Oregon will allow homeless individuals to pitch tents on public land......

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Who’s to stop one homeless addict from forcibly evicting another homeless addict from the spot on public land that they both claim?
Democrats are the greatest existential threat facing the US.

 

[badger2]

All towns and cities should build tent areas. Imagine how many working folk would live in tents so ad not to have a mortgage or pay rent. Money saved means some loser landlord doesn't find renters.

Yes, though when the Cynic says it would be a fine place to raise your kids, he is precisely right, no joke. Encampments don’t have to be placed on vacant ghetto lots, and apparatus of the future will definitely be more sophisticated than tents.

The child growing up will feel less threatened to constantly experience this “alternate village” where even some type of vetting is not out of the question. They can pay a small rent as they go along, and since the structures are their own, they can leave if and when a landlord tweaks for some reason, because there will be more than a few of these. The camper should also be afforded some privacy from other human pathologies as they deal with their own problems, because the violence of government-funded religious shelters, for example, relies on this type of mixing so that they can poetize themselves As “doing the lord’s work.” Thus, rentals should be intelligently partitioned, with the flexibility to move to another location if one confronts a funky individual they do not like.

 

[badger2]

Who’s to stop one homeless addict from forcibly evicting another homeless addict from the spot on public land that they both claim?
Democrats are the greatest existential threat facing the US.

It will be impossible to call another a homeless addict if they own their own structure. These small villages of the future will challenge the definition of “house” and “home.” They may also have security guards and video cams. If one feels uncomfortable with video cams, they may feel uncomfortable with vetting, too.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I am fine with them in parks, but not in the middle of the damn sidewalk. You can have compassion and common sense at the same time.

Not in leftist run areas. Where have you been living?

 

[whitehall]

The left coast has been doing it for years. The state of Washington gave up it's once beautiful parks to derelicts and drug abusers who use the parks for toilets. You can't take a kid to a park without risking some incident related to sexual display. The Cops don't care anymore.

 

[badger2]

It will be out of style to call someone a homeless addict, because the style we are describing will be in style, and the children see groovy, interesting things going on, such as solar panels on the rooftops of these micro-abodes. The Japanese minimalist approach (intelligent use of space) should fascinate them.

 

[badger2]

The “addict” will be transformed through (you guessed it) work. They will, piece by piece, build their own structure, prepare their own meals, etc. two psychologically rewarding activities. Until the structure is completed, it can be stored in safety, away from marauders, in a storage unit. Yes there’s rent involved, though it’s still a healing movement of progress that should bolster the Unconscious, which operates machinically, like a factory.

Nevertheless, drug addicts, alcoholics, etc., will likely find this trajectory difficult, though it does something about class difference, now being politically manipulated as JoeXi attempts to destroy the middle class infrastructure.

 

[Dekster]

I am fine with them in parks, but not in the middle of the damn sidewalk. You can have compassion and common sense at the same time.

Not in leftist run areas. Where have you been living?

in a place where there isn't much homelessness except under contrived definitions

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Who’s to stop one homeless addict from forcibly evicting another homeless addict from the spot on public land that they both claim?
Democrats are the greatest existential threat facing the US.

It will be impossible to call another a homeless addict if they own their own structure. These small villages of the future will challenge the definition of “house” and “home.” They may also have security guards and video cams. If one feels uncomfortable with video cams, they may feel uncomfortable with vetting, too.

Owning a tent doesn’t constitute real estate.
A homeless addict is, in fact, a homeless addict.

 

[badger2]

Who’s to stop one homeless addict from forcibly evicting another homeless addict from the spot on public land that they both claim?
Democrats are the greatest existential threat facing the US.

It will be impossible to call another a homeless addict if they own their own structure. These small villages of the future will challenge the definition of “house” and “home.” They may also have security guards and video cams. If one feels uncomfortable with video cams, they may feel uncomfortable with vetting, too.

Owning a tent doesn’t constitute real estate.
A homeless addict is, in fact, a homeless addict.

A renter doesn’t constitute real estate. A renter is, in fact, a rental addict. A real estate owner is, in fact a real estate addict.

 

[justinacolmena]

in a place where there isn't much homelessness except under contrived definitions

Wherever people are living, that is by definition their home — I'm assuming citizens or legal residents rather than illegal aliens.

Owning a tent doesn’t constitute real estate.
A homeless addict is, in fact, a homeless addict.

There are parks where it is perfectly acceptable for people to pitch tents and camp out, but then guns are banned and there's a crowd that shows up with needles and syringes, and people are O.D.'ed in the middle of the night, and never wake up in the morning. Bodies are rolled up tent and sleeping bag and all, hauled off in an old jalopy or hatch back sedan or station wagon, and never seen again.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Who’s to stop one homeless addict from forcibly evicting another homeless addict from the spot on public land that they both claim?
Democrats are the greatest existential threat facing the US.

It will be impossible to call another a homeless addict if they own their own structure. These small villages of the future will challenge the definition of “house” and “home.” They may also have security guards and video cams. If one feels uncomfortable with video cams, they may feel uncomfortable with vetting, too.

Owning a tent doesn’t constitute real estate.
A homeless addict is, in fact, a homeless addict.

A renter doesn’t constitute real estate. A renter is, in fact, a rental addict. A real estate owner is, in fact a real estate addict.

A substance abuse addict is an addict. A renter rents from an owner of real estate.

 

[justinacolmena]

A renter doesn’t constitute real estate. A renter is, in fact, a rental addict. A real estate owner is, in fact a real estate addict.

I don't disagree with that. People signed a contract — to "addict" is literally to "swear by" something.

 

[badger2]

in a place where there isn't much homelessness except under contrived definitions

Wherever people are living, that is by definition their home — I'm assuming citizens or legal residents rather than illegal aliens.

Owning a tent doesn’t constitute real estate.
A homeless addict is, in fact, a homeless addict.

There are parks where it is perfectly acceptable for people to pitch tents and camp out, but then guns are banned and there's a crowd that shows up with needles and syringes, and people are O.D.'ed in the middle of the night, and never wake up in the morning. Bodies are rolled up tent and sleeping bag and all, hauled off in an old jalopy or hatch back sedan or station wagon, and never seen again.

Well, on track with the philosophy. How does a responsible person pare down with intelligence and remain quasi-secure from the growing instances of predation?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

in a place where there isn't much homelessness except under contrived definitions

Wherever people are living, that is by definition their home — I'm assuming citizens or legal residents rather than illegal aliens.

Owning a tent doesn’t constitute real estate.
A homeless addict is, in fact, a homeless addict.

There are parks where it is perfectly acceptable for people to pitch tents and camp out, but then guns are banned and there's a crowd that shows up with needles and syringes, and people are O.D.'ed in the middle of the night, and never wake up in the morning. Bodies are rolled up tent and sleeping bag and all, hauled off in an old jalopy or hatch back sedan or station wagon, and never seen again.

But the tent dwellers don’t own the park. It’s not their real estate.

 

[badger2]

Who’s to stop one homeless addict from forcibly evicting another homeless addict from the spot on public land that they both claim?
Democrats are the greatest existential threat facing the US.

It will be impossible to call another a homeless addict if they own their own structure. These small villages of the future will challenge the definition of “house” and “home.” They may also have security guards and video cams. If one feels uncomfortable with video cams, they may feel uncomfortable with vetting, too.

Owning a tent doesn’t constitute real estate.
A homeless addict is, in fact, a homeless addict.

A renter doesn’t constitute real estate. A renter is, in fact, a rental addict. A real estate owner is, in fact a real estate addict.

A substance abuse addict is an addict. A renter rents from an owner of real estate.

Yes, a renter is a rental addict.

 

[whitehall]

You almost gotta laugh that the federal smokies will issue a ticket if you pick a mushroom or pick up an arrowhead or drink a beer in federal parks.

 

[Dekster]

in a place where there isn't much homelessness except under contrived definitions

Wherever people are living, that is by definition their home — I'm assuming citizens or legal residents rather than illegal aliens.

Owning a tent doesn’t constitute real estate.
A homeless addict is, in fact, a homeless addict.

There are parks where it is perfectly acceptable for people to pitch tents and camp out, but then guns are banned and there's a crowd that shows up with needles and syringes, and people are O.D.'ed in the middle of the night, and never wake up in the morning. Bodies are rolled up tent and sleeping bag and all, hauled off in an old jalopy or hatch back sedan or station wagon, and never seen again.

Sorry but if you are sleeping at your parents house, you are not "homeless" by my standard just because you are an adult without a place of your own.

 

[badger2]

in a place where there isn't much homelessness except under contrived definitions

Wherever people are living, that is by definition their home — I'm assuming citizens or legal residents rather than illegal aliens.

Owning a tent doesn’t constitute real estate.
A homeless addict is, in fact, a homeless addict.

There are parks where it is perfectly acceptable for people to pitch tents and camp out, but then guns are banned and there's a crowd that shows up with needles and syringes, and people are O.D.'ed in the middle of the night, and never wake up in the morning. Bodies are rolled up tent and sleeping bag and all, hauled off in an old jalopy or hatch back sedan or station wagon, and never seen again.

But the tent dwellers don’t own the park. It’s not their real estate.

Nevertheless, the renter we are talking about does not rent 24-7 like the hard-core rental addicts. They need only rent the (sleeping space [italics]) because they are free to go somewhere else when they wake up, as in Japanese hotels, for example. But they take their home, their possession, with them. It’s not equipped as well as the traditional rental addict, but the structure goes with them. Are we defining a trailer? When does a mobile home stop being a home?

 

[justinacolmena]

Sorry but if you are sleeping at your parents house, you are not "homeless" by my standard just because you are an adult without a place of your own.

I never said that. But it sounds like there are over 100 gay-ass city cops running a heavy beat morning, swing, and graveyard shifts, who need to be forced, compelled, and coerced to get off the property.