Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
hide menu
Latest users (3): dbeerman, pebar, youregaylol, anonymous(11).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#7963 - jokeface (09/01/2012) [-]
Faith in humanity: Restored
User avatar #7964 to #7963 - akkere (09/01/2012) [-]
That generic rehash that was also a facebook status time and time again?

Too bad both parties are unaware that a rather large percentage of homeless are also mentally ill, not to mention the fact that the Republicans that did own businesses refused to hire at one point until Obama was out of the white house, while still telling the homeless to get a job.
thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/10/20/348168/tea-party-group-businesses-hurt-obama/?mobile=nc
http://www.politicususa.com/not-hiring-obama-gone.html
http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/homeless-mentally-ill.html

...So all that post has shown is an arrogant political know-it-all-wannabe trying to destroy a little girl's generic naivity with a logic that was misinformed and flawed from the start. And all to show for it is "Welcome to the Republican Party"

More proof that this imperfect system political parties does nothing more than destroy open-mindedness and eagerness to look at a situation with all the statistics.
User avatar #7965 to #7964 - jokeface (09/01/2012) [-]
The fault lies in the greed of the wealthy and the work ethic of the poor, not the imperfection of the system. The system would work if the participants took the proper initiative. All that's missing is integrity.

Let's say a wealthy corporation created a business that took care of people with disabilities or addictions. Then, not only do you have a place to stick all the people who are too disabled/addicted to work, but now there's a bunch of new jobs for the unemployed people who are healthy enough to do them. Stick a bunch of these businesses all over the country and boom. A huge chunk of the problem is gone.

But why doesn't that happen? Because big businesses don't want to spend the money to do it. The problem is not the system, it's the people.
User avatar #7966 to #7965 - akkere (09/01/2012) [-]
There's still the problem with the fact that the Republicans actually went so far as to deny hiring anyone until Obama went out of office, and having the gall to call out the homeless for not having a job.
And then there's this person, this high and mighty political-know-it-all, who seems so heavily one-sided on the topic of homeless care that it's atrocious.
These are the kinds of people that are the problem. They're misinformed, because they're political party tells them one thing and to ignore any statistic otherwise. That it's so dumbed down and easy to understand that if you're homeless, you're probably a slob, an addict, or just a failure, and that's the only explanation.
It's a two-part problem and one needs to be eliminated to take care of the other.
User avatar #7967 to #7966 - jokeface (09/01/2012) [-]
I resent when entire parties get blamed for specific incidents. The entire Republican party did not make such an outlandish statement about the homeless, a select group of them did. There are plenty or Reps who would disagree with them, and plenty of Dems and Libs who would agree with them. Lumping them all together based on what party they belong to is unfair. That's why I rarely refer to myself as a member of a party. I'm generally conservative in my ideals, but that doesn't automatically make me a Republican.

But I digress. My point is, by blaming the party rather than the individuals, you may as well be reverting to the original issue of blaming the system rather than the people controlling it.
User avatar #7968 to #7967 - akkere (09/01/2012) [-]
The fact is these people made these decisions and generalizations based on misinformation that had resulted from aligning themselves with the party and choosing not to accept any further regard on the matters.
This post is further evidence on that matter, with the fact that the person who wrote this failed to show any legitimate knowledge on the matter of the homeless and care for the homeless, and instead took their implications as facts, and took these make-shift facts as components to a solution that simply is imperfect and improbable.
The people are the effect, and the political party was the cause.
The writer of this post doesn't even seem to focus on the issue towards solving it, as much as they want to simply instigate the parents because they're liberal, evident by the egotistical statement "Welcome to the Republican Party", and that's the primary reason the Two-Party system is a problem. Taking politics, and turning it into instigation and misinformation.
And you can blame both the people and the system, because in retrospect, the system has to have people to run it, the system effects more people, the people then revert into the system and make it larger. And a dysfunctional system creates a dysfunctional product.
User avatar #7969 to #7968 - jokeface (09/01/2012) [-]
That was quite a lengthy way to repeat the same statement several times in a row. But regardless, this post was proposing a solution that would work in the best of circumstances. Yes, this is an oversimplification, but it's message is solid: You work, you earn money, you can use that money to buy things. That's how capitalism works, and while stupid and corrupt people have fucked up that simple equation recently, it doesn't take away any of its truth.

You work.
You earn money.
You can buy things.
Buying things creates need.
Need creates production.
Production creates jobs.
Unemployment goes down.
Prices lower as the supply grows closer to the need.
The dollar becomes stronger.
The economy flourishes.

User avatar #7972 to #7969 - akkere (09/01/2012) [-]
Let me re-iterate them so they're more clear, as they were presented in a very jumbled fashion.
You have an issue, homelessness.
The Party takes the issue, and dumbs it down to the point where one thing becomes something else, so a solution becomes more compatible.
The idea of the issue of homelessness becomes less a pool of variables between mental illness to health condition, and more to just simply "Get a Job and you'll make it"
This idea never gets changed because the people holding the idea are too focused on using it to bash the other party's idea. Likewise, the Democrat's idea to feed and clothe all the homeless, is incredibly unrealistic, and requires a gray-area solution.
However, neither of them seek this solution, and prefer to keep the gears grinded to a halt.

Now, suddenly, something else happens.
A group, formed from the system of this party, decides to do something... out of hand. They decide to further their cause, they must take the issue, and make it worse, take it hostage per se, unless their party takes hold of the government, one way or another.
They accomplish this by refusing to further hire and improve the unemployment percentage, keeping the homeless stagnant or increasing in number.

Meanwhile the Homeless are still put in homeless shelters, but they lack the focused funding needed to perform a full-scale project that would be more effective and more able to tend to the homeless.

What you end up getting is stagnation with a dash of decline of progress. That's the problem with the two-party system, and that's my problem with the initial post at hand.
User avatar #7970 to #7969 - akkere (09/01/2012) [-]
You must've missed the point where I said the person who wrote the post was just party bashing and probably didn't even know half of what they said outside of their party's over-simplification.
Or the point that the people who performed the ridiculous act of putting a halt on hiring over more party bashing.
Or that a large percentage of homeless are mentally ill and therefore incapable of many options of work, or even deciding for themselves to work in the first place.
Or that party bashing is a grand product of the two-party system which created the aforementioned problems.
User avatar #7971 to #7970 - jokeface (09/01/2012) [-]
I didn't miss the point that OP was oversimplifying. I agreed that he was. I was only remarking that while it is more complicated than that, it is accurate in terms of basic structure. Why are you so bent on making this about party-vs-party? Even if that's what he was doing it doesn't change the meaning of the post.

And as i said, the people who are incapable of working are the reason more jobs can be created. Someone needs to take care of them. That's one type of welfare I actually do support. If it's going toward care for those who are literally incapable of working.

And I'm with you on the anti-bipartisan train. I think it's stupid and politicians should be judged on their platforms, not their labels.
User avatar #7973 to #7971 - akkere (09/01/2012) [-]
*just received response after posting initial reiteration

The reason I'm bent on this being about party-vs-party, is because that's exactly what bipartisan/Two Party System has turned politics into- Liberals Vs. Conservatives. Or rather, that's what they've turned the general mindsets of people attending the parties.
The person who walked up to that family didn't think "I'm going to have a conversation with the parents about the issue about the homeless", they thought "I'm going to embarrass the parents and their clearly false political ideology with my own"
Instead, the person should've perhaps offered to have a friendly discussion on the topic and better educate the child on the issue. But not a thought of genuine political education came across this person, but rather instigation, and that's the problem.
 Friends (0)