63
   

House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 10:17 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
I think you are Tico. Labels mean nothing to me. Nepotism is the same all ends up
and there's none of that in the Catholic Church.
Its not easy to figure out what u have in mind, Spendius; its slow going,
like hacking your way thru a bamboo forest with a machete. Maybe its just as well.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 11:20 am
@spendius,
Quote:
All communications can be shut down and connurbations isolated and dealt with one at once. If the army does help the "citizens" it is to take power itself.

Your guns are only useful for killing each other and, in the last analysis, the power elite isn't too bothered about that. The big fuss over such things is to do with careers.

The idea that you are free is ridiculous. One whiff of serious trouble and the shops would be cleaned out in an hour. Electricity turned off.



The one or two percents of the population that now rule this society is in the same position in a general revolt as the one or two percents of the Haiti population that were the white overlords in the 1800s. The slaves did a very nice job of wiping out their overlords almost to the last man, woman and child on the island.

Now as far as controlling communication good luck as if any government does so they are cutting their own throat as the whole damn society now depend on the massive flow of information that can not be screen to find the .000000001 percent you may wish to block.

Electric is cut off how nice so the whole society is going to be destroyed to maintain the powerful to be in charge of what in the end?

Most important of all, it is not the government or the top of society that in the end that control the infrastructure but tens of thousands of technicians.

You can order all kind of things to occur but that does not mean that the men at the power plants are going to be throwing any switch because of those orders.

Hitler ordered the general in charge of Paris to burn the city to the ground and he did not do so.

Hitler order Spear to have all the manufacturing capabilities of Germany destroy and Spear did not do so.

Even if Spear had pass the order along it is highly unlikely that the order would had been obey at lower levels.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 11:45 am
@spendius,
Footnote I am very far from the opinion that the current governing system of the US is so out of control that overthrowing it by force is call for.

The tend of more and more of the total wealth of the society and the control of the society being concentrate in fewer and fewer hands is worrisome however.

Currently we seem to have the best government that special interests can buy.

Keeping the plans for the French guillotines therefore on hands in case our political class gets completely out of hands seems like a wise precaution.



0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 12:02 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
WE have a free country; u don't.


U shud tell thu Amaracan press about that. They seem to miss all the stories about thu war crimes and felonies committed by Amaracan governments.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 12:34 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
And so do all agents of revolution...are you going to claim that Citizens do not have the right to mount revolution? And if we do have the right then what are you complaining about? If you think we dont have the right then I suggest that you sit yourself down with the Declaration of Independence and get yourself some education.


Again, you completely distorted the meaning of my remarks. Consequently, your response to what I said makes little sense. Your comprehension problems are really quite serious.

You have made statements to the effect that Jared Loughner was/is crazy, therefore the products of his mind make no sense, and his motives for the shooting are irrelevant. I don't agree with that.

I pointed out that we don't know that Loughner is crazy. He certainly appears to be unstable and to have some significant problems, and he may also have drug problems. And we don't know his motives for the shooting or what internal/external influences affected him. We do not know that he wasn't affected by the gun-themed violent political rhetoric that has been coming from Palin and the Tea Party--some of which was specifically focused on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords congressional district and came from Palin and Jesse Kelly (who was Giffords' opponent in last November's election). Gun-imagery was specifically associated with the idea of removing Giffords from office. To be influenced by that association, Loughner would not necessarily have to agree with the political views of the far right, or any other partisan views, he would simply have to make an association about using guns to get rid of Giffords--and this association was being promoted in the language and imagery of Palin and Kelly. And that sort of gun-themed violent political rhetoric was also promoted by Fox News, and Loughner might have been exposed to that.

You seem to think that Jared Loughner lived in a bubble, isolated from external influences. That isn't true at all. For one thing, he had two computers and he went online. He posted on YouTube, MySpace and the chat room of a gaming site. He may have done all sorts of reading on the computer, and he likely had a TV as well. He wasn't living in a vacuum. And we don't know how much of that gun-themed violent political rhetoric, which specifically focused on Rep. Giffords, might have affected him. But, the possibility that it did affect him, to the extent of encouraging him to get rid of Giffords with a gun, cannot be entirely discarded.

In no way was I suggesting that Fox News be censored or shut down. That was your crazy interpretation because you constantly feel there are conspiracies afoot to deprive you of your liberty and freedom. What I have been saying is that the gun-themed imagery and violent rhetoric coming from Palin and the Tea Party is reckless and irresponsible and can have potentially dangerous and disasterous consequences--a sentiment now echoed by Joe Scarborough, a conservative Republican. And Fox News is a constant purveyor of such rhetoric--I listened to Hannity last night defending such rhetoric as being perfectly acceptable--and that's in the wake of a tragic shooting that included the Tea Party "targeted" Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. If they want to continue to maintain that view, they will continue to be criticized for doing so.

In fact, you go one step further and suggest that Fox News is an "agent of revolution"--and you seem to mean an armed revolution, rather than a change of government at the ballot box. And you apparently accept the idea of such a revolution, because you said:
Quote:
are you going to claim that Citizens do not have the right to mount revolution? And if we do have the right then what are you complaining about? If you think we dont have the right then I suggest that you sit yourself down with the Declaration of Independence and get yourself some education.


I certainly would claim that citizens have no legal "right" to mount a revolution, an overthrow of the government by violent means. And, I suggest you put down the Declaration of Independence and take a look at current law:
Quote:
US Code - Section 2385: Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or
teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of
overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or
the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession
thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by
force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any
such government
; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any
such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates,
sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed
matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,
desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any
government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts
to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society,
group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the
overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or
violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any
such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes
thereof -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by
the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five
years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in
this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for
employment by the United States or any department or agency
thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize",
with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include
the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the
regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units
of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/115/2385


Sorry, Hawkeye, neither you nor Sarah Palin, nor the Tea Party, nor Fox News, have "the right" to mount a revolution, or to be the agents of revolution, to overthrow the government by force or violence, and the Declaration of Independence gives you no such "right".

Your right to change the government is in the vote you cast at the ballot box. And telling people to go out and vote, or how you want them to vote, need not, and should not, involve gun-themed violent imagery and rhetoric "targeting" political opponents. And one has to wonder why Sarah Palin, and her Tea Party followers continue to cling to and defend their use of such tactics, even after a shooting that critically wounded Rep. Giffords who was one of their "targets.




BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 01:23 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
I pointed out that we don't know that Loughner is crazy. He certainly appears to be unstable and to have some significant problems, and he may also have drug problems. And we don't know his motives for the shooting or what internal/external influences affected him.


Sorry Firefly as I had already posted we do know that he kill a nine years old child beside a congress woman.

That act alone is more then enough to tell us he is just a mad dog that should be put down.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 01:29 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Sorry, Hawkeye, neither you nor Sarah Palin, nor the Tea Party, nor Fox News, have "the right" to mount a revolution, or to be the agents of revolution, to overthrow the government by force or violence, and the Declaration of Independence gives you no such "right".


You never read the declaration of Independence as it sure does give the citizens the right to used force to overthrow a government!!!!!

Try reading it............

--------------------------------------------------------------------

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 01:30 pm
@BillRM,
"all of the people", not just a few of you nut cases...
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 01:37 pm
@Rockhead,
Quote:
"all of the people", not just a few of you nut cases...


ALL the people? You are of the opinion that the founding fathers had the support of all the people of the colonies or even most of the people for that matter?

Lord try looking up the term Tories just to start with.

BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 01:45 pm
@Rockhead,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)

Loyalists in the Thirteen ColoniesHistorian Robert Calhoon wrote in 2000, concerning the proportion of Loyalists to Patriots in the Thirteen Colonies:

Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. Approximately half the colonists of European ancestry tried to avoid involvement in the struggle — some of them deliberate pacifists, others recent immigrants, and many more simple apolitical folk. The patriots received active support from perhaps 40 to 45 percent of the white populace, and at most no more than a bare majority.[9]
Before Calhoon's work, estimates of the Loyalist share of the population were somewhat higher, with a commonly cited figure of one-third, but these are no longer accepted by most scholars.[10] Adams did indeed estimate in another letter of that year that in the American Revolution, the Patriots had to struggle against approximately one-third of the population, while they themselves constituted about two-thirds of it; he did not mention neutrals.[11] In the late 1960s, Paul H. Smith arrived at a lower figure, with 19.8% of the population as Loyalists; Smith's calculations were based on the strength of the Loyalist regiments.[12]

Historian Robert Middlekauff summarized scholarly research on the nature of Loyalist support as follows:

The largest number of loyalists were found in the middle colonies: many tenant farmers of New York supported the king, for example, as did many of the Dutch in the colony and in New Jersey. The Germans in Pennsylvania tried to stay out of the Revolution, just as many Quakers did, and when that failed, clung to the familiar connection rather than embrace the new. Highland Scots in the Carolinas, a fair number of Anglican clergy and their parishioners in Connecticut and New York, a few Presbyterians in the southern colonies, and a large number of the Iroquois Indians stayed loyal to the king.[13]


Johnson Hall, seat of Sir John Johnson in the Mohawk Valley.New York City and Long Island were the British military and political base of operations in North America from 1776 to 1783 and had a large concentration of Loyalists, many of whom were refugees from other states.[14]

According to Calhoon,[14] Loyalists tended to be older and wealthier, but there were also many Loyalists of humble means. Many active Church of England members became Loyalists. Some recent arrivals from Britain, especially those from Scotland, had a high Loyalist proportion. Loyalists in the southern colonies were suppressed by the local Patriots, who controlled local and state government. Many people — including former Regulators in North Carolina — refused to join the rebellion, as they had earlier protested against corruption by local authorities who later became Revolutionary leaders. The oppression by the local Whigs during the Regulation led to many of the residents of backcountry North Carolina sitting out the Revolution or siding with the Loyalists.[14]

In areas under rebel control, Loyalists were subject to confiscation of property, and outspoken supporters of the king were threatened with public humiliation such as tarring and feathering, or physical attack. It is not known how many Loyalist civilians were harassed by the Patriots, but the treatment was a warning to other Loyalists not to take up arms. In September 1775, William Drayton and Loyalist leader Colonel Thomas Fletchall signed a treaty of neutrality in the interior community of Ninety Six, South Carolina.[15] For actively aiding the British army when it occupied Philadelphia, two residents of the city would be executed by returning Patriot forces.

[edit] Slavery and Black Loyalists
British-American Black Loyalist foot soldiers. Former slaves, promised freedom in return for military service to the Crown.Main article: Black Loyalist
As a result of the looming crisis in 1775 the Royal Governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, issued a proclamation that promised freedom to servants and slaves who were able to bear arms and join his Loyalist Ethiopian Regiment. About 800 did so; some helped rout the Virginia militia at the Battle of Kemp's Landing and fought in the Battle of Great Bridge on the Elizabeth River, wearing the motto "Liberty to Slaves", but this time they were defeated. The remains of their regiment were then involved in the evacuation of Norfolk, after which they served in the Chesapeake area. Unfortunately the camp that they had set up there suffered an outbreak of smallpox and other diseases. This took a heavy toll, putting many of them out of action for some time. The survivors joined other British units and continued to serve throughout the war. Black colonials were often the first to come forward to volunteer and a total of 12,000 African Americans served with the British from 1775 to 1783. This factor had the effect of forcing the rebels to also offer freedom to those who would serve in the Continental Army. Unfortunately, such promises often were reneged upon by both sides.[16]

About 400 to 1000 free blacks went to London and joined the free black community of about 10,000 there. About 3,500 to 4,000 more went to the British colonies of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, where the British promised them land. Over 2,500 settled in Birchtown, Nova Scotia, instantly making it the largest free black community in North America. However, the inferior grants of land they were given and the prejudices of white Loyalists in nearby Shelburne, who regularly harassed the settlement, made life very difficult for the community.[17] In 1791 Britain's Sierra Leone Company offered to transport dissatisfied black Loyalists to the British colony of Sierra Leone in Africa, with the promise of better land and more equality. About 1,200 left Nova Scotia for Sierra Leone, where they named the capital Freetown.[17] After 1787 they became Sierra Leone's ruling elite.[citation needed]

[edit] Loyalism in Canada
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 01:46 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Paris, January 30th, 1787

Dear Sir,

My last to you was of the 16th of December; since which, I have received yours of November 25 and December 4, which afforded me, as your letters always do, a treat on matters public, individual, and economical. I am impatient to learn your sentiments on the late troubles in the Eastern states. So far as I have yet seen, they do not appear to threaten serious consequences. Those states have suffered by the stoppage of the channels of their commerce, which have not yet found other issues. This must render money scarce and make the people uneasy. This uneasiness has produced acts absolutely unjustifiable; but I hope they will provoke no severities from their governments. A consciousness of those in power that their administration of the public affairs has been honest may, perhaps, produce too great a degree of indignation; and those characters, wherein fear predominates over hope, may apprehend too much from these instances of irregularity. They may conclude too hastily that nature has formed man insusceptible of any other government than that of force, a conclusion not founded in truth or experience.

Societies exist under three forms, sufficiently distinguishable: (1) without government, as among our Indians; (2) under governments, wherein the will of everyone has a just influence, as is the case in England, in a slight degree, and in our states, in a great one; (3) under governments of force, as is the case in all other monarchies, and in most of the other republics.



To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the first condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has its evils, too, the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs.

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.

If these transactions give me no uneasiness, I feel very differently at another piece of intelligence, to wit, the possibility that the navigation of the Mississippi may be abandoned to Spain. I never had any interest westward of the Allegheny; and I will never have any. But I have had great opportunities of knowing the character of the people who inhabit that country; and I will venture to say that the act which abandons the navigation of the Mississippi is an act of separation between the Eastern and Western country. It is a relinquishment of five parts out of eight of the territory of the United States; an abandonment of the fairest subject for the payment of our public debts, and the chaining those debts on our own necks, in perpetuum.

I have the utmost confidence in the honest intentions of those who concur in this measure; but I lament their want of acquaintance with the character and physical advantages of the people, who, right or wrong, will suppose their interests sacrificed on this occasion to the contrary interests of that part of the confederacy in possession of present power. If they declare themselves a separate people, we are incapable of a single effort to retain them. Our citizens can never be induced, either as militia or as soldiers, to go there to cut the throats of their own brothers and sons, or rather, to be themselves the subjects instead of the perpetrators of the parricide.

Nor would that country quit the cost of being retained against the will of its inhabitants, could it be done. But it cannot be done. They are able already to rescue the navigation of the Mississippi out of the hands of Spain, and to add New Orleans to their own territory. They will be joined by the inhabitants of Louisiana. This will bring on a war between them and Spain; and that will produce the question with us, whether it will not be worth our while to become parties with them in the war in order to reunite them with us and thus correct our error. And were I to permit my forebodings to go one step further, I should predict that the inhabitants of the United States would force their rulers to take the affirmative of that question. I wish I may be mistaken in all these opinions.

Yours affectionately,

Th. Jefferson

Jefferson airs his sentiments in a letter to James Madison on January 30, 1787, expressing justification for the series of protests led by Daniel Shay and a group of 1,200 farmers.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 01:48 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gxKXbG2JkA&feature=related
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 01:49 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
US Code - Section 2385: Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or
teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of
overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or
the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession
thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by
force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any
such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any
such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates,
sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed
matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity,
desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any
government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts
to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society,
group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the
overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or
violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any
such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes
thereof -


OH Firefly you are aware when you overthrow a government the laws of that government become null and void unless reinstated by the new government correct?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 01:57 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
In no way was I suggesting that Fox News be censored or shut down. That was your crazy interpretation because you constantly feel there are conspiracies afoot to deprive you of your liberty and freedom. What I have been saying is that the gun-themed imagery and violent rhetoric coming from Palin and the Tea Party is reckless and irresponsible and can have potentially dangerous and disastrous consequences
Wrong, because the speaker of word is never responsible for the actions of others, the one who took that action is responsible for their actions, be it Phoebe Prince or Jared Loughner, though if we find them to be insane we will not hold them criminally responsible.

I think I see now where you went wrong in your rape thinking.....you suffer from a profound failure to understand where the boundary is between people, thus you can't properly place responsibility. Throw in your lack of respect for the rights of individuals and what seems to be your admiration for the police state and you are hopelessly lost.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 01:58 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Wrong, because the speaker of word is never responsible for the actions of others, the ones who took that action is responsible for their actions, be it Phoebe Prince or Jared Loughner, though if we find them to be insane we will not hold them criminally responsible.


This is clearly untrue. If you think about this for a minute, you'll see plenty of examples where one person tells someone else 'do this thing,' the other person does it, and the first is held responsible for either inciting or ordering this person to take that action.

Cycloptichorn
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 02:03 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye here was some quotes from Jefferson that seem on point.


"Every generation needs a new revolution.”
Thomas Jefferson quotes


“If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.”
Thomas Jefferson quote


The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”
Thomas Jefferson quote


Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny”
Thomas Jefferson quote


hawkeye10
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 02:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
This is clearly untrue. If you think about this for a minute, you'll see plenty of examples where one person tells someone else 'do this thing,' the other person does it, and the first is held responsible for either inciting or ordering this person to take that action.

Another indication that American Justice is a mess, as if we needed any more. Reforms are needed, and if that does not work then revolution. I was sold on the need for and appropriateness of revolution in America 15 years ago, and while I no longer am actively involved in promoting it I will defend to my last breath my right to call for revolution and to take part in carrying it out
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 02:09 pm
@BillRM,
Have at 'er, Bill. You'll likely be appointed Minister of Propaganda.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 02:09 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
This is clearly untrue. If you think about this for a minute, you'll see plenty of examples where one person tells someone else 'do this thing,' the other person does it, and the first is held responsible for either inciting or ordering this person to take that action.

Another indication that American Justice is a mess, as if we needed any more. Reforms are needed, and if that does not work then revolution.


So, you think when a mob boss tells a guy in his organization 'kill this man,' and the other guy does it; and we hold the boss responsible, that this is a failure of Justice?

When a wife tells her secret lover 'I can be with you if my husband is dead,' and the guy kills him, we shouldn't go after her for getting someone to kill her husband? That's a failure of justice?

I think the failure here isn't on the part of the Justice system, but instead on your part, Hawk.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 02:14 pm
Here is an example of the kind of law that people have a moral duty to break.

Best Opinion: Houston Chronicle, Wash. Examiner

The video: For 15 months beginning in 2009, a Houston couple served 60 to 120 homeless people dinner every night as part of a Christian-themed program called "Feed a Friend." But three weeks ago, reports the Houston Chronicle, local authorities shut down Bobby and Amanda Herring's operation, saying they lacked the necessary health permits to serve food in public. A spokesman for the city's Health and Human Services Department says such rules are in place because "poor people are the most vulnerable to foodborne illness and also are the least likely to have access to health care." (The Herrings had received food donations from local businesses, and volunteers helped prepare the meals.) Now it's unclear whether the couple will be allowed to resume their outreach effort.
The reaction: "We absolutely need more people like them who care about this vulnerable population," says Coalition for the Homeless President and CEO Connie Boyd, as quoted by the Chronicle. But while the Herrings' "intentions are good," they should respect the law. These ordinances exist to "protect the public." Please—overzealous regulations like these are all about "greed and power," says Max Borders in the Washington Examiner, not "the health and safety of homeless people." Houston's government officials know the Herrings "represent competition for the army of social workers paid by the city"; they shut the couple down to "protect their monopoly," pure and simple. Watch a local news report about the "Feed a Friend" shutdown:

 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 06/29/2024 at 10:01:51