are supposed to give. But they never do! They could pool all their millions, sports stars too, and feed the hungry for years to come I bet.
How do you know they don’t give? A lot of the rich give generously to charity if for no other reason for the tax deductions.
A lot of them don’t too.
Way to avoid the question. I think he has a valid point.
I did answer the question. Let the people who VOTE to tax me and my kind pay first. Once those who voted for the higher taxes money runs out, then I’ll think about contirbuting. Or I could do what I do every year, clean out my closet of unused clothes (including blnakets, jackets, etc), clean out the cubard of unused cans (which haven’t expired), and continue my monthly gift to charities, and know I’ve done my part.
And those who won’t? What do we do about them? Just say, “Okay, be a dick. That’s great. Want a s’more?” I think it’s sick that some people live in the lap of luxury while other live in the streets.
If you wanna eat, you’ve gotta contribute.
Always been that way, always should be.
I don’t. I think it’s capitalism. I think it’s the right of an idividual to do with their own possesions as they see fit. I know to some liberals that whole “ownership” thing is confusing, but believe it or not people are allowed to own things. People are allowed to have in excess. The sad part Eric is that some people probably believe that you live in the lap of luxury, so are you sick with yourself? When is it deemed too much excess (just above you)? It’s not everyone’s job to help the homeless. Sometimes it’s the homelesses job to help themselves. I know that can’t work in all cases, but forcing people to give up their possesions so those without can have, well that’s thievary.
The problem is that no matter how much “charity/aid” that is given, it will never be enough. People will always want more and more.
No one can eat just one Lays.
Michelle Obama could donate her shoes to help feed the hungry
Oh come one! Her feet aren’t that big.
come “on”
He said “feed” the hungry- not house the hungry!
I doubt they’re THAT hungry.
Or to boat people!!
Social issues don’t exist in a vacuum. They must be funded.
YUP!
Vacuum sucks!
Wind blows!!
i know a girl named wind.
she goes by that
Does she need another plate of beans?
she blows, not break
Can I meet this girl? I want to see if she lives up to her name.
Get in line.
She does. trust me.
don’t you have “blowers” over there?
Yeah but it’s like $10 a pop.
Long live Europe
Yer up… YAY!
At the word flavors, my mind went somewhere it shouldn’t… XD
Squiggly, I’m like a bag of skittles, taste the rainbow!
*wink*