San Francisco is probably the most "Democratic" city in all the nation. It is very much a shining example of the warm, caring love that embodies that party so much.
To prove to the rest of us how much they love us, they like to take our money and wisely create these wonderful social programs to take care of us.
Here's a story about how one of those programs took care of a homeless man who tried to turn his life around. This is progressive change we can all believe in!
"He sleeps under a bridge, washes in a public bathroom and was panhandling for booze money 11 months ago, but now Larry Moore is the best-dressed shoeshine man in the city. When he gets up from his cardboard mattress, he puts on a coat and tie. It's a reminder of how he has turned things around.
"In fact, until last week it looked like Moore was going to have saved enough money to rent a room and get off the street for the first time in six years. But then, in a breathtakingly clueless move, an official for the Department of Public Works told Moore that he has to fork over the money he saved for his first month's rent to purchase a $491 sidewalk vendor permit."
Read the rest of the article here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/04/MNJQ1807UK.DTL
Larry Moore, the homeless shoeshine guy, looked like a million bucks Monday morning at his stand on the corner of Market and New Montgomery. He was wearing a fresh-pressed shirt and tie and said he’d been sleeping in the $600-a-month hotel room he’s booked.
Moore, who became a San Francisco celebrity when it was revealed that the city was insisting that he use his first month’s rent to pay for a sidewalk sales license, said he ended up with more than $2,500 in cash and will use the money to buy his permit, pay his rent and add to his savings account.
“What I really would like to do is thank San Francisco,” he said.
(SFGate)
I do agree that was a shitty thing of the city to do to him so soon, but the people of the city, those damned liberals, had other ideas.
Signed,
That Damned, Dirty Ape
And don't confuse Democrats with liberals. The name "liberal" implies a love of liberty, and anyone who supports a system that aggresses against his neighbor for a victimless crime is not someone who delights in the liberty of others.
I doubt, if the streets were privately owned, that the private owner would allow a street vendor to operate on his property without paying a fee (or sleep there in a cardboard box, for that matter).
This guy was lucky a reporter, who seems to have a chip on his shoulder about government, decided to use him to try to smear the city government. I wonder how many other homeless people there are out there he's gonna help, or if tomorrow he'll be bitching about wasteful "entitlement" programs that might've helped this guy out much sooner.
BTW, liberal has lots of meanings, like "generous" and "open-minded". Somewhere in there it does talk about seeking the maximum individual freedom, which you seem to think you have the right to redefine as "freedom from taxes" and not "freedom from poverty".
Me, being a liberal, am happy to share the word with people who view individual freedom differently.
You seem to want to try to possess the word and deny it to me. That's not very liberal of you.
Whats promising is that our position is supposed to be the "crazy off the wall" conspiracy theory type stance...but it seems as though thats changing. More and more it is starting to sound like your position is the "crazy off the wall" conspiracy theory. I mean seriously, reporter with chip on this shoulder trying to smear the government? An article "shaming people into helping?" Charging a homeless person a $500 business permit? Are you joking or what?
"All truth passes through three stages, first is is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident"
Arthur Schopenhauer
>> ^NetRunner:
^ Actually, the government came out to help afterward too.
That evil newspaper shaming the public into helping that poor man out. LOL! What a ridiculous claim.
>> ^NetRunner:
^ I doubt, if the streets were privately owned, that the private owner would allow a street vendor to operate on his property without paying a fee (or sleep there in a cardboard box, for that matter).
Why do you fear your common man so much? You have no faith in your neighbor even though 98% of people tend to be good and desire strongly to coexist. But you paint everyone with a broad brush of disdain; lumping them in with those in the minority that have no desire to coexist and help their neighbor. People are better than you think. Won't you give them a chance?
Also, your broad generalization against private owners is ridiculous, because private owners of businesses do in fact take care of the poor and homeless. Private citizens also donate generously to homeless shelters.
>> ^NetRunner:
^Somewhere in there it does talk about seeking the maximum individual freedom, which you seem to think you have the right to redefine as "freedom from taxes" and not "freedom from poverty".
Because that's the point of liberty, isn't it? Being individual, not collective. There's more to it than "freedom from taxes", it's freedom to own your own labor, your own life and to not to have others own you and your labor. That's what you mean to say, right? Because that's being a good Jeffersonian liberal.
Yes, freedom is about telling other people "you can't have this, it's mine!"
My goodness, three libertarians come out of the woodwork to tell me I'm not allowed to call myself a liberal.
Yes, freedom is about telling other people "you can't have this, it's mine!"
You're allowed to call yourself whatever you want. Choosing to call yourself "liberal" puts you in a pickle though, since the etymology of that word suggests "liberty", something you seem to equate with... what exactly... hoarding resources?
btw, would you say the Statue of Liberty is a "liberal" symbol or a "libertarian" symbol?