Obama: OWS not that different than Tea Party
The Weekly Standard tells us:
In an interview that will be aired tonight on ABC News, President Obama continues to express his commitment to the Occupy Wall Street protesters.
“The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles and we are on their side, and that we want to set up a system in which hard work, responsibility, doing what you’re supposed to do, is rewarded,” Obama tells ABC News. “And that people who are irresponsible, who are reckless, who don’t feel a sense of obligation to their communities and their companies and their workers that those folks aren’t rewarded.”
The president also compares the protesters to the Tea Party. “In some ways, they’re not that different from some of the protests that we saw coming from the Tea Party," Obama says.
Really? Not that different?
In Cleveland they’re investigating a kidnapping and rape at OWS there.
In Atlanta, the OWS protesters stormed a hospital.
An OWS protester in Seattle was arrested for exposing himself to children.
They’re talking about plans to disrupt the World Series.
And thievery is rampant within the OWS camps.
There is evidence of anti-Semitism.
Yup, just like the Tea Party.
~McQ
Twitter: @McQandO
I believe the President misspoke. It should have been …
Why is there even a strikeout in the html menu when it get excluded when I post ?
I think know you can’t do both strike out and italics.
No, you are right – its not working.
If you assume he believes all the media smear crap about the Tea Party being violent racist insurrectionists, it’s easy to see where he’s coming from.
““And that people who are irresponsible, who are reckless,”
Uh, like people who spend $200,000 on a college education to get a degree in Gender Studies? Is that irresponsible, or reckless?
hmmmmmmm, I’ll call going to school for that kind of degree reckless, i mean in theory, they might find a job.
It’s irresponsible for them to suddenly claim it’s all someone else’s fault they have a $200,000 loan to pay and they want to be relieved of the debt.
What makes me think President “Not My Fault” isn’t talking about them.
Colleges just “offer” these degrees, and once you graduate, they will tell you there may not be many opportunities.
A few years ago, “60 Minutes” did a piece on colleges doing a “bait-and-switch” on college students and their paying sponsors involving using Nobel Prize winning professors to lure in students, when in fact they will never see them again in their undergrad years, if at all. CBS predicted eventually there would be some FTC suit.
Since I’ve never heard of any, I have to assume that these bastions of Leftist learning are still immune.
With all the talk about bankers and CEOs why is there no talk of lawyers, many who make over a million$$ a year, and especially the ones who do suits that the victims get virtually nothing after all the lawyer fees?
Because the left doesn’t pee on it’s bedfellows.
Look at the rise in price for most colleges, compared to the background inflation.
Huge.
Then, remember that Obama has PLEDGED to pump MORE money into subsidies for higher education as part of his WTF thingy.
That can have only ONE predictable effect on the price of college. It will go up.
It can have only ONE predictable effect on admissions. They will go up.
$200,000 means it was way more than 4 years of full time study.
The life time guarantee for being a student ran out, that was issued by the old economy, the new post bankruptcy economy isn’t responsible for it,
How’s this for a thought:
Obama’s driving Wall Street donors away, and it’s hard to see how he can afford to lose all that money. But maybe a) he’s found an alternative source of funding, and b) thinks the Dems, OWS, and the media can scapegoat Wall Street to the point where Wall Street’s support will be a net negative for the Republican candidate.
The alternative source of funding is the more interesting angle of the two.
The WSJ had a piece up the other day about an actual survey done among the Occuphew people in NYC.
They are not as depicted. Not. At. All.
Look it up, and see for yourselves. This is a carefully orchestrated, long-in-the-planning, Collectivist operation, with direct ties to the Oval Office.
Does anybody believe this? Does ABC News even bother to call the president out on this? Bailout after bailout, subsidy after subsidy, GM, Chrysler, Solyndra, GE… where does the list stop where Obama rewarded bad behavior?
“A sense of obligation to their communities” == support for unions and the Democratic Party. So, GM and Solyndra are not at all reckless by his definition.
Obama should have stayed out of the OWS discussion.
One look at memeorandum and you can see that OSW is just about the entire thing. This story was getting Obama off the stage while the Right was busy taking on a rabble. It was making him less visible and more Presidential, but Obama can’t be out of center stage.
I recommend that all the Republican candidates stay out of the OWS discussion. There are “bigger fish to fry.”
Exactly. Just ignore them.
Exactly. Well said.
“responsibility, doing what you’re supposed to do, is rewarded”
So, one would think where you’re irresponsible, and don’t do what your supposed to do, there might be punishment.
So, let’s talk about Solyndra and Fast and Furious a little more Mr. President.
Pingback: Obama: OWS not that different than Tea Party | Liberal Whoppers
Puuurr Revolting Eloi. Nobody loves them…
This is some interesting math …
So if 1/3 are Democrats, slightly less than 1/3 are Independents, and no Republicans, exactly what party are the other slightly more than 1/3 ? And, damn, Obama is losing to this motley bunch (even before you pour in a few Republicans).
It seems that they are the replacement for the “Coffee Party” …
Occupy Coffee Shops!