Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

245

I disagree with the "going hardcore center" kind of statements they are making about this... However, they are finally admitting that their progressive/liberal/communist laws/changes are not working and everyone is pissed off.

Archive: https://archive.today/WOKTC

From the post: "Voters in famously progressive San Francisco are poised to approve a law that would require single adults on welfare be screened and treated for illegal drug addiction, or else lose cash assistance.

Polling shows the majority of likely voters support the measure, which is also backed by Democratic Mayor London Breed, who faces a tough re-election fight in November.

The measure, known as Proposition F, will go on the ballot on Tuesday, along with Proposition E, which would grant police more crime-fighting powers, such as the use of drones and surveillance cameras."

I disagree with the "going hardcore center" kind of statements they are making about this... However, they are finally admitting that their progressive/liberal/communist laws/changes are not working and everyone is pissed off. Archive: https://archive.today/WOKTC From the post: "Voters in famously progressive San Francisco are poised to approve a law that would require single adults on welfare be screened and treated for illegal drug addiction, or else lose cash assistance. Polling shows the majority of likely voters support the measure, which is also backed by Democratic Mayor London Breed, who faces a tough re-election fight in November. The measure, known as Proposition F, will go on the ballot on Tuesday, along with Proposition E, which would grant police more crime-fighting powers, such as the use of drones and surveillance cameras."

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts

Fine idea, but it can always be better:

Corruption is rampant, so watch out if it passes, for who gets the contract. Will it be a relative of the governor, or maybe a relative of someone in the state's Senate?

[–] • 2 pts

Yep. It will cost a ton of money and won't work at all. Then the progressives/liberals will sue to get it removed because drug tests are racist.

[–] • 2 pts

We suggested that 30 years ago.

[–] • 0 pt

Its brought up almost everywhere in the country every year and has for ages.

That's why I said that even if it gets passed it will probably only be a month before they declare it racist and file a bunch of lawsuits.

While we are proposing bills that you wish would get passed... Can we also do required randomized drug testing for all appointed or elected officials? That would be great.

[–] • 1 pt

The lie of 'free' is destroying the American Worker/middle class. ANYONE taking welfare/free money from the 'gov.' is stealing working Americans taxes and should 'refund' this stolen money by working. Like Everyone else.

[–] • 1 pt

Before I think the 1960s or whenever they started buying nigger votes with welfare, all charity was a private matter. We need to return to that. Actually, if I could start a government, all government charity for all things would be banned. No giving money or stuff to other nations for any reason. If there's a big disaster wherever, people can decide to give their own money if they so choose to do so. Actually, this stuff already exists.

I thought about this crooked, reprehensible US government being charitable, and it's the most ridiculous concept. It's like some serial killer/rapist that's working hard to give to charity. If you consider the corrupt character of the US government, then all this charity to other countries is just getting them financially dependent and making them capable of being manipulated by simply withholding the money. Perhaps in some cases they're trying to build up an army of foreign retards that'll come invade us, but I'm not sure how much that relates to this.

[–] • 1 pt

I have a layover in the SF airport. I think I will stay there all night and not leave. The typical hotels are $200-300 and anything cheaper than that probably involves crack and prostitutes and roaches. The back sections of airports are pretty nice, but I'm pretty sure SF will be taking the NY approach and making the open to public area the most inhospitable place with almost nowhere to sit. Actually, terminal 4 in New York had a few seats, but terminal 5 didn't have a single place to sit. I'm pretty sure it's for keeping bums from making a home out of the airport. Terminal 4 was for arrivals from out of country.

[–] • 0 pt

Just don't go out of the security area's and maybe spend the 30-60$ to get into a lounge, its worth it.

The airports in all of the lib/progressive cities (pre-security) are basically homeless shelters now.

[–] • 1 pt

Are lounges even open overnight? It seems like they are associated with an airline or organization and not available to the public.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

I'm not sure if all of them are, I think some may be 24/7 but you would have to look in the airports you are passing through.

Some of them have those sleep pod things now too so at least you could get a box with a lock on it and control the lights if you want to get some sleep. Not ideal but better than trying to get some sleep on a concourse.

Even if you can't crash in the lounge, it probably costs less overall for the food/drinks/WiFi and quiet than you would get in the airport.

[–] • 1 pt

Dat be all rrraaacccccissttt 'n sheeiiittt!!!