Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: libh8er

Freedom is not just for clean cut people in suits. Do you folks support freedom or not. You people have a problem with the needy being helped by private citizens? I am a bit confused.


16 posted on 03/22/2009 2:13:25 PM PDT by all the best
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: all the best

You people? It’s us people :’)


18 posted on 03/22/2009 2:16:22 PM PDT by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: all the best

If you feel the need to help, them by all means invite them to your house. But commandeer a bit of municipal property, turn it into a defacto mission center but without any semblance of control or supervision and don’t be surprised if the city is forced to take action. It got really, really bad there.


19 posted on 03/22/2009 2:17:43 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (May God save America from its government; this is no time for Obamateurs. Emmanuel = Haldeman?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: all the best
You are falling prey to liberal symbolism. The able bodied homeless need shelter, not free food which they can just as easily earn for themselves even with a minimum wage job. Giving them free food does nothing to alleviate the problem. It's only purpose is to make the 'feeder' feel good and noble about himself.
21 posted on 03/22/2009 2:23:30 PM PDT by libh8er
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: all the best
Freedom is not just for clean cut people in suits. Do you folks support freedom or not. You people have a problem with the needy being helped by private citizens? I am a bit confused.

Let me briefly play devil's advocate for the nanny-state.

This isn't a clear-cut "freedom" issue. The ordinance at issue covers city property, and doesn't completely prohibit feeding the homeless. It only prohibits doing so without a permit.

A city should be able to put reasonable restrictions on the use of public property. I'm not so sure that requiring a permit before hosting a large gathering on public property is "unreasonable". Now the *conditions* required for granting a permit are another matter. Likewise, this would be a different situation if he was trying to feed people on private property, like in a church. But I don't think requiring a permit for large groups using city property is per se unreasonable or an unacceptable intrusion on a citizen's liberty.

That being said, I agree that this guy's appearance is completely irrelevant. Same with his (presumably) goofy political beliefs. If this guy had been sporting a crew cut and a pair of dockers, and did the *exact* same thing as part of a church group, I think most people here would be defending him.

24 posted on 03/22/2009 2:27:01 PM PDT by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: all the best
Liberals always avoid the REAL work it takes to solve a problem. Their dirty little secret is solving the problem is not their objective. If a problem gets solved along the way, then fine. But that's not what liberalism is about. Liberalism is about liberals. Their objective is to make themselves look good and kind and compassionate to others. If solving problems was really their objective they would long changed their ways, none of which ever accomplished anything other than adding to people's misery.
25 posted on 03/22/2009 2:30:50 PM PDT by libh8er
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson