Here's an idea ... why didn't OWS actually occupy the villains' locales?

[Amelia]

Why is the occupy movement saddling cash-strapped taxpayers with millions of dollars of costs?


I understand that they might not think they should personally pay the cost for their civil disobedience. But they could at least have gone in and messed up the insides of the banks they hate.

They could have squatted on the lawns of the rich people they hate.



Why are they making the so-called 99% pay for their choices?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Man, the OWS really pushes rightist buttons.

You guys need to get a grip.

 

[Amelia]

Man, the OWS really pushes rightist buttons.

You guys need to get a grip.

So, no answer for why some frequently law-breaking group with nebulous goals should get away with piling up costs for their movement onto cities and onto individual business owners and such?

No explanation for why they would do that to the people they are supposedly fighting for?

 

[skipper]

Why is the occupy movement saddling cash-strapped taxpayers with millions of dollars of costs?


I understand that they might not think they should personally pay the cost for their civil disobedience. But they could at least have gone in and messed up the insides of the banks they hate.

They could have squatted on the lawns of the rich people they hate.



Why are they making the so-called 99% pay for their choices?

Using your analogy, the protesters against the Nam war should have gone in and messed up the inside of military bases?

 

[Amelia]

Well, the protestors might have ended the war sooner that way.



This current crop are hurting the ones they claim to be trying to help. They could at least protest in wealthy communities where people pay enough property taxes to pay for the extra security needed.

 

[Cowman]

You're 'afraid' of OWS, as the right likes to say.

Seriously though... I love that the only thing anyone is talking about really is Occupy Wall Street.

 

[daveman]

You're 'afraid' of OWS, as the right likes to say.

Seriously though... I love that the only thing anyone is talking about really is Occupy Wall Street.

Of course you love it. It distracts attention away from Obama's abysmal record.

Exactly as planned.

 

[ba1614]

Why is the occupy movement saddling cash-strapped taxpayers with millions of dollars of costs?


I understand that they might not think they should personally pay the cost for their civil disobedience. But they could at least have gone in and messed up the insides of the banks they hate.

They could have squatted on the lawns of the rich people they hate.



Why are they making the so-called 99% pay for their choices?

That's what they're protesting for, everyone else to pay for their dreams of utopia.

 

[Cowman]

You're 'afraid' of OWS, as the right likes to say.

Seriously though... I love that the only thing anyone is talking about really is Occupy Wall Street.

Of course you love it. It distracts attention away from Obama's abysmal record.

Exactly as planned.

No, that's not it. He does have a poor record though. Not liberal enough, keeps trying to tread the middle road and appease all sides all the time.

I love it because for all that OWS disrespects and hates OWS and thinks they are pointless... that's the only thing they talk about these days.

And I wouldn't call that exactly as planned(though by the OWS, of course it is), but it's certainly a happy accident.

 

[daveman]

You're 'afraid' of OWS, as the right likes to say.

Seriously though... I love that the only thing anyone is talking about really is Occupy Wall Street.

Of course you love it. It distracts attention away from Obama's abysmal record.

Exactly as planned.

No, that's not it. He does have a poor record though. Not liberal enough, keeps trying to tread the middle road and appease all sides all the time.

I love it because for all that OWS disrespects and hates OWS and thinks they are pointless... that's the only thing they talk about these days.

And I wouldn't call that exactly as planned(though by the OWS, of course it is), but it's certainly a happy accident.

Uh huh. Suuuure.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why is the occupy movement saddling cash-strapped taxpayers with millions of dollars of costs?


I understand that they might not think they should personally pay the cost for their civil disobedience. But they could at least have gone in and messed up the insides of the banks they hate.

They could have squatted on the lawns of the rich people they hate.



Why are they making the so-called 99% pay for their choices?

Using your analogy, the protesters against the Nam war should have gone in and messed up the inside of military bases?

No. They should have got to Vietnam to protest.

Of course, actually seeing the atrocities done by the Viet Cong would have ended the protesting and their movement would have disolved overnight.

So that's probably the answer.

 

[snjmom]

No. They should have got to Vietnam to protest.

Of course, actually seeing the atrocities done by the Viet Cong would have ended the protesting and their movement would have disolved overnight.

So that's probably the answer.

The point of the protest was why was anybody in Vietnam? Didn't want my cousin or brother to be there, getting in somebody else's beef. Domestic calls are the worst...

 

[Avatar4321]

No. They should have got to Vietnam to protest.

Of course, actually seeing the atrocities done by the Viet Cong would have ended the protesting and their movement would have disolved overnight.

So that's probably the answer.

The point of the protest was why was anybody in Vietnam? Didn't want my cousin or brother to be there, getting in somebody else's beef. Domestic calls are the worst...

They were there preventing the slaughter of Millions of South East Asians under communist totalitarians. Which sadly happened anyway after the Democrats abandoned our ally.

 

[snjmom]

Puh-leese. We certainly didn't give a shit when China did it. Or Cambodia.