Rumor What's going on in Portland? (2 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Had my granddaughter to the airport this morning at 7 am for a 9:20 flight to Kona on (you guessed it!) an Alaska Airlines 737-900. I even checked their website before I left and it said the flight was leaving on time. They lied. The Alaska Airlines end of the building was a massive clusterfuck, with an hour and a half wait in line to reschedule. We were lucky to get her on flight for tomorrow afternoon. But in the end it was worth it to have her another day.
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
Had my granddaughter to the airport this morning at 7 am for a 9:20 flight to Kona on (you guessed it!) an Alaska Airlines 737-900. I even checked their website before I left and it said the flight was leaving on time. They lied. The Alaska Airlines end of the building was a massive clusterfuck, with an hour and a half wait in line to reschedule. We were lucky to get her on flight for tomorrow afternoon. But in the end it was worth it to have her another day.
Click to expand...

You can get several more days if you just don't take her to the airport. Chances are you can just tell @BLAZINGGIANTS that you overslept, the car broke down, there was a traffic jam, etc. and he won't catch on for awhile, and even after he does, it will probably be awhile more before he calls the authorities.

barfo
 
barfo said:
You can get several more days if you just don't take her to the airport. Chances are you can just tell @BLAZINGGIANTS that you overslept, the car broke down, there was a traffic jam, etc. and he won't catch on for awhile, and even after he does, it will probably be awhile more before he calls the authorities.

barfo
Click to expand...
Not BG I'm worried about........it's his other half.......
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
Not BG I'm worried about........it's his other half.......
Click to expand...

I didn't know he was a conjoined twin.

1200px-ChangandEng.jpg
 
BigGameDamian said:
Click to expand...


So. legalized drugs to be used in open public.
Then less than three years later, declares a state of emergency due to the aftermath. Gets funding to now house them(and other homeless) and can’t pay for even half of them?

Sound political management there…..

tossing money down the drain.
 
SharpeScooterShooter said:
So. legalized drugs to be used in open public.
Then less than three years later, declares a state of emergency due to the aftermath. Gets funding to now house them(and other homeless) and can’t pay for even half of them?

Sound political management there…..

tossing money down the drain.
Click to expand...
These were problems prior to measure 110. Measure 110 doesn't legalize the use of drugs in public.

I'm not sure how you can read an article that very clearly states what the problem is and then try to blame something unrelated...
 
Phatguysrule said:
These were problems prior to measure 110. Measure 110 doesn't legalize the use of drugs in public.

I'm not sure how you can read an article that very clearly states what the problem is and then try to blame something unrelated...
Click to expand...

I didn't say I based my post off of the tweet, OR measure 110 alone. I'm not sure how you can assume I did, when I didn't.

In September, the Portland City Council approved a ban on public drug use that comes with a potential punishment of six months in jail, but the measure will only go into effect if lawmakers change state law.Dec 11, 2023

This ban was instituted because previously it was legal. Now its not, because we had to ban it. I don't see how you can argue semantics when the facts are out there.... Are you intentionally trying to be obtuse here?
 
SharpeScooterShooter said:
I didn't say I based my post off of the tweet, OR measure 110 alone. I'm not sure how you can assume I did, when I didn't.

In September, the Portland City Council approved a ban on public drug use that comes with a potential punishment of six months in jail, but the measure will only go into effect if lawmakers change state law.Dec 11, 2023

This ban was instituted because previously it was legal. Now its not, because we had to ban it. I don't see how you can argue semantics when the facts are out there.... Are you intentionally trying to be obtuse here?
Click to expand...
There was no recent law change that legalized public drug use.
 
Phatguysrule said:
There was no recent law change that legalized public drug use.
Click to expand...

Lmao.. your going to continue to be obtuse…

it was so rampant they had to try to ban it.

https://www.opb.org/article/2023/09/02/portland-revisits-ban-public-drug-use-legal-issues/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/11/us/portland-oregon-drug-laws.html

Public drug use has skyrocketed across the state and many blame a law that went into effect in 2021. This law made Oregon the first state in the country to decriminalize small amounts of hard drugs like heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine. It's called Measure 110, and it effectively made all drugs legal.Nov 8, 2023

https://apnews.com/article/oregon-drug-decriminalization-law-3f851183d45e9c29609360b09e996d04


People who argue like you do are contributing to getting nothing done. Maybe concede some petty shit and admit what’s really going on. But you pick at petty semantics instead of addressing the issues. Hence nothing gets done.
Good job.
I’ll keep seeing the reality of what’s going on.

No measure 110 didn’t specifically say public drug use is legal but to deny it wasn’t a large contributor to it is simply putting your head in the sand.

No wonder nothing gets solved when voters such as yourself take these silly stances…

I stand by my op that you quoted and took issue with…

cause and effect is a real thing. But not to all apparently…

Moving on now, as you haven’t brought anything relevant or educational to this discussion.
 
SharpeScooterShooter said:
Lmao.. your going to continue to be obtuse…

it was so rampant they had to try to ban it.

https://www.opb.org/article/2023/09/02/portland-revisits-ban-public-drug-use-legal-issues/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/11/us/portland-oregon-drug-laws.html

Public drug use has skyrocketed across the state and many blame a law that went into effect in 2021. This law made Oregon the first state in the country to decriminalize small amounts of hard drugs like heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine. It's called Measure 110, and it effectively made all drugs legal.Nov 8, 2023

https://apnews.com/article/oregon-drug-decriminalization-law-3f851183d45e9c29609360b09e996d04


People who argue like you do are contributing to getting nothing done. Maybe concede some petty shit and admit what’s really going on. But you pick at petty semantics instead of addressing the issues. Hence nothing gets done.
Good job.
I’ll keep seeing the reality of what’s going on.

No measure 110 didn’t specifically say public drug use is legal but to deny it wasn’t a large contributor to it is simply putting your head in the sand.

No wonder nothing gets solved when voters such as yourself take these silly stances…

I stand by my op that you quoted and took issue with…

cause and effect is a real thing. But not to all apparently…

Moving on now, as you haven’t brought anything relevant or educational to this discussion.
Click to expand...
From your link.
The 1971 law was established to address substance abuse as a health problem, rather than a crime. While that law does allow cities to prohibit alcohol consumption in specific areas – as with Portland’s public alcohol consumption ban – it does not allow the same exemption for drugs. That’s likely because illicit drug possession was considered illegal in Oregon until 2020.
Click to expand...

And you're falling for more fascist MAGA BS. Nothing in measure 110 allows public intoxication or public use of controlled substances.

Police are refusing to enforce laws because they don't like that they are being forced to provide evidence.

Yes, many people blame measure 110, but it was a problem long before measure 110.

And no, it's not the DA refusing to charge people. The DA is charging people at similar rates as always. Of anything it is a lack of public defenders, which is a completely different problem.

The problem with homelessness is due to lack of services and lack of affordable housing. Full stop. That's it.
 
Phatguysrule said:
From your link.


And you're falling for more fascist MAGA BS. Nothing in measure 110 allows public intoxication or public use of controlled substances.

Police are refusing to enforce laws because they don't like that they are being forced to provide evidence.

Yes, many people blame measure 110, but it was a problem long before measure 110.

And no, it's not the DA refusing to charge people. The DA is charging people at similar rates as always. Of anything it is a lack of public defenders, which is a completely different problem.

The problem with homelessness is due to lack of services and lack of affordable housing. Full stop. That's it.
Click to expand...

you clearly did not read my post. So I’ll summarize a portion for you. I did not say that measure 110 legalized public drug use.
Cause and effect though. You are intentionally putting your head in the sand if you don’t think it was a large contributor to the huge increase in public drug use.
I lived downtown for a decade. Never was public drug use even close to the percentage it is these days.

problems can’t be solved if people aren’t reasonable about cause and effect.

Police are refusing to enforce laws because when they do everyone turns against them. Countless footage of people blaming cops trying to enforce the law and to arrest criminals.

cause and effect. Head in sand.
 
SharpeScooterShooter said:
So. legalized drugs to be used in open public.
Then less than three years later, declares a state of emergency due to the aftermath.
Click to expand...
Legalize drugs, then 3 years later...
What happened 3 years ago that you are referring to that legalized drugs? This is directly what you said.

SharpeScooterShooter said:
This ban was instituted because previously it was legal. Now its not, because we had to ban it. I don't see how you can argue semantics when the facts are out there.... Are you intentionally trying to be obtuse here?
Click to expand...
What was LEGAL? You said it was legal. What made it legal 3 years ago, that you were specifically referring to? Maybe you can be more specific in what caused it to be legal?

SharpeScooterShooter said:
No measure 110 didn’t specifically say public drug use is legal.
Click to expand...
oh, what did?


SharpeScooterShooter said:
I did not say that measure 110 legalized public drug use.
Click to expand...

So I suppose this is where you'd argue semantics, and say you never specifically referenced 110 in your original replies...so what legalized drugs? You said twice they were legal.
 
RR7 said:
Legalize drugs, then 3 years later...
What happened 3 years ago that you are referring to that legalized drugs? This is directly what you said.


What was LEGAL? You said it was legal. What made it legal 3 years ago, that you were specifically referring to? Maybe you can be more specific in what caused it to be legal?


oh, what did?




So I suppose this is where you'd argue semantics, and say you never specifically referenced 110 in your original replies...so what legalized drugs? You said twice they were legal.
Click to expand...

I didn’t word that right when I said previously public drug use was legal. I meant drug possession, which it was.

In the links I provided and in measure 110 small amounts of drugs were legal to carry/possess. With that cause came the effect of a significant growth in drug use.

Phats took me commenting on the tweet as all one statement about the link. My comment was about crappy government oversight in a broad spectrum.
I was not directly tying the homeless issue to drugs alone. I was commenting as a whole about the multiple issues/mistakes the government has been making.

First we make small amounts of drugs legal to possess without any foresight(should have been fairly obvious) that drug use would increase both privately and publicly. And in three years public drug use increased significantly.
This issue put more people on the streets, increasing the homeless issue we already had.
Then we had to claim a state of emergency because of it.

then we have the increase of homeless that we have been working hard to fix, yet can’t fix even half of it based on the tweet.
I did not cite anything in the article in the tweet, in my post. I was simply summizing the issues and responses we have taken as being complete failures of the government.
Phats took it on himself to imply I was specifically saying everything based on the tweet alone.

government failure was my point. But instead of acknowledging that, Phats did the typical, argue Symantec’s without ever admitting/agreeing on the obvious issues I was pointing out. Instead of asking me to clarify if he didn’t understand what I posted , he did the typical, no one said, no one did blah blah deflection instead of focusing on the point of the post.
SharpeScooterShooter said:
Sound political management there…..
tossing money down the drain.
Click to expand...

in that quote, I said drug use and should have said drug possession.
He focused on that instead of my point, which was poor government management. the usual deflective focus that so often happens.
 
This is the difference though. I can admit things and say I should have said this or I was wrong about that.
But some others here can’t do that even in obvious circumstances. Not a chance Phats admits he may have misread my op a bit l, thinking I was focused on the tweet, like I can admit I could have worded it better to avoid such confusion.
Makes it hard to take anything serious or give respect to those types of behavioral characters/ argumentative styles.
Two types of people in this world. Those who make mistakes and admit them and those who make mistakes and never admit them. This forum is full of characters who simply can never admit even the slightest mistake and will go to great lengths to divert and deflect to avoid saying such things.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top