So here we have small government guy and his big wet dream of assigning state the ultimate power.

Irony on fucking toast.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Skronk wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote:End capitalism, end elite-ordained class structures, end hidden money power, make excessive greed punishable by death.

Punishable by death? Isn't that a little too drastic?

I don't think so. When the greed of the few is spread throughout society as the poverty of many, each individual person who is in 'the many' is having a portion of his life drained away by the Man's inequitable system. Maybe he's being cheated by 10%, maybe by 20%. Add up all those individual slices from the many that are used to feed the greedy, and it's a crime wave. Take 10% from 10 people to give 100% to one greedhead and you have one murder spread across ten people.

The greedheads are killing people, but because they don't kill one person fully, one after the next, they are not charged with murder. They take pints of blood like vampires. But in the end, they are stealing life force from people. Why not put their life force at risk of termination for their actions?

A solution to the problem doesn't have to involve murder. Who would carry this out, but a bigger government, the same one that would've added to this mess to begin with.

If you take 10, 20, 70% of the cheaters finances, there doesn't have to be murder. Instead of advocating for murder, we should be on the lookout to prevent and curb their malicious acts, and not have to resort to various inhumane acts like murder and labor camps.

If we can be hurt by economics, so can they. A more useful deterrent is to reduce these parasites to a level of wealth they've never been at, a tenth of what they had before. Show them the result of their actions, instead of transferring power from them to some sterile office in charge of "morality".

Rick Reuben wrote:If any fool decides to interpret from the Shepard case that ALL homelessness is similar and that the Shepard plan applies to every case, then again, that's for the idiots to decide.

Again, it's clear from the interview that this is exactly what Adam Shepard wants people to infer. This is why so many here are calling him a cock.

Here is the "anyone" who can get out of the homeless shelter, no problem, he totally proved it, according to raging cock Adam Shepard. (All info taken from the National Coalition for the Homeless.)

• Kids. In 2003, children under the age of 18 accounted for 39% of the homeless population; 42% of these children were under the age of five.

• Families. Families with children are among the fastest growing segments of the homeless population. In its 2005 survey of 25 American cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that families with children comprised 33% of the homeless population.

• Mentally ill people. Approximately 16% of the single adult homeless population suffers from some form of severe and persistent mental illness.

• Drug addicts. While there is no generally accepted "magic number" with respect to the prevalence of addiction disorders among homeless adults, the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ number in 2005 was 30%.

Rick Reuben wrote: That does not mean that the Shepard case is not, truthfully, still an example of a successful escape from homelessness. It is what it is. The propaganda that flows from it is a different matter

.
Rick, you have to admit that it's kind of like winning a marathon with a 25 mile headstart. He escaped ambercrombie and finch poverty. Big deal. He is free to write whatever the hell he wants. My annoyance is that he thinks he accomplished something and that other people think he accomplished something. His story is a joke. I'm glad that he cares about the issue, but his 10 month experiment hardly makes him an expert.

Would you prefer total managed media, and Shepard's case banned from the press, so that people could not think about it? That seems to be the only option, if you do not want people to 'get the wrong idea' about what he did. People will always get 'the wrong idea' about many things. They're mentally lazy and take whatever the media spoonfeeds them. If Bill O'Reilly distorts this in the media, why should I cry? He's an idiot speaking to idiots. Let them wallow in their idiocy.

I do not want his story banned, nor do I think banning it is the only way to combat the misinformation. This forum seems to be doing a good job of seeing through the bullshit. I don't think my annoyance with his story, or really anything, should ever constitute a total managed media. Shit I don't even want a boycott of the story. I just want to, like many others are doing a good of, point out the flaws in his story. He can go do an expose on carwash change thieves or how the poor don't deserve healthcare for all I care. His methodology and conclusions are all I care about. He's trying to extrapolate his experiences into something universal or at least commonplace, this bothers me because I don't think that the bulk of evidence supports his conclusions. I hope his next study concludes that racism doesn't exist in America, because he wore black face for a few months and he was totally treated sweet by most everyone.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Skronk wrote:A solution to the problem doesn't have to involve murder. Who would carry this out, but a bigger government, the same one that would've added to this mess to begin with.

Not always a bigger government. A different government that comes from the regular people. It doesn't have to be a bigger version of Big Brother. The US revolution fits this mold, the French revolution, the Indian independence. The rich are not going to go peacefully. Nobody wants conflict, but I think it's naive to predict that any of the kind of utopian changes I propose could occur without it.

In order to establish some sort of capital punishment for actions which aren't necessarily murderous in of itself, a government would need to further regulate individual rights and actions. Even if it were left up to the citizen, I can't in good conscience say that tyranny of the majority wouldn't happen. Capital punishment should never be considered, it should never enter a political arena, no matter what level of government.

If we're to curb the negative actions of the rich in question, because not all the rich's actions lead to negative consequences, it has to be done through finances. That's what it boils down to. A civil law won't have enough impact to resolve a problem that begins because of someones wealth.

Rick Reuben wrote:

skronk wrote:If we can be hurt by economics, so can they. A more useful deterrent is to reduce these parasites to a level of wealth they've never been at, a tenth of what they had before.

Fine, but it will require a society in upheaval to set this ball rolling. It will never occur when the status quo appears sturdy. You know that I think that only a catastrophic financial collapse will lay the crimes of the greedy bare. I think we are in a race to the finish line with the capitalists right now- either they get us all chipped and on the grid before the house of cards topples, or the house of cards topples first and the people recognize who the villains are and purge them like a virus.

I agree with you that a financial collapse would reveal the extent of the crimes we've had to put up with, but once you introduce the idea that capital punishment is a solution to a problem, we've opened up another avenue where we could face serious consequences.

There should be no limit, a glass ceiling, on the amount a person can make, but once you've reached a certain level, financially, the more of burden you should endure. It should never come down to a question of retribution. If it does, what makes our actions better than those we're trying to punish?

If a purge is what we want, we should do it through the same means that the rich have exerted their influence, through their pockets.

Years ago, I moved back into my parents' house after an illness. So for a couple of months I didn't have to pay for rent or food. I got some menial job (mowing lawns for like $10/hr.) and earned enough to get an apartment. I tried to use my education and contacts, but I couldn't find anything better than mowing lawns. I didn't save anything, but within a year I had a better job and a piece of junk '92 Ford Taurus. I ate plenty of pasta and hot dogs.

Others probably have had similar experiences. Living with your parents and being in a homeless shelter obviously aren't the same thing, but starting with very little and getting together the basic elements of an independent life don't seem like that big of a deal.

I think what everyone is saying can be boiled down to 'So an educated white kid with a safety net can get himself our of homelessness without many of the problems that plaque many of the American homeless...BIG FUCKING DEAL'.

I would then go on to say that it is insulting to those in true situations of hopelessness to present this isolated instance and anythign other than an isolated instance. I take it at face value, and at face value it reinforces what many of us already know about the chances this kid has vs. the chances most homeless people have.

The system isn't what worked for this kid, the fact that he had tools that cannot be attributed to many homeless people is what worked for him.

And PLEASE, can you, for once in your fucking posting history, not make a huge sweeping generalization about people that is wildly inaccurate? For fucks sake, it makes everything else you say look like the paranoid ramblings of a psychotic retard.

Rick Reuben wrote:

sunlore wrote:So here we have small government guy and his big wet dream of assigning state the ultimate power.

Nope. I'm proposing a small government that is answerable to a large number of people exercising the will of the large number of people. What we have now is a large government answerable to a tiny cabal of elites that acts on behalf of the members of the club.

States and governments are routinely defined as supra-social entities with a monopoly on violence. Following that, the more violence they are allowed to indulge in, the bigger they become. If you want to make up your own meanings to words, that's cool, but it won't exactly add to your general readability.

Sorry you can't grasp the potential of a small government operated by many people. It's called the Constitutional Republic of the United States. It exists in history books, but it's gone now, replaced by globalist government run acording to the protocols of shills like Sunlore.

The French and American revolutions that you spoke of above were orchestrated by big capital, exactly the class of smugs that you deem deserving of your foam-mouthed bloodlust. I mean, regular people, my ass.

Also:

End capitalism, end elite-ordained class structures, end hidden money power, make excessive greed punishable by death.

Yeah, it's completely beyond me why all the homeless dudes aren't feasting right now at the prospect of their impending wealth once the Clocker Blog revolution arrives.

Rick Reuben wrote:If you don't want an end to a free press, you must tolerate whatever inferences are born from a free press.

Who is calling for an end to the free press?

Let the liberals have exclusive rights to spin this story!

Again, who is saying this? Some straw men. Also, nobody.

He overcame a version of homelessness.

Yes, and when I ate my breakfast this morning, I overcame a version of starvation.

Why are liberals so offended when the system works for anybody?

Nobody is offended by this. I'm offended by his intent, and his deliberate misrepresentation of homelessness as simple, context-free, money-less-ness.

Nobody wants this guy banned, or jailed, or executed. He is free to write whatever cock-like things he wants. Just as the PRF is free to call him out on his bullshit, discuss why his phony experiment is facile bullshit, and complain about how this bullshit will be likely misconstrued by other bullshit-mongers. That's all.

Rick Reuben wrote:

lars wrote: his deliberate misrepresentation of homelessness as simple, context-free, money-less-ness.

You really don't think very well, do you? If his experiment is misinterpreted, then the fault lies with the interpreter. If you don't want his story banned, then shut up and accept the misinterpretations, or dedicate yourself to contradicting them.

You have consistently misinterpreted his experiment by claiming that he did not experience a true version of homelessness. That's been the biggest repeated lie in this whole thread. So, liar: stop casting stones at those you accuse of misinterpeting the story, when you tell the foolish lie that his case has no relevance to homelessness.

Is homelessness the absence of a home, or the absence of immediate ability to have a home?