There's no such thing as "do whatever you want" free housing. There's always a system in place to which one must conform. That's the catch for a lot of people, they have non conformist views opinions and attitudes, which leaves them out in the cold.

Why is it that when I am not socially open at the poker table my game is much better for much longer during the session?

How poor does one need to be in order to have the moral authority to tell others to help the homeless?

fyp

Infinitely? No one should really be telling others to give their money away. But it's especially egregious when someone with more wealth tells someone with less what to do with it. And the pope has more wealth than anyone else, so he shouldn't be telling anyone.

I think that if someone breaks a moral law, that someone would suffer because of this. If nobody suffers, there is no moral ground stolen from underfoot and there is no transgression of karma, or however you judge you relative moral ground from that of other humans.

So by spreading the word, which in many languages would be something like "be generous to your neighbor," around the world(which the Pope's voice is able to reach), who suffers from this act? Nobody.

Seeing the angles while enjoying yourself socially at the table is what separates great players from good imo. For example, a hockey player doing the Bull Dance after a hat trick is both interactive with the crowd and demoralizing to the opponent. The converse, or when someone cheapshots a hockey player away from the puck, knocking him unconscious on the ice, causes the teammates of the injured player to immediately change their entire mindset from "lets win this thing" to "we're gonna **** these guys up." Four games later you're celebrating in one city and rioting in the other.

I don't consider the pope's suggestion to be immoral, just hypocritical.

You seem to be equating the Catholic Church (an organization) and the Pope (a person).

https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/12/opini...uit/index.html

As far as his current net worth, I'm not sure this is the most reliable source, but I'm too lazy to dig deeper.

https://finapp.co.in/pope-francis-net-worth/amp/

Yes, I was clearly attributing the wealth of the church to the pope himself, since he is basically in control of that wealth, or at very least its representative. The vow of poverty is something I could respect, if he were still practicing. As it is, even that current income and net worth is impressively high.

The Church is not as unitary as you seem to think it is. It is made up of a zillion dioceses, congregations, holy orders, and organizational units that see the Pope as a moral authority but in no way their boss or financial manager.

I know all that stuff. Still believe that if the pope told all the churches to start opening all their buildings to the homeless at all hours, they would either have to do so, or break away from the church and no longer call themselves Roman Catholic.

You can believe that, but you would be wrong. That would literally be going contrary to the thing that you say you know when you say "I know all that stuff."

The Pope's leadership is not authoritarian when it comes to the day-to-day business operations of local dioceses. He doesn't actually have the authority to tell any specific church when to open its doors or close them or which specific things to spend their money on. And he certainly cannot unilaterally "de-Catholicize" a church because he told them to do something and they didn't do it. No matter how much your cynicism towards the church may incline you to want to believe it so that you can blame/accuse the Pope of whatever, it's simply not true.

Also...

https://www.uscatholic.org/articles/...homeless-31271

Cool, good to see that a few churches are doing that.

Now when I go back to search this thread for mentions, it will get all out of whack.

My brother is visiting in a few weeks and I'm tossing the creature's (otherwise known as my mother) care onto him for a few days. I want to go to San Diego and need advice on where to stay if anyone has anything to offer. Price doesn't matter and I want to be near the beach.

Coronado, Ocean beach or Carlsbad are areas we've enjoyed.

Carlsbad is more lowkey and close to Oceans Eleven if you want to poker.

Carlsbad is a good idea. I'm going bec I want to bounce up and down in the ocean one more time before the ocean is entirely made of plastic. Poker's an afterthought.

I've stayed here a number of times when I've done a beach/Del Mar (race track) trip:

https://www.motel6.com/en/motels.ca.....html?ncr=true

nice, quiet area, 10 min walk to the beach. and a grocery store an easy walk across the street should that be needed.

ofc motel 6 isn't a luxury paradise but this one is upkept well enough, not sure if that matters or not.

Thanks for the suggestion but I'd like something a bit upscale. Is there some nice casino/hotel in the area?

none that I recall, at least near the ocean.

Ocean Beach (OB) is a young/hippie man's sort of place. If you want to be around the college co-eds, stay in Mission or Pacific Beach.

I think La Jolla would be more your scene, HB. You can go to La Jolla cove and kayak around there. There's a bunch of seals, too. Lots of tourist stuff, and you're close to Black's Beach, which is historically a nude beach + good surf.

Just to clarify, the only way to get to Black's Beach is via a substantial hike through a hilly forest.

La Jolla is very nice though, and Carlsbad is nice as well.

Summer is almost over and I haven’t been to cape cod once.

However I did go camping earlier this year and had a nice night away with my lady friend of 6 years this past weekend.

I want to hear about more summer vacations.

Anywhere in La Jolla or Carlsbad that isn't a national chain is probably upscale. I say forget the casino altogether and go full beach. Go surfing or something.