Great. It takes a British economics magazine to tell the truth

[OCinBuffalo]

The truth. This place has been there for 10 damn years and almost all of the inhabitants have alcohol/drug problems.

 

Now, go do search on Tent City Sacramento and see what most of the idiot media in this country say: "Oh GOD! It's the Grapes of Wrath! All these middle class people living in a tent city that has just sprung up because of the depression(Bush created)."

 

It's absolutely pathetic when you have to have a left-leaning weekly magazine 4000 miles away from Sacramento actually do real reporting and get at the facts of the case. Pathetic. Anybody who pretends like this isn't phony is equally pathetic.

 

What's ironic about this? This left-leaning British magazine is asking a perfectly reasonable question: where was the outrage over this tent city 5 years ago? How about 8 years ago?

 

Answer: it had no propaganda value back then. Now they can say "see, we NEEEEED socialism, nice white union people are living in the streets for Pete's sake!" = complete lie....and the far-left tools here and elsewhere wonder why I call them phony. Far-Left Rule #1: It only matters to us if we can get political gain from it today, and only the parts of it that support our nonsense. This is merely one of thousands of examples of why I am wholly justified in calling them phony.

[The Big Cat]

The truth. This place has been there for 10 damn years and almost all of the inhabitants have alcohol/drug problems.

 

Now, go do search on Tent City Sacramento and see what most of the idiot media in this country say: "Oh GOD! It's the Grapes of Wrath! All these middle class people living in a tent city that has just sprung up because of the depression(Bush created)."

 

It's absolutely pathetic when you have to have a left-leaning weekly magazine 4000 miles away from Sacramento actually do real reporting and get at the facts of the case. Pathetic. Anybody who pretends like this isn't phony is equally pathetic.

 

What's ironic about this? This left-leaning British magazine is asking a perfectly reasonable question: where was the outrage over this tent city 5 years ago? How about 8 years ago?

 

Answer: it had no propaganda value back then. Now they can say "see, we NEEEEED socialism, nice white union people are living in the streets for Pete's sake!" = complete lie....and the far-left tools here and elsewhere wonder why I call them phony. Far-Left Rule #1: It only matters to us if we can get political gain from it today, and only the parts of it that support our nonsense. This is merely one of thousands of examples of why I am wholly justified in calling them phony.

 

Is your skepticism aimed at a specific leftist?

 

Seems pretty specific.

[The Big Cat]

The truth. This place has been there for 10 damn years and almost all of the inhabitants have alcohol/drug problems.

 

Now, go do search on Tent City Sacramento and see what most of the idiot media that idiot Oprah in this country says: "Oh GOD! It's the Grapes of Wrath! All these middle class people living in a tent city that has just sprung up because of the depression(Bush created)."

 

It's absolutely pathetic when you have to have a left-leaning weekly magazine 4000 miles away from Sacramento actually do real reporting and get at the facts of the case. Pathetic. Anybody who pretends like this isn't phony is equally pathetic.

 

What's ironic about this? This left-leaning British magazine is asking a perfectly reasonable question: where was the outrage over this tent city 5 years ago? How about 8 years ago?

 

Answer: it had no propaganda value back then. Now they can say "see, we NEEEEED socialism to fix the housing crisis, nice white union people are living in the streets for Pete's sake!" = complete lie....and the far-left tools that tool Oprah wonders why I call them her phony. Far-Left Oprah'sRule #1: It only matters to us me, Oprah if we I can get political gain ratings and insatiable followers from it today, and only the parts of it that support our nonsense. This is merely one of thousands of examples of why I am wholly justified in calling them her phony.

 

Having read the article and deciphered what you meant to say, I must admit, I agree with you.

 

Although, I don't agree that we should set our journalistic standards by Oprah. Of course she'll be pathetic compared to The Economist.

[Wacka]

Actually that tent city has been around for about 40 years.

When Oprah found out. Armstrong & Getty, radio guys who are on in the Sacrament and SF areas, had callers. Some said that that homeless camp started around 1970!

[The Big Cat]

Actually that tent city has been around for about 40 years.

When Oprah found out. Armstrong & Getty, radio guys who are on in the Sacrament and SF areas, had callers. Some said that that homeless camp started around 1970!

 

Yeah, but it was Oprah that discovered the rich lookin honkies.

[Fastback]

GEORGE W BUSH HATES BLACK PEOPLE! HE HATES HOMELESS PEOPLE AND MINORITIES! SARAH PALIN IS A SLUT...OR AT LEAST HER DAUGHTER IS! /Blzrul.

[RLflutie7]

The truth. This place has been there for 10 damn years and almost all of the inhabitants have alcohol/drug problems.

 

Now, go do search on Tent City Sacramento and see what most of the idiot media in this country say: "Oh GOD! It's the Grapes of Wrath! All these middle class people living in a tent city that has just sprung up because of the depression(Bush created)."

 

It's absolutely pathetic when you have to have a left-leaning weekly magazine 4000 miles away from Sacramento actually do real reporting and get at the facts of the case. Pathetic. Anybody who pretends like this isn't phony is equally pathetic.

 

What's ironic about this? This left-leaning British magazine is asking a perfectly reasonable question: where was the outrage over this tent city 5 years ago? How about 8 years ago?

 

Answer: it had no propaganda value back then. Now they can say "see, we NEEEEED socialism, nice white union people are living in the streets for Pete's sake!" = complete lie....and the far-left tools here and elsewhere wonder why I call them phony. Far-Left Rule #1: It only matters to us if we can get political gain from it today, and only the parts of it that support our nonsense. This is merely one of thousands of examples of why I am wholly justified in calling them phony.

 

 

They had these tent cities in Arizona when I lived there and they got plenty of attention from the media. That was almost 6-7 years ago. And it was homeless kids on drugs, old people on drugs and middle age people on drugs.

 

Arizona has a large homeless population because the homeless are not stupid. They get on buses and go to warm climates during the winter. And then go back to the colder areas during the summer.

[Chef Jim]

Actually that tent city has been around for about 40 years.

When Oprah found out. Armstrong & Getty, radio guys who are on in the Sacrament and SF areas, had callers. Some said that that homeless camp started around 1970!

 

I remember that show, I'm the one that wrote about it here. The caller actually said that it's been there since he was a kid over 40 ago and not that it started then. He went on to say that it very well could have been there 50 years prior to that. But pain and suffering make for good "reporting". People really need to do some reading to see how bad things really were in the 30's before they start doing any comparisons.

[Gene Frenkle]

The truth. This place has been there for 10 damn years and almost all of the inhabitants have alcohol/drug problems.

 

Now, go do search on Tent City Sacramento and see what most of the idiot media in this country say: "Oh GOD! It's the Grapes of Wrath! All these middle class people living in a tent city that has just sprung up because of the depression(Bush created)."

 

It's absolutely pathetic when you have to have a left-leaning weekly magazine 4000 miles away from Sacramento actually do real reporting and get at the facts of the case. Pathetic. Anybody who pretends like this isn't phony is equally pathetic.

 

What's ironic about this? This left-leaning British magazine is asking a perfectly reasonable question: where was the outrage over this tent city 5 years ago? How about 8 years ago?

 

Answer: it had no propaganda value back then. Now they can say "see, we NEEEEED socialism, nice white union people are living in the streets for Pete's sake!" = complete lie....and the far-left tools here and elsewhere wonder why I call them phony. Far-Left Rule #1: It only matters to us if we can get political gain from it today, and only the parts of it that support our nonsense. This is merely one of thousands of examples of why I am wholly justified in calling them phony.

Oprah=Liberal Extremism. Got it, thanks.

 

Maybe next time you could wait for a sufficiently partisan story to come along before getting your panties in a knot about what Oprah's up to.

[OCinBuffalo]

How hard is it to google this? You all missed the friggin point(hardly shocking).

 

It's not just Oprah fellas. Over 75% of the damn press parroted this story before it was reported by reasonable people as complete BS. I don't have time or the patience to link to every damn story I found that was reported "Grapes of Wrath" style. It's not hard to type Sacramento Tent City into your favorite search engine and see that for yourself.

 

It's pathetic, and don't try to pretend it's just Oprah. It's "journalists" and "TV reporters" who are blatantly lying to us because they can't get their political views, and their ego, which is tied to their political views, out of the way long enough to do their job properly.

[TPS]

[ Far-Left Rule #1: It only matters to us if we can get political gain from it today, and only the parts of it that support our nonsense. This is merely one of thousands of examples of why I am wholly justified in calling them phony.

Hmmm...I thought this was a universal political rule, independent of labels. I must've been wrong; it's only the left that uses anything and everything for political gain.

[OCinBuffalo]

Hmmm...I thought this was a universal political rule, independent of labels. I must've been wrong; it's only the left that uses anything and everything for political gain.

No. The far-right people are at least aware of the concept of shame. They are religious after all This is also true because Conservatives base their ethos largely on truth, and Liberals largely on compassion. It's easier to lie when you aren't very concerned with the truth, or "things as they really are", to begin with.

 

Let's compare the difference between the Reagan Revolution or the Contract with America --> they were based on removing bad ideas/poor performers in Congress with bad ideas and replacing them with good ideas that not only worked, but worked beyond all expectation...and what has happened since 2006 --> the few improvements(the Surge, Aids relief, etc. ) have happened in spite of the Democrats. Nothing else has improved other than gas prices, due to the market, and nothing this worthless Democratic congress, the worst Congress in history by the numbers, has done.

 

3 years after the Contract with America things were noticeably better across the board. You cannot name one thing this Democratic Congress, that we "had to have immediately or else", has done that has made anything better..not 1 thing. They haven't even originated an idea...other than "spend a sh!tload on pork", but let's face it, that's not really original now is it?

 

The only reason the Democrats are in power is because they were able to skillfully be "for Iraq before they were against it". Kerry must be pissed that he was the only one unable to pull that BS off. It's hysterical that they want to call the Republicans "The party of No". It's like the pot calling the kettle black. If that's the case then the Dems are "the party of nothing" and/or "the party of nonsense".

 

And, where's your "morally superior outrage" over the fact that this camp has been there for at least 10 years?

[The Big Cat]

No. The far-right people are at least aware of the concept of shame. They are religious after all This is also true because Conservatives base their ethos largely on truth, and Liberals largely on compassion. It's easier to lie when you aren't very concerned with the truth, or "things as they really are", to begin with.

 

Let's compare the difference between the Reagan Revolution or the Contract with America --> they were based on removing bad ideas/poor performers in Congress with bad ideas and replacing them with good ideas that not only worked, but worked beyond all expectation...and what has happened since 2006 --> the few improvements(the Surge, Aids relief, etc. ) have happened in spite of the Democrats. Nothing else has improved other than gas prices, due to the market, and nothing this worthless Democratic congress, the worst Congress in history by the numbers, has done.

 

3 years after the Contract with America things were noticeably better across the board. You cannot name one thing this Democratic Congress, that we "had to have immediately or else", has done that has made anything better..not 1 thing. They haven't even originated an idea...other than "spend a sh!tload on pork", but let's face it, that's not really original now is it?

 

The only reason the Democrats are in power is because they were able to skillfully be "for Iraq before they were against it". Kerry must be pissed that he was the only one unable to pull that BS off. It's hysterical that they want to call the Republicans "The party of No". It's like the pot calling the kettle black. If that's the case then the Dems are "the party of nothing" and/or "the party of nonsense".

 

And, where's your "morally superior outrage" over the fact that this camp has been there for at least 10 years?

 

Dude, you're just cranky.

 

Get over it.

[OCinBuffalo]

Dude, you're just cranky.

 

Get over it.

"No reply at all, there's no reply at all"

 

Another fine example of how well grounded the current liberal position is...keep settin' em up, I'll keep knocking them down. You guys can goof around now but realize that the only reason people voted for Democrats was because they were punishing Republicans for screwing up, not because they suddenly think socialism is a good idea. They will punish the Democrats in 2010 if they continue this nonsense.

[The Big Cat]

Another fine example of how well grounded the current liberal position is...keep settin' em up, I'll keep knocking them down. They will punish the Democrats in 2010 if they continue this nonsense.

 

 

I'm not exactly sure what it is you're knocking down, to be honest.

 

You guys can goof around now but realize that the only reason people voted for Democrats was because they were punishing Republicans for screwing up, not because they suddenly think socialism is a good idea.

 

You're right about this.

 

They will punish the Democrats in 2010 if they continue this nonsense.

 

You're wrong about this.

[Chef Jim]

You're wrong about this.

 

Because.....?

[The Big Cat]

Because.....?

 

Because as of right now the Republican brand (for better or for worse) is shot to sh-t.

 

The Democrats (for better or for worse), not so much. IMO, the Dems' rep won't dip as low as the Repubs' over the next 18 months. It might dip, and the Repubs might gain some popularity, but the two will still be pretty far apart.

 

I'm not looking at this in terms of what I think would be best, I'm evaluating the situation based on what I've come to expect from the electorate. I think the Dems might lose some seats in the House. But I don't see any kind of overhaul (as suggested by OC) in the near future. I think 2010 = near.

[Chef Jim]

Because as of right now the Republican brand (for better or for worse) is shot to sh-t.

 

The Democrats (for better or for worse), not so much. IMO, the Dems' rep won't dip as low as the Repubs' over the next 18 months. It might dip, and the Repubs might gain some popularity, but the two will still be pretty far apart.

 

I'm not looking at this in terms of what I think would be best, I'm evaluating the situation based on what I've come to expect from the electorate. I think the Dems might lose some seats in the House. But I don't see any kind of overhaul (as suggested by OC) in the near future. I think 2010 = near.

 

That's your opinion but if Obama's attempt to spend us out of this recession fails miserably, and it very well could, don't count on the dems being in power for long. The democratic lead congress is not exactly knocking it out of the park now.

[buckeyemike]

People really need to do some reading to see how bad things really were in the 30's before they start doing any comparisons.

 

And this is 100% correct. See, I have three rules on this board:

 

1) Always listen to Dean. He's not always right, but he's close.

 

2) Always listen to Chef. His winning percentage is close to Dean's.

 

3) When Dean and Chef say conflicting things, flip a coin. You'll be right half the time.

[Chef Jim]

And this is 100% correct. See, I have three rules on this board:

 

1) Always listen to Dean. He's not always right, but he's close.

 

2) Always listen to Chef. His winning percentage is close to Dean's.

 

3) When Dean and Chef say conflicting things, flip a coin. You'll be right half the time.

 

Dude it is waaaay to early in the day for you to be this drunk.