Where is the answer to this mess?

Nope.
Two can play your game.
Got any facts you haven't made up?

 

What way is 'my' way? I have described many many different paths to the same goal .. and frequently remind whoever I'm discussing it with, that every person will have a different approach.

However, you're arguing that doing less than required is adequate - a completely different thing. And the evidence that what you're arguing is a nonsense, is in the fact that people who do less than necessary never achieve what they're trying to achieve. Laws of physics and all that.

It doesn't matter which approach one takes - if you're poor and want to buy property, it's going to take immense determination and self-discipline. You're going to need to be prepared to do whatever it takes - no matter how uncomfortable, unpleasant, boring, tedious, or frustrating it is. Regardless of which method you use, you're still going to have to think about literally every dollar you spend, and every little choice you make, for years and years. Do less than that, and you will not succeed.

 

Nope, your right I made it up.

 

Ah nope.

 

So how is 'there are no laws of physics, and I can make things happen by magic' working out for you?

 

It starts with the bias news networks. Make them honest and bipartisan. ALL OF THEM.

 

Just fine, no laws of physics involved.

 

But of course, you do agree that pigs not only fly, but do it well. That's fact too, and I made it up.

When people mature they quit these childish games and recognize reality, even when it's not convenient.
Let us know when you decide to try that game.

 

You first.

 

Well I guess it depends on whether the homeless situation can be defined by a 20 something programmer who doesn't want an 80 mile commute or not. I don't think homelessness has anything to do with that type of situation. If you do, then I guess we don't really have the same definitions of homelessness.

 

I played your game, but you can't play mine. No surprise.
It's a lead a horse to water situation; you can't make people understand what they refuse to understand.

 

As far as I know, you believe that the Dems stole the election from trump, so you're the one having trouble with reality.

 

I do not know who taught you capitalism but it had to be a politician and not an economist.
Milton earned a long productive living teaching capitalism.

 

Democrats are not that brilliant as a group of humans. The Media established the hate Trump parade and the Democrats enjoyed it.

 

The oldest, more common lie there is would be "I didn't do nuthin" Most every crook and shyster ever caught says that.
The red flags all over the place- the statistics saying it's astronomically improbable, the long list of shenanigans at the polls, the magical shift in number in key places, the constant denial and refusal to be monitored, and a man unable to draw 100 people to a city rally running against a man who draws 50,000 to a cornfield. Odds are about as good as a herd of unicorns being discovered in Central Park.

To even deny that makes a person look like someone selling bottled farts as french perfume. But denial cost nothing but your credibility, and those who don't value that have nothing to lose.
Honor is the bond between a person's values and their conduct. Once you sacrifice that bond, you lose all perspective. Your behavior and credibility go to hell- you even lie to yourself until you believe the lie. .
No rational person would vote for what Biden is doing right now- and the probability of what is happening now was obvious from the beginning.
You're the one unable to see the reality here.

 

Odds aren't evidence, and Biden was elected because he wasn't trump.

 

I will agree that Biden got votes because he wasn't Trump- and the people who did that are now getting their just deserts. They deserve it- but the rest of us do not. Unfortunately they know no shame either, or they would be apologizing to their neighbors and begging forgiveness.

 

Why, we got what we wanted, trump out of office.

 

?? Homelessness is when people are living in tents, cars, and other places not created or approved as housing. There is no disagreement on that.

I have no idea what you are talking about with your "20 something programmer" thing.

 

Well clearly if we can't agree on definitions of issues, we can't really discuss them.

 

The only real hurdle in this whole thing is the balkanization of the country. I'm not sure if this is 5 or 10% but it is the main vocal party constituents that makeup political discourse.

If you see things one way you're a far right extremist and some kind of "ophobe". If you say another you are far less than Marxist I'm trying to usher in a new authoritarian government.

While these factions is certainly exist they barely exist.

The only solution that there can be is We the People remember these are our countrymen. They may disagree with some nebulous ideals that don't really affect most people like same-sex marriage or abortion or whatever. But it doesn't matter

The organization has occurred by listening to people who say how much all of this nonsense matters. The sad thing about it is it's not over desire to be a more fair and generous country it's about ratings. A certain segment of media is dying and an upstart segment is being born.

The broken old guard by furious at this but they aren't equipped to fight it. So they turn us on one another.

 

I'm more of a Howard T. Odum and Charles A.S. Hall kind of guy.

 

You can find two people who have done almost anything that a human can do. Two people walked on the MOON!

Suggesting that the acts of two people is a valid foundation for demanding by law what others must do, without even THINKING about the population of those to whom you issue these orders, is just plain STUPID. It's not even Marxist or Communist or anything else. It is just stupid - that's all.

It should be obvious to YOU that there is no valid study of ANY population that involved 2 people as the sample size.

 

I do not see any confusion about the definition of homelessness.

Homelessness has to do with people who do not have homes to go to when night falls.

Thus, they end up in tents pitched in our cities, in shelters, in doorways, in vehicles parked in public places, etc.

There isn't any city that doesn't recognize that basic definition.

 

Let's be clear here, so there's no confusion.

You're a low income earner, and desipte half-assed efforts and no particular commitment to frugality or saving, you've been able to purchase and now fully own a property - is that correct?