+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/24/2018 04:54 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.632 Visits   6 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality: Good
Back to Overview  
07/17/2008 07:58 AM ID: 72064 Permalink   

Denver Gives Homeless Movie Tickets and Zoo Passes for Use During the Democratic National Convention


When the DNC is in town next month, the Colorado Coalition for Homeless plans to give away 500 movie tickets, zoo passes, and museum tickets along with bus tickets for use during the convention. But some people think it's something more.

People are saying this is a way to "hide" the homeless during the convention. "It just sounds like another way to get rid of them," said Kayne Coy, 17, a volunteer for the homeless. He says there are rumors that the homeless will be "sent away."

The head of the Colorado Coalition for the homeless, John Parvensky, denied that this is a attempt to "hide the homeless" during the convention running from Aug 25-28th.

Many shelters will have expanded hours during the convention.

    WebReporter: cray0la Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  democrats hiding the failure of there social prgms  
Ah yes, let's hide the homeless so the politicians won't see them. How typically Liberal of you.

The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless probably got paid off by those wonderful "caring" Liberals in the DNC to hide the homeless. That way, nobody at the convention would have to see reality and face up to the fact that the Liberal "war on poverty" accomplished absolutely nothing except wasting money on an ineffective government bureaucracy.
  by: cray0la     07/17/2008 08:04 AM     
Are you saying that we really DON'T throw the homeless in the trash? Or is it that the Dem's are taking them out of the trash and sending them to the movies? Maybe that's it..... they're doing their part to help ease the pain of the homeless..... "Send them to the zoo where they belong"..... Wait did someone say that out loud?.... no no no, the Dems are just being friendly.... helping a brother out....

I wonder if the Green Dems will also be driving their SUV'S from all over the country to Denver? Or will they be taking something greener? Mass Transit perhaps?

No way... they'd be too close to the unwashed masses for that... they need security.... bring out the Hummer limo's please...
  by: boaznjachin     07/17/2008 08:13 AM     
Literally, cray0la, not a single thing you said makes a bit of sense; this has to be the most contrived liberal conspiracy you're dreamed up yet. Why would they be hiding things from politicians, as if the politicians were ignorant of the homeless? There's nothing "liberal," or unprecedented, about a city that prettying itself up before moneyed bigwigs convene upon it.

I'd say this si quite a biased summary, as well. You didn't feel the need to report the reasons given by the people doing this, just that they deny the baseless accusations of a 17 year-old? They said great plenty about it:

"Many day shelters will have expanded hours during the convention, and big screen TVs are being donated to some shelters so patrons can watch convention goings-on without being caught up in the mayhem.

"'We're trying to let folks know what activities are planned, and what other places they'll be able to go without being harassed,' Parvensky said...

"'A person who typically sits under a tree in a park that is now occupied by 1,000 protesters won't have the peace and quiet they're desiring,' Parvensky said. 'Particularly those with mental illness can't cope with crowds...'

"'Our concern going forward is that the city doesn't control everything - the Secret Service plays a role,' he said. 'We don't know what will happen if protests get out of control and people get caught up in something they didn't intend to.'"

Many legitimate concerns, yet not one made it into the summary. I guess the benevolence didn't add to the cynicism and conspiracy?
  by: MomentOfClarity     07/17/2008 08:22 AM     
i only have so much space to report the story. without getting the main points in its pretty hard to fill the story with stuff from the John the guy whos setting this up. THEN the story would be pretty bias now would it if it only had 1 PART of the story? sounds like a cnn/msnbc network point of view that you constantly love to have.

stop thinking so hard for a change and realize im JUST reporting a story, i put in both sides of the table, from johns and the kids, they only had them 2 points in the story and thats what i reported.

first paragraph i reported the main part of the story whats going on

second part i reported on the kids point of view (THE ONLY OTHER PERSON IN THE STORY BTW and A VOLUNTEER OF THE PPL THE STORY IS ABOUT)

the third paragraph i reported that those accusations were denied from the head of the CCH.

i also find your arguement that because the person is 17 years old that his statements are baseless is a joke and pretty ignorant.

the kid is a perfect part of the story, hes a volunteer that works WITH THE PEOPLE THE STORY IS ABOUT and he sees/ talks to these people or about these people whenever he volunteers.

i think your just in denial about the story.

how about unwrap some tinfoil from around your brain for a change and lighten up.
  by: cray0la     07/17/2008 08:33 AM     
I am afraid that I disagree, the summary was fairly well balanced, it includes both the accusation as well as the rebutal. It leaves the readers to determine for themselves what true reason is behind the added perq's for the homeless. The Conservatives will scream "You're hiding the homeless!!" And the Liberals will say "Look what we are doing for the poor."

If the Colorado Coalition for Homeless didn't actually give out the free passes, then they have opened themselves up for criicism.
  by: boaznjachin     07/17/2008 08:33 AM     
  Punches Cray in the arm....  
You owe me a beer...

It seems I had your back, when you had your own.... :)
  by: boaznjachin     07/17/2008 08:36 AM     
  Stupid, stupid, stupid humans.  
America has got low self-esteem.
  by: theironboard     07/17/2008 08:36 AM     
Ironic that you'd say *I* need to unwrap the tinfoil when your piece is all about a liberal conspiracy. I do like that you actually seemed to engage in a moment of honest dialogue before eventually launching back into the usual slur and slander. Stick with that, it's what I'm actually going to address because it actually has substance.

You only have so much space, but you clearly devoted it to your own perspective. Both the people involved work with the homeless. Fact is, one has been doing it a lot longer and has much greater knowledge of what's going on. For all he explained of it, you used none, instead portraying it as if it's just being done secretively with nary a word said. Turning a brief, baseless accusation into the key statement of the story and reducing the many valid reasons of the head of the CCH into some lame, curt denial grossly distorts the source. In short, you've turned mere speculation into full-blown scandal.

Boaznjachin, citing reputable critics or facts that challenge what Parvensky said would be fair and balanced. Those don't seem to exist, at least not in this source. Actually, giving the tongue-in-cheek meaning Fox News has given that terms, I'd have to agree with you. Just digging up some guy to cast aspersions and putting it on par with credible sources is, indeed, "Fair and Balanced."
  by: MomentOfClarity     07/17/2008 09:03 AM     
  And "typically liberal?"

The above describes the exact same problem and effect of fear, confusion, and relocation, on homeless in New York. The occasion? The Republican National Convention of 2004. Now I'd agree that today's GOP is QUITE the liberal party, but though it sounds the same, I doubt we're using the same word.

This is no sinister liberal plot, this is business as usual.
  by: MomentOfClarity     07/17/2008 09:19 AM     
Ok.... let me do a little editing of your statement, and see how it sounds... OK?

"Both the people involved work with the government. Fact is, one has been doing it a lot longer and has much greater knowledge of what's going on. For all he explained of it, you used none, instead portraying it as if it's just being done secretively with nary a word said. Turning a brief, baseless accusation into the key statement of the story and reducing the many valid reasons of someone who's been in the Senate a while into some lame, curt denial grossly distorts the source. In short, you've turned mere speculation into full-blown scandal."

What's that sound like?
  by: boaznjachin     07/17/2008 09:25 AM     
Yes, yes, and if you play with the facts further, you can make Parvensky seem even more sinister; but you've missed the point. Cray0la tried to use the kid's work as some kind of testament to his character, I merely pointed out that both men share that work. It's not about putting one above suspicion (though one is in a position to be better informed). Quite the contrary, given the "guilty-until-proven-innocent" perspective you bring.
  by: MomentOfClarity     07/17/2008 09:46 AM     
is a good thing that there are various relief organisations always who help the homeless as it is at us also, I would not believe it would be the aim of removing the homeless with this charity work, I think even in the homeless world there are many ways out if anyone wants it so.
  by: vizhatlan     07/17/2008 01:01 PM     
  shortly after...  
The republicans quickly countered the dems with their own convention frizzles to razzle dazzle the homeless by offering an all expense paid free trip to Iraq.
  by: ukcn001XYZ   07/17/2008 01:26 PM     
Don't you just laugh at how these guys paid no attention to the fact that New York did the exact same thing before the Republican convention in 2004?

Hey boaz and cray0la, I've got stunning news for you -- they're doing the same thing in Beijing right now! Some people will tell you that it's because Beijing is about to become part of the world stage, what with the Olympics and all, but you'll know better because I'm here to tell you, this is typically Communist! </sarcasm>

EVERY city tries to keep its homeless under the radar when it's about to be the focus of the world's attention. It's not a pretty fact, but it's just as much as a fact as that there weren't nearly as many homeless people until Reagan came along! (Put that in your pipe and choke on it!)

Hey guys, I've got an idea -- start rumors that the Democrats are handing out the Quran in Denver. You could put it in a big chain mail and amuse all your friends.
  by: l´anglais     07/17/2008 05:47 PM     
  I have to agree with cray0la on this one  
In 96' here in ATL, the city cleared out the homeless for the olympics. Same thing going to happen in Denver. They do it simply to make themselves look better. Not that it is better but rather gives the illusion of better.

IE: Propaganda.

Dems and Repubs are no different though. Im sure they both use similar tactics in their propaganda tactics.
  by: slavefortheman     07/17/2008 05:58 PM     
  Wow, getting picky are we?  
Given the limited space I thought cray0la did all right - stuck to content from the story and gave balance by providing both sides of the argument, and really, it's getting a bit pedantic by squabbling over the use of "hide," "sent away," and "getting rid of." People *are* accusing the city of doing away with the homeless during the convention, and the city *is* denying it.
  by: caution2     07/17/2008 09:03 PM     
  Picky? Perhaps.  
I thought a long while before rating this one. In the end, my opinion (and I realize it's a matter of just that) was that information was so proportionally inverted as to misrepresent the source, even if only moderately. I certainly wouldn't say it's a bad story, either.
  by: MomentOfClarity     07/17/2008 10:01 PM     
  great summary!  
Very interesting little tidbit there. Great job cray0la. :)

Gave this top rating. Especially knowing that if the story were about Bush or the Republicans, then you and Hugo would be all over it spouting off at the mouth about it.
  by: pcXXXtreme   07/17/2008 10:48 PM     
It's sad to see some people mindlessly voting by ideology instead of by quality. I guess that's your business, though. Now, you may have a good reason for lumping a Libertarian in with a Socialist, but you're pretty clearly wrong saying I'd scream about it if it was Bush. I already posted a link above about how this happened in NY around the RNC in 2004, and did I blame anyone? Nope, I said it was city business as usual. Might I suggest reading? It helps!
  by: MomentOfClarity     07/17/2008 11:30 PM     
  Look, people...  
...I simply don't think it's too much to ask that when the accused explains himself, his explanation be at least summarized. The whole third segment could have been used as such (a segment for each side seems balanced to me), since some parts are redundant and others unnecessary. He's quoted extensively at the source, saying more than "No, that's absurd, we would never..." THAT is something you could report as a simple denial. The kid didn't even NEED to be quoted, because his suspicions are summarized in the sentence preceeding it. There was nothing additional in his quote to make it significant.

But, I think I can explain until I'm blue in the face and some of you will still conclude it's because Cray0la is a right-winger. Sure, and that's why I rated this moderate so as to encourage Cray0la to keep working at it.
  by: MomentOfClarity     07/17/2008 11:56 PM     
  A Homeless Solution::IF people care!  
<deleted by admin>
  by: CaptChurch   07/18/2008 12:22 AM     
  MomentOfClarity is missing the point.  
MomentOfClarity is responding like all liberals do when they are caught lying or doing something dishonest, remember how liberals celibrated in the streets when the liberal infested APA said that the idea of right and wrong was subject to personal interpretation. Instead of applogizing and and admitting what they did was wrong they launch a campaign to prove that some conservative, therefore all conservatives, do the same thing, therefore, it should not be an issue. The point is that liberals falsely proclaim how much they care about and want to help the homeless, even though conservatives donate twice as much money and time as liberals to help the poor. Hiding the homeless no matter who does it is wrong. Liberals passed laws making it illegal to force mentally incompetant or drug addicted homeless people, the majority of homeless, into mental hospitals because "they are not a danger". The claim that Homeless people would be upset by boisterous protesters, 90 percent of protesters are liberals by the way, and crowds is complete rubish without merit. I am bothered by boisterous protesters and I go to parks can I have free tickets too? Are not the homeless voters too? Don't the democrats bus thousands of homeless to voting places every major election? The liberals want evryone to think they care about the homeless; the liberals want the homeless votes; but, the liberals do not want the homeless to stink up the doorways that they walk through.
  by: dalo   07/18/2008 02:48 AM     
Yes,I understand WHY they are doing it. I understand it perfectly. I also agree that it's the right thing to do. When you have company coming over, you always clean up. You may look at the same pile of garbage in the middle of your living room floor every day for a month, but somebody comes over, and you clean it up.

Originally, I took up for Cray0la not because I agree with him, but because he was being criticized unjustly in my opinion. And then, I had to throw in my sarcasm by making fun of the people who supposedly love the homeless, and yet throw the in the garbage when somebody important comes by.

It's like this, you have this ugly no legged dog who you love dearly, but a friend is coming over who you KNOW is going to make fun of your dog. What do you do? Hide the dog till he leaves, or display the dog proudly. Me, I'd display the dog proudly.

In the case of the Republican convention, Idon't remember them trying to cover up the fact that they were cleaning up the homeless. But I could be wrong.

As for how much influence a president has over the economy, and he does have some, he can't do ANYTHING about it without the congress. Which party has control over the congress? It's called a balance of power. One of the novel ideas the framers of the constitutioncame up with. A pretty good one I think. I wonder if Che Guevera had something similar when he was murdering thousands of people in the name of communism. Just curious.
  by: boaznjachin     07/18/2008 03:39 AM     
Hah, thanks for the laugh, that's great satire of an ignorant dittohead. Welcome to SN, you'll go far!
  by: MomentOfClarity     07/18/2008 04:59 AM     
"As for how much influence a president has over the economy, and he does have some, he can't do ANYTHING about it without the congress. Which party has control over the congress? It's called a balance of power. One of the novel ideas the framers of the constitutioncame up with. A pretty good one I think. I wonder if Che Guevera had something similar when he was murdering thousands of people in the name of communism. Just curious."

I really don't know that much, nor care that much, about Che Guevera, since I'm not a communist and don't believe in communism. As far as which party has control over Congress right now? Easy, neither has. The Democratic Party (notice that that ends with an "ic", Republicans) has a slim majority in Congress which by no means gives them control. I don't know why you bring up Congress or Guevera, since neither have anything to do with this story, which is about a city trying to act like it has no homeless people before it's subjected to the media spotlight, which all cities do. The fact that people like you and cray0la only make a big deal out of it when it happens that the city will be under the spotlight because it's hosting the Democratic Party's (again, note the "ic" at the end) illustrates to me that you and him are just trying to twist any news that involves the Democratic Party into something that reflects badly on said party, because you see them as some sort of enemy.

You both ought to get out of the house more. I spent hours trying to get my neighbor's new DVD player to work with her TV, and she's a Republican. But she's a wonderful lady, and neither of us hold our political beliefs against each other. If you two would ever interact with someone "different" from yourselves, you'd find that a lot of people out there are decent and likable, regardless of their political stances.
  by: l´anglais     07/18/2008 07:56 AM     
Just want to remind everyone reading this summary that it was brought to you by someone who thinks Obama has only been a Senator for 134 days. Sorry, cray0la, but Obama was elected to the Senate in November of 2004, and a year has 365 days, and not even Rush Limbaugh can change that.
  by: l´anglais     07/18/2008 08:28 AM     
  How odd....  
Would you believe that I have voted democrat in every presidential election since Clinton. I was one of the misguided fools who voted for Perot. I vote Democrat because Virginia always goes Republican, and I feel my vote doesn't matter anyway. I am an underdog kinda guy.

As for me getting "Out of the house", again, this is funny, I have friends from all different walks of life, and have spent most of my adult life traveling the world with my job. 2 years ago, my Grandfather died and left me the farm, and I quit travelling.

As for the Che Guevera comment, that was a jab against the Obama activists in Houston who probably have no idea who he was either, and yet proudly displayed his falg in their office.

As far as lumping me in with Cray0la simply because I stood up for what I felt was an injustice, well, you are intitled to your opinion. But I believe that was the first time I tried to defend him, and still stand by that defence. His story was balanced and factual. He did do a little tsk tsk in his post story comment, but that wasn't in the story. The story itself was fine.

So go ahead and run with your preconcieved notions about me. I still like you. :) Even if you do have communist tendancies... (That was a joke....I don't call people names except in jest.... don't take it personally... it's never meant that way.) Can we hug now and be friends?
  by: boaznjachin     07/18/2008 08:31 AM     
Before we hug, I want you to acknowledge that Republicans in Texas sold buttons reading, "If Obama Wins, Will it Still be the White House?" : )
  by: l´anglais     07/18/2008 08:58 AM     
  I haven't heard that one...  
But I wouldn't put it past them. I also wouldn't put it past some Democrats in Texas to have said, or thought the same thing.

Show me a reliable source, and I will admit it.
  by: boaznjachin     07/18/2008 09:10 AM     
  And no offence....  
But the hug thing was rhetorical....I don't hug dudes..... Sorry, I don't swing that way.

(In the previous comment, admit should have been acknowledge.)
  by: boaznjachin     07/18/2008 09:13 AM     
Hugging isn't gay as long as you keep your hands high and slap hard on the back.

Oh, and
  by: l´anglais     07/18/2008 09:17 AM     
About the button.... Tatseless... But I don't know that anyone ever called Texans PC... Bigots are everywhere.

On the hug... still not hugging a dude. I don't care how En Vogue it is.... It seems as gay as Batman's sidekick Robin.
  by: boaznjachin     07/18/2008 09:33 AM     
Not even a quick, one-armed slap on the back?
  by: caution2     07/18/2008 09:38 AM     
thanks for the support from those of you who did assess and stood up for me.

i always get a good laugh with the comments, especially the hug thing.

Sorry if i came off a little harsh in my post comment, i was a little touchy because MOC is always jumping down my throat after every news i submit lol, i did feel that i wrote it in a manner that satisfied both parts of the story.
  by: cray0la     07/18/2008 10:00 AM     
i do not understand how you feel that since im a conservative that i do not get out of the house or that i only associate with other conservatives, i live in democratic state run by mostly democrats. i work full time and i meet/ talk to many people during the day and never disassociate myself with them because of there political point of view. infact politics dont really come up in my day to day life. talking politics with people just make them angry and argue. i dont want to work with people that are mad and angered at a persons political point of view.

so for you to think that me and boaz are shut ins with rush limbaugh as the only news source at our finger tips because we are conservatives (sorry boaz if your not) is pretty jugdemental and is certainly not true.
  by: cray0la     07/18/2008 10:07 AM     
Not sure if I am liberal or conservative. Probably just like the rest of the country, middle of the road. I can't stand Rush... the man... not the band... but other conservative talking heads I like. And I don't care for all the take from the rich to give to the poor thing. I am also religious, weekly attending my family's Lutheran Church. I guess I just don't like labels. And I really hate it when somebody gets attacked for his beliefs. No matter what they are. So..... take that for what it's worth.

@ Caution..... a back slap is not a hug.... I do make exceptions to the no hugging dudes rule if they are Aussie or Kiwi's though.... (Batting eyelashes at Caution...)... They're just the sweetest....
  by: boaznjachin     07/18/2008 10:56 AM     
"I don't care for all the take from the rich to give to the poor thing."

How do you feel about that take from the poor to give to the rich thing? Because that's what's going on a lot more than the reverse.
  by: l´anglais     07/18/2008 06:25 PM     
  just to clarify  
the republicans are liberal, not the democrats,

the term is being misused as it is popularly misused in the US.

this was of course due to the democrats willingness to be portrayed as somethign other than 'red' and the media seeking a word that could be used without the inherent dogma attached to the terms socialist and communist, but it does not change the fact that liberal is an ideologically free-market orientated, low govt intervention ideology, completely the opposite of its use on this thread
  by: dieu_7     07/18/2008 06:44 PM     
How do I answer that question without sounding like a heartless donkey.....

Not sure. It's a loaded question.

Who is it that has on his card "If you give a man a fish he can eat today, but if you set a man on fire he'll be warm for the rest of his life."?
  by: boaznjachin     07/19/2008 03:30 AM     
"i was a little touchy because MOC is always jumping down my throat after every news i submit lol..."

I've asked you privately for any example of this, and since your silence is deafening, I expect an apology for this baseless slander.
  by: MomentOfClarity     07/24/2008 03:01 AM     
That would be me :P
  by: caution2     08/16/2008 02:52 AM     
"Who is it that has on his card "If you give a man a fish he can eat today, but if you set a man on fire he'll be warm for the rest of his life."?"

ROFL! That made me LAUGH! What an awesome quote!
  by: Red!   08/16/2008 03:04 AM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: