The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on November 27, 2011, 10:14:53 AM
-
WillyT (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-27-11 10:39 AM
Original message
Occupy Wall Street And Homelessness: Millions Spent To Evict Camps, While Cutting Shelter Funds
blah blah blah
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2386832
It should come as a surprise to no one that public safety takes precedence over charity, at least as far as government is concerned. The OWieS are determined to create a presence that requires the attention of civil authorities. This is their stated goal, with planned "Days of Action" to disrupt public order and acts of disobedience. [NOTE TO LURKERS: Rosa Parks wanted to ride the bus, not keep everyone else from riding.]
Cash-strapped cities have to pay police to be present, especially once the rabble start throwing bottles. Once those officer get past 40 hurs for the work week their union requires big bumps in pay.
If forced to choose between police and charity, the cities MUST choose police. They will not allow the criminals in the rest of the city free rein, nor will they ignore the mob of spoiled brats that demand to be paid attention to by throwing themselves down in the middle of roads to have their temper tantrums.
So that leaves one option.
Don't like it?
Stop being a drain on "the system."
or...
OR...
OR!
...you can start taking care of the homeless yourselves, since you like to strut and preen about how much you supposedly care.
Apparently your moral high-ground only goes so far as to order other people to spend someone else's money to attend to the things you allegedly care about.
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2386832
It should come as a surprise to no one that public safety takes precedence over charity, at least as far as government is concerned. The OWieS are determined to create a presence that requires the attention of civil authorities. This is their stated goal, with planned "Days of Action" to disrupt public order and acts of disobedience. [NOTE TO LURKERS: Rosa Parks wanted to ride the bus, not keep everyone else from riding.]
Cash-strapped cities have to pay police to be present, especially once the rabble start throwing bottles. Once those officer get past 40 hurs for the work week their union requires big bumps in pay.
If forced to choose between police and charity, the cities MUST choose police. They will not allow the criminals in the rest of the city free rein, nor will they ignore the mob of spoiled brats that demand to be paid attention to by throwing themselves down in the middle of roads to have their temper tantrums.
So that leaves one option.
Don't like it?
Stop being a drain on "the system."
or...
OR...
OR!
...you can start taking care of the homeless yourselves, since you like to strut and preen about how much you supposedly care.
Apparently your moral high-ground only goes so far as to order other people to spend someone else's money to attend to the things you allegedly care about.
The democrat version of being a "Christian".....or a socially conscience person..
-
OR!
...you can start taking care of the homeless yourselves, since you like to strut and preen about how much you supposedly care.
Apparently your moral high-ground only goes so far as to order other people to spend someone else's money to attend to the things you allegedly care about.
After kicking the homeless out of their camps because "all they want is FREE food", they invite them back in Occupy Indianapolis to "show" that the OWSers still have a "presence" while the OWSers retreat to the warm confines of their homes and apartments to weather out the cold weather.........(http://www.conservativecave.com/Smileys/default/whistling.gif)
-
Sgt Bunny: "[NOTE TO LURKERS: Rosa Parks wanted to ride the bus, not keep everyone else from riding.]"
(I disagree with the morality/legality of the situation, but the point stands on its own merits.)
Rosa Parks could have ridden the bus all the way to her destination unmolested if she had followed the local laws with regard to riderrship. She only had a problem because she deliberately became a problem.
The question has been raised whether this was a planned event. If so, my personal attitude toward imposed segregation laws aside, I think rather less of the act than otherwise.