24 Forum Posts by "stilanas"
At 7/26/06 01:02 AM, DarthTomato wrote:At 7/25/06 06:38 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote: Any organization that actually tries to feed homeless people vegan food deserves to not exist.yeah really, meat is food too!
personally I'm amazed that the homeless never seem to learn how to hunt local animals for food, you would THINK that instinct would kick in after a while and they would beg up some money and get a pellet gun or something. personally I learned how to get squirrels with rat traps, and it works GREAT.
Rumors exist of homeless who live in the wilderness of Orange county. The reason most wouldn't though is its dangerous and that should the person get hurt, it would be very difficult to get to an emergency room. Also, keep in mind, a homeless person doesn't really have a whole lot of places to store things. He would have to walk around with the pellet gun and officers of the law would probably harass them over it.
Why? The alternative that the coalition provides is either junk food or just plain nasty.
At 7/25/06 03:09 PM, DarthTomato wrote: liberals running poor people out of their homes and then making feeding the homeless illegal? wow. who'da thunk it?
hense why the world "liberals" was in quotes
At 7/25/06 11:11 AM, Der_Pandar wrote: Waste of thread.
How is that?
At 7/25/06 04:59 AM, The_Hoobinator wrote: Why should I have to press 1 for english? I find it annoying when I call any phone number the has an automated answering machine and it askes me to press 1 for english. Last time i checked the official lanquage of the United States was ENGLISH! What do you thing about this?
I shed a tear at your inconvience at having to press a single button.
-----------------------
Eola homeless meals banned
Over loud protest, much of downtown is ruled off-limits
Rich Mckay | Sentinel Staff Writer
Boos, applause and raucous outbursts from the gallery laced a four-hour public hearing Monday as a majority of the Orlando City Council banned the feeding of homeless groups in Lake Eola Park and other city property downtown.
"See you in court," Eric Montanez called to the council after the 5-2 vote. Montanez is a member of the group Food Not Bombs, which has been feeding the homeless in the downtown park. He and others in the group vowed they would defy the ban and feed the homeless anyway.
George Crossley, director of the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said his group planned to seek a court injunction today to suspend the ordinance.
City Council members said they were justified in approving the ban for public safety, sanitation and the simple fact that downtown parks aren't soup kitchens.
The ordinance specifically bans feeding groups of 25 or larger in parks and other city property within a two-mile radius of City Hall without a special one-time-use permit.
"It's not an easy day for me at all," said Commissioner Patty Sheehan, who pushed for the ordinance after complaints from downtown business owners and some residents that the homeless were taking over Lake Eola Park.
She has said that the new ordinance has been wrongly cast as anti-homeless.
"I've been an advocate [for the homeless]," she said. "Even though you'll call me an enemy, I'll still be your friend."
Proponents of the ordinance include downtown developer Craig Ustler, who said the issue does not stem from a "not in my backyard" mentality. He said it is an essential step in keeping a clean, safe, vibrant city.
About a dozen downtown residents and business owners spoke in favor of the rule.
Eric Kerlin said people have used his yard and bushes as a bathroom and damaged his property. More urgently, "I'd like to use the park without fear of being harassed or robbed."
But the call against passing the ordinance was loud and long -- with 45 speakers from various groups, including a formal declaration from the University of Central Florida's student senate. Others opponents included well-known homeless charity groups, such as The Ripple Effect, and lesser-known ones, such as Tailgating for Jesus and the First Vagabond Church of God.
Natasha Inzarry, a UCF student who started Volunteer UCF, begged the council not to pass the ordinance and, instead, sit at the table with students and others to find a better solution.
She broke down in tears after the vote.
But Robin Stotter, who is opening a restaurant downtown, said the ordinance is needed.
"The homeless issue is not going to be solved today," he said. "It's a safety issue, and the public deserves a safe place to be."
Stotter also pledged his money for food, medicine and shelter for the homeless.
Commissioners Robert Stuart, who runs the homeless shelter Christian Service Center, and Sam Ings, a retired police officer, voted against the measure.
Stuart said the city is taking a step to "criminalize good-hearted people" who are trying to help. He also said he didn't think group feedings in the parks had become unwieldy to the city.
He said the ordinance says, "Orlando doesn't care." Ings said that, while the ordinance was being cast as a public-safety issue, he thinks it's more about covering up the city's homeless problem.
"We're putting a Band-Aid on a critical problem," he said.
Mayor Buddy Dyer said the city has a difficult balancing act between controlling the parks and helping the homeless. He has called for a regional approach to helping the homeless.
"I support this [ordinance], but I pledge to you that we'll work hard to do more."
----------------------
Orlando "liberals" on city council fucking suck
I moved back to jacksonville after graduation from UCF to live with my parents but having heard about several of my college friends getting involved in a protest yesterday, I paid Orlando a visit to join in because the issue made me so mad. The issue was that the city council, at the behest of the business community and yuppies moving downtown pricing poor people out of thier homes, were going to pass an ordinance making it illegal for organizations like food not bombs and a few churches from giving food to homeless people as they have been doing in Lake Eola park without a permit which they only give out twice a year.
The worst thing is that the traitor that sponsored this is a democrat that ran as a progressive candidate. The other side argues that the weekly feedings at Lke Eola were attracting more homeless people to the area. Apparently, homeless people are not human beings and not as entitled to the same right to use a public park. Opponents claim that there already is a coalition for the homeless and offered other areas to do these feedings.
What they don't want to admit is that the coalitions food is awful and is mostly sugary junk food and the shelters are known to be more dangerous than the streets at times. People smoke crack outside the shelters. Food Not Bombs offers healthy and complete vegan meals. Another thing the yuppies don't want to admit is that the alternative location is in a much more dangerous part of town, where several homeless people have been beaten up and or killed, for sport. Unlike the alternative location which is under an overpass, Lake Eola is much safer and has public bathrooms and trees and flowers.
It's generally a nicer place over all. I get the impression that the yuppies supporting this are upset that they don't have the privledge of not having to look at people who are poor. Out of sight, out of mind. Hell, one guy at the meeting said he didn't like having to use the same bathrooms as poor people. Some lady also came up and argued that Food Not Bombs have ulterior motives because FNB is anarchist, a blatant ad hom logical fallcy which I called her on when it was my turn to speak. I observed other people making strawmen arguements that our arguement that starving homeless people would be forced to turn to theft was a threat against his person.
Several people who attended the meeting with us were homeless. Heck the majority of the room was on our side but to the city council and DINO mayor Buddy Dyer, the concerns of homeless voters don't matter. In the end, the ordinance passed, just as several other ordinances passed. I couldn't imagine the christians on the board voting for this. When was the last time you heard jesus object to helping the less fortunate because it "lowered the property values" or because "the business community objects. Orlando has a statue of Martin Luther King and around the park are statues of people like Ghandi. Would they have voted for this? The idea that a measure is morally justified because of property values or concerns that crime rates would go up are the same excuses people used to use to not let black people move in to thier neighborhoods. Besides, if this is a public safety issue, then how is it wrong to supposedly endanger public safety in downtown but perfectly fine to endanger public safety, not to mention the safety of the homeless, by moving it to a different, more crime ridden neighborhood.
You know what, fuck what the city council says. Food Not Bombs and the others have the ACLU and NOW on their side and they are going to get an injunction against the city and follow up with a lawsuit. Even though the ordinance passed, FNB is going to disobey and continue to feed the homeless anyway. I want to see them, the city, actually send paddy wagons out and try and get on film arresting these kids for feeding starving people.
Here is the story from the Orlando Sentinel
At 11/21/05 12:43 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:At 11/21/05 12:40 PM, -Typhoon- wrote:Do you agree that the Salvation Army helps people in need? Do you think having in front of Target helps the SA help people in need? Is the reaction really all that surprising from the AFA, if Target is banning an organization who's goal is to help people?
Humm...
What I object to is that they are pinning this on an imagined "War on Christmas" supposedly conducted by liberals to mobilize social conservatives. They make up fake things like this all the time, like accusing liberals of trying to convert kids to homosexuality. Their name is a joke. "Family" is just a code word for "Straight Christian Family."
At 11/21/05 12:37 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:At 11/21/05 12:33 PM, -Typhoon- wrote: Whatever happened to freedom of speech?Wait a sec, it's the other way around. The AFA is practicing their protected right to free speech and assembly by boycotting a chain. Target is getting rid of Salvation Army because they are affiliated with Christians.
Should the AFA start boycotting all neutral religion-orientated organizations and companies?
God, these type of people piss me off...
How come when liberals boycott Wal-mart they are doing their duty, yet when conservatives boycott Target they are violating free speech?
In my view its not so much that they are against free speech by conducting a boycott but that their speech is very stupid.
Also christianity is not why they got rid of them, I saw a story last year that explained it was because tons of other groups wanted to do the same thing and they didn't want to feel like they had to cater to an army of charities and political activists begging in front of their store year round. Though I do agree it was a bad move.
At 11/21/05 12:33 PM, -Typhoon- wrote: Whatever happened to freedom of speech?
Should the AFA start boycotting all neutral religion-orientated organizations and companies?
God, these type of people piss me off...
I feel the same. They don't care about any thing important. They only care about God, and they're very selective about that. They emphasize the bible's homophobia, psuedo-science. and the patriarchal values but you never see them chapioning politically the causes of the poor, exerting pressure to end the death penalty, or being pascifists. I almost never see these people actually act christ-like.
http://headlines.aga..e/11/afa/182005b.asp
Here is some news from the front lines of the culture war. In the moron goggles of conservative christians, not getting everything you want when it includes covering the entire public sphere is equivalent to opression. Supposedly there is a "War on Christmas" according the AFA and Fox New's Bill "Oh Really?", who accuse "radical secularists" of conducting. The entire thing is a lie to moblize conservatives who may be comming around on the war but are too stupid to see that they are being manipulated. Nobody ever campaigned for businesses to make a more neutral December greeting, it was something they did on their own to make more money but catering to a more diverse audience.
----------------------------------------
AFA Founder Urges Pro-Family Holiday Season Shoppers to Shun Target
By Ed Thomas
November 18, 2005
(AgapePress) - The American Family Association (AFA) wants help from the shopping public in using the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday weekend to keep sending a message to Target Stores about the national chain's faith-and-family-unfriendly practices.
AFA chairman Donald E. Wildmon says it is important that the organization's current boycott against Target, which started in October, keep hurting the company's bottom line -- that is, the amount of money made -- especially during the biggest shopping weekend of the year. He is hoping a strong message from the pro-family shopping public will help convince Target to change some of its policies.
The reasons for the boycott are valid ones, Wildmon asserts, and they include Target's "refusal to let the Salvation Army put their kettles in front of the stores," and the company's policy "banning all use of 'Merry Christmas' in their internal store operations and in their advertising." He says Target wants the profits from Christian families' spending, but the retailer does not want their holiday message or the spirit of their charities -- including faith-based service organizations like the Salvation Army.
That is why the AFA spokesman feels it is essential that projected sales at Target stores nationwide and the value of the company's shares continue dropping, as a recent USA Today report indicates they have. He says the newspaper article revealed that Target's new store revenue and stock value have both taken a hit over the last year.
"They are a good bit lower in their sales in November than they had expected," Wildmon notes. "In fact, it's so bad that on Tuesday of this week, their stock dropped seven percent in one day." The Christian activist believes these low numbers are likely due in large part to the boycott, and he wants to see the trend continue.
It is important, Wildmon asserts, that the upcoming monster Thanksgiving shopping weekend and Christmas season be used to show Target that it cannot get Christians' purchasing revenue while rejecting their beliefs and their charities. He is encouraging pro-family shoppers to take their money elsewhere until Target gets the message and changes its policies.
At 11/15/05 04:28 PM, Postal_guy wrote: Aren't kids always inesent?
What?
At 11/14/05 08:39 PM, AxCide wrote: Source
SACRAMENTO, Calif. The atheist who's spent years trying to ban recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools says he'll file a new lawsuit this week.
Michael Newdow says he'll ask a federal court to order removal of the national motto "In God We Trust" from U-S coins and currency. He says it violates the religious rights of atheists who belong to his "First Amendment Church of True Science."
The church's "three suggestions" are "question, be honest and do what's right." Newdow says it wouldn't be right to take up a collection when the money says "In God We Trust."
Last year, the Supreme Court dismissed Newdow's lawsuit over the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance because he doesn't have custody of his daughter, in whose name the lawsuit was filed.
Newdow has resurrected that case by filing an identical lawsuit on behalf of two families.
Personally to me, this Newdow is a moron and he needs to hook up with the aclu. He would feel more at home there. The money motto doesn't violate the first amendment because "God" pertains to many religions and not just one. "God" is currently stereotyped to Christianity. Is stereotyping bad? According to todays standards it is.
God defined from wordnet.princeton.edu/
"the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions"
What do you guys think about it?
You should look at the intent of adding under god to the pledge and changing the national motto to "In God We Trust" when it was originally "E Pluribus Unum." I may be spelling that incorrectly. The motto was put in place as a means of setting Americans appart from communist Russia and to isolate religious minorities in this country such as atheists.
At 11/15/05 12:04 PM, _ouren_ wrote: Is this a joke?
God doesn't exist. If you would have grown up never hearing of god you wouldn't believed in him so why should you now. Does it make you a better person to be informed (from the age at witch you had no oppinion for yourself)?
Boy you sure are edgy! You may even be in my face!
At 11/14/05 04:35 PM, psk21 wrote:At 11/14/05 04:04 PM, Newground_Freak wrote:I would agree with this one, imagine your on a plane to New York on your airline pilot just snorts a line? Wouldn't that make you uncomfortable? Knowing that someone in that position could legally do that would cause alot of uproar.
It wouldn't have to be legal in all situations. Like alcohol and other legal mind affecting drugs, it need not be legal for one to do it on a plane.
At 11/14/05 12:46 PM, ScottysSHIT wrote: i was watching the news and all of a sudden they just made Pot legel in the TOWN denver. your are aloud to smoke as much as you want grow it whatever. you are alound to carry a onuce on you at anytime tho you cannot leave denver with it. the reason they made it legel is that they are tryin to stear us away from smoking and drinking bc studys show that Pot is the most un harmful drug. also another fact is that they said it will be legel in other states very soon (within 5 years possibly)
Not quite, it is still a crime under both state and federal law but the local law enforcement will not do anything about it.
hell is a problem, what I consider to be a fatal contradiction in the whole belief system
How can anyone rationalize the existance of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent diety with the existance of an infine torture. There exists no crime anyone can commit for which damnation fits. To damn someone, this omnibenevolent god punishes them for all eternity. To make matters worse, some conceptions of him, like the baby in the oven example from the first post say the person doesn't even have to be that bad. Everyone sins so without faith, everyone who is not christian is burned in a lake of molten brimstone/
One model of this rationalization uses the premise that the punishment fits the crime because the victim is god. A crime that is commited upon a person of higher status than the offender merits a harsher punishment. For instance, a person merits more punishment for the murder of a public official than a commoner or a slave. Since god is the infinity creator of all that exists he has infinite status so the only appropiate punishment is one that is infinite. Still, the idea of status as an aggrivating factor is a rather primitive idea. Can you really believe in an omnibenevolent god that damns people?
At 11/8/05 03:09 PM, Just_Think wrote:What WILL work?In our form of government, voting.
For example, if, lets say, you are opposed to President Bush's current agenda. During mid-term elections, vote Democrat (as long as the platform the Democratic candidate is running on is sound, of course). If it is noticed that a majority of Americans voted Democrat as opposed to Republican, the Republican party will have to review their agenda and most likely need to change it if they wish to win the next presidential election.
If voting alone ever changed anything they would have made it illegal. If more people voted democratic it wouldn't make that much of a difference in legislative elections given that districts are gerrymandered to the point of no return. The only time congresspeople ever have turn over is on those rare occasions when they get caught in bed with a woman who winds up dead.
There needs to be more than single individuals voting and never having some kind of grassroots strategy that exposes the corruption and lies.
At 11/8/05 02:18 PM, punisher19848 wrote: What does protesting accomplish anyway? No one with any political clout would even waste his time paying attention to these underemployed/unemployed members of society because there are too few of them to make any real difference at the ballot box.
I think your characterization of us as a bunch of unemployed people is very unfair. I've been to some of the bigger protests. A great majority of these protestors are not only employed or in college but are also successful. People from many walks of life who feel disenfranchised are represented. We have lawyers, doctors, academics, artists, poets, writers, environmentalists, straight people, gay people, christians, jews, muslims, pagans, white people, black people, red people, yellow people, brown people, pot smokers, straight edgers, punks, hippies, yuppies, professionals, white collars, blue collars, Vietnam veterans, Gulf War veterans, young people, old people, freaks, geeks, and every combination of the above. I myself am a college student and our teachers are with us all the way. The anti-war student organization of which I am a member is composed of active students with good grades.
The purpose of these protests is to rally enough concerned citizenstogether, and there are a great many of us, hundreds of thousands who come to these protests, to get media attention to the large an diverse body of people who say no to Bush. Admittedly few elected officials, even, in the Democratic party showed up and that's a damned shame. That party sold out the left a long time ago and its leaders are for the most part puppets of the same assclowns who pull the strings in the Republican party. That said, it is undeniable evidence that the opposition is there, waiting to be tapped.
At 11/5/05 01:07 PM, TimeFrame wrote: You really think conservatives like this fucker?
Nobody likes this fucker aside from policy makers on both sides of the aisle looking for a quick way to pander to the football mom crowd who don't know his history.
At 11/6/05 07:03 PM, SANAND wrote: I keep hearing all about how all other countries hate america, and my social studies teacher said they hate us because they are jealous that we have like 6% of the world's population, but 60% of its riches. I am curious so any forigners that hate/dont like America/Me please confirm because i am really curious why you hate us. And plz dont come in here with some bullshit answer involving religion or some other stupid shit that should have nothing to do with how a country is viewed. No aggressive answers either. I just want a calm answer about why you dont like us. Also no answers that say we are killing the earth or we shouldent be invading other countries or whatever, because I already know that we are and that we shouldnt be. Thank you in advance.
Is your social studies teacher always prone to making such bold claims? That seems a very complicated question. There are a lot of reasons, some of them contradict wach other because they are held by different people around the world.
At 11/2/05 06:15 PM, bratpack34 wrote: the extent of this ban is that we aren't allowed too have anything that is "rebellous" or shit like that. so yeah sorta about making us rebels. really the person(the bitch at the little board meeting..some mom that thinks god hates all rock music) that had alot of people on her side(only a few but enough too make it worth a debate...screwy I know).
All you can do is put up with it untill college. Public High Schools are run like factories. Anyone who pull the "In Loco Parentis" crap in college gets laughed out of the room. When I was a freshman, I'd go to 7AM classes in my PJd and middle of the day classes sporting a shirt with a huge pot leaf. No one gives a shit here. They don't make draconian rules about lockers, dress codes, tardy slips, absences, or eating at a restaurant other than the cafeteria. We have our fair share of Bureaucratic Bullshit but it is worlds apart with what you guys have to deal with.
If I dismiss an arguement because I demonstrate that it is invalid or its premises are false, claiming I do not offer a better alternative arguement it does not make me wrong about the first.
I am not the President of the United States. I am not obligated to offer an alternative policy if I dismiss the president's as being poor.
The war on Iraq was a massive failure and a big mistake. We're doing more harm than good, both for Iraq and ourselves. People who say that if we pull out now that Iraq will be a disaster don't realize that it already is a disaster. Our policy of detaining terror suspects, including american citizens without confirmation or fair trials that they have any real connection to terrorism for intelligence that is worthless is a black mark on our history. Torturing people does not yield reliable information. The current presidental administration has spent more money than all of the previous presidents combined, all the while cutting aid to the needy and scholarships to pay for more bombs and give more money to people who are already rich.
If you want an alternative here it is. The president should do the exact opposite of what he is doing now on all the issues I have cited and then some.
I wonder when Zeus and Thor will Smite that whore.
