Columbia, South Carolina Criminalizes Homelessness

Its probably an effort to reduce the area in which the "eye in the sky" operates. If its following homeless and transients (those whom it seems to interact with most), its probably logical that TPTB are trying to concentrate them in a secluded area where the eye wont disrupt electronics or cause anything bad to happen. If say, they are next to a natural gas utility station or a chemical factory, the eye could easily cause some sort of electrical fire (just one example) through a "coincidental" failure in a wire somewhere and BOOM.

That's not even taking into account that it could just straight up mind control some drone or person set around them to care for them into a shooting spree or something that would harm people around them.

The fact that no one talks about it or is afraid to is understandable, however there is a need for public disclosure of the truth in order to form solutions. For now they just ignore it and feed them pork lol.

God + Jesus are the truth. The ways the people in power deal with the eye (heat, she, etc) are all just secondary methods that prolong and band aid the situation. People need to stand up. When the people engage in these circumventing behaviors, they actually create sin and separate themselves further from the creator. Think lesser sins to keep the devil happy and off ones back. Its still sin in the end.

This makes me sad. There are 2 types of homeless people in mind: those who have had tribulation and poopy luck, and those who are druggies or have mental issues (or both). Both types need help, a hand up. They need love. Even those who "do it to themselves" and don't want anything to do with people's "charity." Instead of finding a way to help these poor souls back up onto their feet, this politician decides the best method is to hide these "losers" and vagrants from public view, lest someone be offended by the grubby bum. If I lost my job, couldn't find work (just an example of zero work at all, I'd work at McD's if I had to, c'mon) and lost my house and all of my possessions, and then was declared to be unsightly in public and locked in a shelter against my will? I'd be pretty cheesed off. Sad day for the United Socialist States of Amerika indeed.

reply to post by Kali74


Funny how when charities set up a shelter we think it is to help the poor homeless people, and it tugs on our sympathetic hearts. But, if a law is passed that forces them into a shelter, then some of us think on these homeless people as unwanted eyesores. And, those that pass such laws are cruel.

So, what is the answer? I don't know.

I know I don't want to weave my way through a bunch of flea and lice infested homeless beggars just to go shopping downtown. I also know that I don't want these poor people to be taken out in the woods and shot. There has to be a happy medium, but what it is I have no idea.

reply to post by Kali74


HAHAHA Concentration camps have begun!

Originally posted by geobro
america you should be ashamed at your society it made me sad reading that thread

thank the lord harry i live in scotland not long ago i read of a woman burying her partner at home because she could not afford the funeral .

i live in a country where nobody is left behind nobody sleeps outside unless they want to down on your luck pick up the phone and get help no food or money pick up the phone we even house foreigners .

it is not perfect but it is a million times better than what you have over there nobody goes sick /hungry / homeless .

did you ever win your freedom

i think not

My paternal Grandpa was Scotish. I always wanted to live there but..

I did here a story about 2002, that Scotland was RICH and that the country makes enough on Scotch sales to run the govt, less all the other $$$

is this just urban legend?

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by Kali74

 

Funny how when charities set up a shelter we think it is to help the poor homeless people, and it tugs on our sympathetic hearts. But, if a law is passed that forces them into a shelter, then some of us think on these homeless people as unwanted eyesores. And, those that pass such laws are cruel.

So, what is the answer? I don't know.

edit on 8/22/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

Welfare..

actually, there happens to be a thread about it by myself.

Politicians notoriously don't represent an ideology

reply to post by Kali74

Excellent point, eloquently expressed. As you said, politicians with a very, very few exceptions only represent one interest, themselves. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

Welfare.. actually, there happens to be a thread about it by myself.

reply to post by HanzHenry


I hate how this is going to sound, but it's the only way I know how to say it right now. Would you want welfare putting someone in an apartment next to you (or in your neighborhood) that is a filthy, psychologically damaged alcoholic with no intention of even trying to improve themselves?

I'm not talking about those that lost their jobs and homes due to the economy. They will be back on their feet because it is in them to do so. Because remaining homeless is not an option for them.

reply to post by redoubt


Yep, good luck with that. You can make them criminals and then what? They can't pay rent so they sure can't pay a fine. What they should outlaw is off shoring or retroactively outlaw the entire migration of our manufacturing base to the third world.

Who's John Gault?

i live here & the homeless population in downtown columbia is unreal. columbia is trying to revitalize the downtown area but the crime perpetrated on individuals & downtown businesses by alot of these folks are off chain. therefore, many business owners, understandably, want something done to protect their livelihood. there are a couple homeless shelters downtown, with more proposed for the future. many business owners aren't happy with these proposed locations so they are pushing local leaders to come up with alternative ideas. it's a catch-22 for sure.

reply to post by rbs44


But until there's a better solution this one is okay? It's okay to restrict the Constitutional rights of the homeless because it's for a good cause (revitalization)? Arrest the ones that have broken the law... if extra police can be provided for banning homeless people surely some more cops can be put on patrol to arrest the lawbreakers...

Well, but I can see that we're only in this situation because of stupid restrictions in the first place.

Let's say you go to a small town in the conservative southeast and you and your 25 friends, just as an experiment, "take up being homeless" in their small town. And you harrass their people and even commit crimes against them.

Your homeless problem would probably be stopped by your taking up residence underneath a well-kept green.

People in the cities are essentially not ALLOWED to defend themselves, or to carry weapons, and so of course people who do NOT obey the law find it very easy to make everybody else a victim.

Then you have this "wipe out the constitution and essentially imprison people in camps for no crime except that they MIGHT, MAYBE be tempted to commit a crime."

This is something based greatly on fear (as well as money).

Originally posted by jiggerj

Welfare.. actually, there happens to be a thread about it by myself.

reply to post by HanzHenry

 

I hate how this is going to sound, but it's the only way I know how to say it right now. Would you want welfare putting someone in an apartment next to you (or in your neighborhood) that is a filthy, psychologically damaged alcoholic with no intention of even trying to improve themselves?

I'm not talking about those that lost their jobs and homes due to the economy. They will be back on their feet because it is in them to do so. Because remaining homeless is not an option for them.

Be back on their feet? What POMPOSITY!!

and what if even McD's will not hire you?.. (not you personally, Ive had enough ATS self aggrandizing for one day)

And, why do everyone think that only those "less deserving" are homeless

What about a decent had working middle aged man that has a family.. thousands of them without jobs.

Or, young couple with 2 kids,?

the few wacko homeless you see are just a small portion of the homeless. the Majority hide it as much as possible. look around at your park the next time you go. some of those people come in the day and then go sleep hidden away at night.. sad.

There are homeless tent cities scattered about everywhere,. just out of sight,

Originally posted by RedCairo
Well, but I can see that we're only in this situation because of stupid restrictions in the first place.

Let's say you go to a small town in the conservative southeast and you and your 25 friends, just as an experiment, "take up being homeless" in their small town. And you harrass their people and even commit crimes against them.

Your homeless problem would probably be stopped by your taking up residence underneath a well-kept green.

People in the cities are essentially not ALLOWED to defend themselves, or to carry weapons, and so of course people who do NOT obey the law find it very easy to make everybody else a victim.

Then you have this "wipe out the constitution and essentially imprison people in camps for no crime except that they MIGHT, MAYBE be tempted to commit a crime."

This is something based greatly on fear (as well as money).

edit on 22-8-2013 by RedCairo because: (no reason given)

homeless and destitute choose large cities:
- scavenging for recyclables
- food scraps
- charity
- shelter on frigid nights
- health care access.
- and JAIL access, for when its REAL COLD, have a tooth needing pulled, etc..

Most the people I've met who were homeless -- and at one period I met a lot -- and let's limit this to people who were NOT employed -- didn't choose where they lived.

Well aside from someone giving them a bus ticket to a california beach city of course. Those people did in a way.

They were just stuck. It takes money to get out of town and people will stay wherever they are most familiar as a survival instinct, I would think. No?

I'm not talking about those that lost their jobs and homes due to the economy. They will be back on their feet because it is in them to do so. Because remaining homeless is not an option for them.

Be back on their feet? What POMPOSITY!! and what if even McD's will not hire you?.. (not you personally, Ive had enough ATS self aggrandizing for one day) And, why do everyone think that only those "less deserving" are homeless

I don't believe I wrote that.

Originally posted by pheonix358
Truly America sinks into a pool of poo.

Now, lets see. What comes next after the ghetto.

History tells us that the population of the Warsaw Ghetto were sent to the Gas Chambers next.

Well, I suppose the city should invest in some modern gas chambers.

That is where this is heading!

A free people - I think not!

P

Oh dont worry, i'm sure this is allready catered for with a special homeless persons vaccine, ya know for the hepatitis and stuff

Originally posted by jiggerj

I'm not talking about those that lost their jobs and homes due to the economy. They will be back on their feet because it is in them to do so. Because remaining homeless is not an option for them.

Be back on their feet? What POMPOSITY!! and what if even McD's will not hire you?.. (not you personally, Ive had enough ATS self aggrandizing for one day) And, why do everyone think that only those "less deserving" are homeless

I don't believe I wrote that.

whoa.. really?

must be that other acct is your doppelganger.

you even quoted yourself ... you must be putting me on.. where is the hidden camera?

Personally I agree with this, BUT it does sound a lot like a concentration camp to me.

Maybe they should also start sending all the kids that makes streets feel unsafe there too.

And while they're at it all the barking dogs.

Maybe fat people too?

How about slow people and people that cant drive properly.

hhm, im begining to like this concentration camp type idea.

reply to post by Kali74


Oh i see, its in columbia.

Oh well. I thought it was some hick part of the USA.