Support out military men, unless there homeless right John?
edit: Name calling isn’t nice
…and you’re illiterate, and posted a comment that doesn’t make sense without the context.
I’d be happy to discuss your irrational remark, though – will try to remember to post regarding the law banning “homeless feeding” in the parks, instead of the shelters where they are ensured healthy food, medical, and other necessary care that they won’t get otherwise.
PS. the military (via the VA) has programs to help veterans in need… feeding them like pigeons in the park is not one of them.
What can I say John, you touched a nerve. There is no amount of justification that should lead to the outlawing of providing food to people who need food.
There is just no amount of justification for it. What do you expect these homeless people to just find a place and curl up and die there?
Think about it this way, there is a helluvalot more productive things that the city legislators could do, for example outlaw the use of drugs, and alcohol in parks and enforce that.
But for crying out loud the very idea of banning one individual from providing food to another individual is preposterous.
The problem with your passionate argument is that you’re focusing on the chow, and not the location. The new ordinance is all about the location, which is inappropriate according to the voters and taxpayers in the community.
I don’t disagree with your sentiment, but it’s superfluous to the argument.
Support out military men, unless there homeless right John?
edit: Name calling isn’t nice
…and you’re illiterate, and posted a comment that doesn’t make sense without the context.
I’d be happy to discuss your irrational remark, though – will try to remember to post regarding the law banning “homeless feeding” in the parks, instead of the shelters where they are ensured healthy food, medical, and other necessary care that they won’t get otherwise.
PS. the military (via the VA) has programs to help veterans in need… feeding them like pigeons in the park is not one of them.
What can I say John, you touched a nerve. There is no amount of justification that should lead to the outlawing of providing food to people who need food.
There is just no amount of justification for it. What do you expect these homeless people to just find a place and curl up and die there?
Think about it this way, there is a helluvalot more productive things that the city legislators could do, for example outlaw the use of drugs, and alcohol in parks and enforce that.
But for crying out loud the very idea of banning one individual from providing food to another individual is preposterous.
The problem with your passionate argument is that you’re focusing on the chow, and not the location. The new ordinance is all about the location, which is inappropriate according to the voters and taxpayers in the community.
I don’t disagree with your sentiment, but it’s superfluous to the argument.