Liste des Groupes | Revenir à a tv |
In article <uvlpcv$u7hv$4@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>Not the people BEHIND it. They're either in office, or running for office.
wrote:
On 4/15/24 4:32 PM, BTR1701 wrote:They were actually arrested and put them in prison, weren't they?In articleKinda like attacking cops with flagpole spears? Like that kind of
<17c68b3bbff3bbdb$39147$3340453$c0d58a68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>On 4/14/2024 3:10 PM, BTR1701 wrote:>In article <20240414115816.00002f6c@example.com>,>
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 23:20:47 -0700>
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:22:48 -0400, Rhino>
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>If the homeless were allowed agency, there would inevitably beYou're suggesting forcible confinement in mental health facilities
pressure to hold them accountable for their actions. That would
undermine the "progressive" Saviours who are going to fix everything
with vast new and expensive - and almost certainly futile - programs
to help the poor darlings. It's far better to just declare them all
to be helpless captives of their addictions and mental health so
that "help" can be applied in whatever fashion the government and
their agents in the civil service deem necessary. Many many billions
of tax dollars can then be wasted on schemes that won't solve the
problem but WILL enrich the agencies that run the schemes.
Actually, no, I was not even *thinking* of doing that.
You may not be, but I am. If you're violently mentally ill, walking
around threatening people and attacking them, you need to be removed
from society. If your illness is such that treatment is ineffective,
then you stay there forever. But there's no reason the rest of us should
have to run the risk of being attacked, stabbed, set on fire, whatever
your delusions are telling you to do just going about our daily lives.
Actually, there is *some* reason we run such risks: we give personal
freedom the benefit of doubt under necessarily imperfect diagnoses.
A mentally ill guy diagnoses himself perfectly when he violently attacks
someone. At that point we know something must be done about him that
involves removing him from society. The only question is whether that
removal is permanent or not.
>
violent attacks?
If only our Democrat 'leaders' in California would do the same to our
violent nutbags. I guess arrest only comes when the violent attacker has
different politics than a leftist. If you're down with the Agenda, you
can do whatever you want in Democrat-controlled California.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.