Only trash bins that have been converted into shelters for the homeless have toilets. Clearly this is a neighborhood that doesn't allow the homeless.

Catch everyone who doesn't have a gas can and lighter in their hands. Anyone dumb enough to unambiguously look like an arsonist in a burning building gets a Darwin award posthumously.

Then why ignore the one asking for help to give to one who just looks like they need help? That's not trust, it's judgement. Maybe they're just dirty, not homeless or needy.

Edit: My point is most people don't help homeless or needy people because they think there's a good chance they're going to use the money for something they don't support or that they're not really needy (some panhandlers in SF have reportedly pulled six figure incomes, I knew of one at Stanford that drove to work panhandling in a nice Mercedes.) If you can take the time to buy them a meal of their choosing or what they need in a store, you have control and helped more...on top of treating them like a human being, not a problem or eyesore. Those wanting cash, not help, will refuse.
Yes, I understand it's asking more of people.

Speaking up does not do nothing.

Sometimes reasonable people make mistakes, and when shown the error of their ways, they change.

This is not the case here. Here, a race baiting video is posted by someone with a clear history of racist posts, thoughts, language, and who gives other racists his full support. That must be denounced strongly or others who are like minded or just ignorant might feel emboldened to repeat the racism....as Bob did, repeating the racist comments from YouTube, thinking the sarcasm button shields him from repercussions.

What does nothing is remaining silent or worse, defending the thinly veiled racism. Both of those actions, like ignoring measles or kudzu, allows it to spread and gain traction elsewhere until it's intractable. Nip it in the bud every single time is the only method that helps.


Btw, imo it's a better plan to find that homeless person and buy them a meal, or socks. Take them in a store (or restaurant if they're presentable enough to not bother other patrons), let them buy what they want or need, and pay for it. Yes, you have to interact with them longer and not just drop a bill to feel good about yourself, but the results are much better, and your gift won't be stolen by others or used for drugs. Those just looking for drug money will usually refuse the offer in my experience.

File that under the "Thoughts and Prayers" column. It does nothing.

Try this sometime. While you are riding around in your car and happen to see a black homeless person, pick one that's not holding out a cup. Someone that's not expecting it and give him or her $20 bucks and drive away. It will fill your heart and theirs. Watch their face in your rearview mirror. You will feel like you saved the world and you never spoke a word.

I guess we'll be seeing more homeless, drug sniffing dogs out on the street now.

Someone needs to inform the homeless.

Yes, widespread poverty, largely because of insane wealth inequality. (I'll elaborate if you wish) The rich had plenty to eat, and as the dismissive "let them eat cake" implied, had no concern for those who didn't. It was that disparity paired with the dismissal of the peasants plight by the ruling class that tipped a bad situation into civil war/revolt, imo.

Yes, poor are going hungry in the United States, maybe not starving to death often, but suffering to death from ailments caused by the only diets they can afford, which barely qualify as food. No, it's not to the extent of 1700 France, but we wouldn't tolerate anywhere near those conditions today, so that argument is ludicrous.

The real poor in America don't have roofs or electricity, where are these TV'S they're parked in front of exactly? The homeless problem is growing exponentially...those are the real poor surfs in this analogy, not just people like me who can live fine on $15k a year.

Poor can't afford TV's now that there's no free broadcast stations anymore.

It's their phones they can't look away from.

Kids starving? Yep. Homeless? Check. Deal drugs and/or pimp yourself out just to survive? Sure, but you'll pry my iPhone from my cold, dead hands.

Fixing and upgrading our crumbling infrastructure could easily create enough of those jobs at least short term, by which I mean one to two decades, to employ every single able bodied American....granted, that's less than 1/3 of us, but would make unemployment rare.

Some countries have tried the free check/minimum income. It turned out to have zero effect on employment, no one decided they shouldn't work and just live on the stipend, it was under $600 a month, but they did find a huge benefit in well being and homelessness.
I don't see a huge difference from social security except age.

That said, I agree, what I've read of this new deal is overreaching pie in the sky dreaming that only made those supporting it seem unrealistic and not serious.

My new deal would trade all these benefits for sterilization after one child. Anyone with two kids pays more and is excluded from benefits, those with 3 or more go to work camps to pay society back for their irresponsibility. Lower the population by 1/2 and solving all these issues becomes exponentially simpler....many solve themselves.

1 more comment have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Minnesota here, and seeing homeless people peeing into a snowdrift isn't much better. Oh, and you're freezing your holly jolly balls off too.

Your video, Woman steps into the line of fire to save a homeless man, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

homeless..

To be clear, 99% of Americans don't have any problems with socialism as long as they belong to the group getting the handouts.

Case and point, $12 billion in farm welfare to ease the "temporary" (yet to be seen) pain Trump's trade war is causing farmers (so much for free market economics). You won't find any Republican farmers turning that money down just because they hate socialism, but those same people denounce welfare for the un and under employed, the hungry, and the homeless as harmful and unAmerican.

As to affirmative action, keep in mind the specific case mentioned was about reversing sexual discrimination too, not just race and class. How, exactly, they think public institutions can achieve the diversity of genders and races many are required by law to achieve without looking at gender or race is beyond me.

It bears noting, the people claiming to hate socialism (but who love our socialist programs like the military) invariably don't think giving the disenfranchised and those denied opportunity preferential treatment is OK....until that includes them.

Not to be pedantic, but I know enough people who've claimed money has "nothing to do with happiness" literally that I have to counter it.

If you lack the money to keep you, or even more your children nourished or protected from the elements, you will discover there are many reasons for unhappiness that money can aid with. Money in no way grants or guarantees happiness, but there are a lot of things that make you miserable and sad that money can overcome, hungry and homeless children being the most obvious.